Dear Editor:
I am neither a candidate nor a torch-bearer for one. I cannot decide whether the February 16 letter to you over Ruben Ramos’ signature is as a result of myopia or venality.
Like a good soldier preparing an apologia for his leader, he seems to have re-read the original Hoboken United campaign literature as well as its recent regurgitation in the Roberts Report which, by the way, was paid for by the Hoboken Democratic Party, not by Hoboken United. (Is this a foretoken of Hoboken DIS-united?) Unfortunately many of the verbs’ tenses are wrong. A year and half after his assumption of control he continues to promise, to talk in the future. He speaks of addressing over-development but what has been done? Addressing means thinking about. What real estate is left to think about, to entice developers with offers of tax bonuses and zoning-defying development? He crassly says: “We have addressed the City’s serious parking problems by abolishing the Parking Authority.” Is he really so myopic that he has not seen the Parking Authority’s demise has done nothing for the parking problem but has worked magic in contributing to the City’s budget-balancing problems. Why did he not “address” the dissolution of the Parking Authority and plan for its future in a business-like way before it was killed? At this moment there seems to be no plan as to the conformation or direction of the Parking Utility except to hire a professional consultant to answer those questions, while retaining all the existing personnel.
He also alludes to diversity on City boards and committees without documenting that improvement. He says he has opened the doors of City Hall “to all of our residents to ensure that all voices are heard.” Then how would he explain that just about every member of the ousted cadre has been invited through those doors? Has any effort been made to recruit talented, qualified professionals who do not necessarily march to the prescribed beat? How would he explain the “new improved” administration, the Open Public Records Act notwithstanding, still resists disclosure of information with a variety of distractions.
There is also his allusion to affordable housing. Therein lies the venality I referred to earlier. About two years ago he “wrote” a letter to the editor vilifying me for having participated in a law suit against one of the City’s major contributors and developers of affordable housing because he had arranged to slither out of agreements impacting on affordable housing. (That suit has been resolved in favor of the disadvantaged.)
I continue to wonder what induced him to lend his name to this litany of failure.
Helen Hirsch