Dear Editor:
When I was a candidate for mayor in the spring of 2001, I experienced a particularly confrontational moment with Glenn Cunningham at a debate sponsored by St. Joseph’s Church. Then-candidate Cunningham was asked a question about tax abatements. His answer was to stand up, point his finger at me, and yell, “No more tax abatements!” He continued to repeat this — over and over — until his time was up. I took this as a sign of conviction, rather than his having nothing else to say on the issue.
So I found it pretty ironic to read that Mayor Cunningham has proposed a number of abatements to this city council. I have long believed that tax abatements are necessary and useful tools to attract development to municipalities. During my tenure as Council President, we generated millions of new revenues and brought thousands of new jobs to Jersey City as a result. Each successive abatement I supported had terms progressively more beneficial to the City. Abatements granted by the Cunningham Administration have backtracked on that policy to the benefit of developers over the people.
Case in point is Mayor Cunningham=s dangerous new policy of renewing abatements that have run their course. How can the Mayor propose extending abatements for buildings built decades ago that have been fully occupied since their conception? The terms of the abatements for these properties were finite by design.
If the Cucci Administration, during which Mayor Cunningham served as Council President, intended these abatement to be for 25 years, it would have written that into the original agreements. If abatements are going to be extended out into the future indefinitely, why not go ahead and agree to 99-year deals like those demanded by Colonial powers from poor countries in the 1900’s?
Indeed state law, which empowers communities to grant abatements, normally prohibits their extension. However some special legislation allowing Newark to extend a particular abatement authorized during the 1980’s is now being used by Mayor Cunningham to extend Jersey City abatements from the same period.
At the same time, Mayor Cunningham rails against the high percentage of County Taxes Jersey City pays. Fair enough, but I wonder why he wants to keep biggest taxpayers in Jersey City from sharing that burden with homeowners? It appears that Mayor Cunningham has a very different point of view that candidate Cunningham did on abatements.
I also wonder where Mayor Cunningham=s running mate for the legislature, Lou Manzo, stands on the issue of extending these abatements. Lou made opposition to abatements a core issue of his campaign in that 2001 mayoral race. His silence on this issue now is deafening.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. DeGise
Hudson County Executive