Hudson Reporter Archive

Budget hearing fizzles Only one resident speaks at council meeting

Hoboken’s residents have never been known to be a shy lot. So it came as a surprise when only one resident spoke at Wednesday night’s City Council hearing on the proposed $53.4 million 1999-2000 municipal spending plan. After the meeting, both supporters and critics of the mayor had differing views about why only one person out of the 50 that attended the meeting was willing to stand up, take the microphone and offer a view on the budget. “What does it tell you when you have a budget hearing and there is only one speaker?” asked Councilman Richard Del Boccio. “It tells you that people are pretty happy with the mayor’s budget. They’re happy, from kids up through senior citizens. Usually, people are belly-aching on and on, but not tonight.” “When people are more or less happy with things, the turnout is less,” said Mayor Anthony Russo. “When people are angry, you get a higher turnout.” Critics of the administration did not see it that way. “We have a national trend that is a part of our community consciousness where the public in general has become very disinterested in government at every level,” said City Councilman David Roberts, a vocal proponent for slashing city spending, in an interview after the meeting. “I can understand with all the petty bickering and disingenuous behavior that goes on on all sides, and it’s not limited to Hoboken.” Roberts said that the citizens will become concerned “when all of the mayor’s fiscal gimmicks in this budget evaporate.” He added, “You will see that the taxable rate can not expand fast enough to absorb the mayor’s insatiable appetite for spending on patronage.” Longtime activist Phyllis Spinelli, who was the only city resident that took the opportunity to comment on the budget, said that she thought residents might be hesitant to critique it since they knew it was still a work in progress. “I think people did not come tonight because they knew the council was amending the budget and that there was not going to be a vote on it,” Spinelli said. Will vote next time A resolution to amend the budget passed 7-2 just before the council opened the floor for public comment. The six-page resolution made a number of changes to the one-inch-thick budget document, which will serve as a blue print for how the city will allocate its resources until July 1, 2000. Officials said the budget may come up for a final vote at the council’s Jan. 19 meeting. George Crimmins, the city’s business administrator, said that the bulk of the changes were required by the New Jersey Division of Local Government Services, and that others were forwarded by city administrators after further reviewing the city’s proposed spending plan. Changes included a $450,000 increase in the amount the city plans to spend on legal counsel; a $107,000 decrease in the amount listed as a cash deficit from the preceding year; and an increase of $1,375 the city plans to spend on its dog licensing program. Once the changes are calculated into the budget they will account for a $608,000 increase in spending and an equal increase in funds expected in revenue. Fiscal charades Spinelli presented a blistering attack on Mayor Russo’s claim that residents will receive an 18 percent cut in the municipal tax rate. Calling the budget document “another fiscal charade,” Spinelli said that the city “could not possibly deliver the much-touted municipal tax cut.” Spinelli quoted numbers showing that the city’s tax assessor needs to raise $7.3 million through municipal taxes by the end of the fiscal year on July 1. When this happens, she said, residents will only receive a tax cut of 2 percent. In just over five minutes of remarks, Spinelli also told the council that she thought City Hall was spending too much and not providing city residents with enough services. “Now, when times are good, is when the city should be embarking on ambitious programs and projects for the betterment of all our residents,” she said. “instead this administration is resorting to every manner of accounting and fiscal gimmick just to preserve the patronage machine that sustains it.”

Exit mobile version