In Case You Missed It: Councilman Lenz on Taxes

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sven on February 1, 2010 at 8:14am

I suppose that what he meant to say is that the 25% tax reduction that Dawn and her council slate talked about in their recent election campaign is not achievable in this fiscal year. After all, we are already 7/12 (i.e. more than half way) through this fiscal year. Nevertheless, I hope that what Councilman Lenz implied was that the 25% tax cut will happen in the coming fiscal year. If not, there will be an election in November where (among others) his temporary seat on the City Council will be up...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave on February 1, 2010 at 11:54am

LOL....finally the truth has started to come about. Same old Hoboken politics by different faces.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on February 1, 2010 at 11:57am

Not exactly accurate. What he said was economic changes made the 25% cut impossible this year. If the numbers were there I don't think 25% was realistic but taxes would be lower. Until housing prices stabilize, tax receipts will continue to trend down. 2011 will see certain items roll off and I believe that Mayor Zimmer would be more aggressive on personnel the Judy. Time will tell.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gene on February 1, 2010 at 4:02pm

Any way we look at it; we are in trouble here in Hoboken. The fact is; they were elected to cut taxes. Can't means won't and that gets us nowhere. Someone in government has to start. We hear all the reasons why we cannot have our taxes cut but we never seem to hear how we can get some cuts started.
There is no way all the money spent by Hoboken is done efficiently. The only way to get expenses cut is to be draconian. DEMAND; I repeat DEMAND ALL DEPARTMENTS TO CUT 10% FROM THEIR BUDGET. I mean the present approved budget; cut now!
We have people without jobs, older people unable to stay here because of taxes, the threat of the Hospital collapse, foreclosures, rentals going begging etc. Where is the tax revenue going to come from.
DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. The present delaying by elected officials is not solving anything. Tomorrow is too late; we need to get started today!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sven on February 2, 2010 at 9:32am

Gene said:

Any way we look at it; we are in trouble here in Hoboken. The fact is; they were elected to cut taxes. Can't means won't and that gets us nowhere. Someone in government has to start. We hear all the reasons why we cannot have our taxes cut but we never seem to hear how we can get some cuts started.
There is no way all the money spent by Hoboken is done efficiently. The only way to get expenses cut is to be draconian. DEMAND; I repeat DEMAND ALL DEPARTMENTS TO CUT 10% FROM THEIR BUDGET. I mean the present approved budget; cut now! We have people without jobs, older people unable to stay here because of taxes, the threat of the Hospital collapse, foreclosures, rentals going begging etc. Where is the tax revenue going to come from. DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMAND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. The present delaying by elected officials is not solving anything. Tomorrow is too late; we need to get started today!

I totally agree. Action must be taken now, even though thinning out the organizational charts in all departments might not be possible instantly. At least it must be STARTED NOW. The first steps that I would expect to be taken IMMEDIATELY are :

1) Independent external forensic accountants must be brought in to turn the entire city hall inside out and upside down.

2) Independent external experts must be brought in to perform operational audits of all departments.

3) The portfolio of services that the city provides must be critically reviewed - no exceptions.

Since attending the morning session of the budget workshop (and watching the remainder via video stream on the Internet, I spoke to several friends and colleagues. NOT ONE OF THEM lives in a municipality that provides FREE participation in recreational programs without even enforcing residency requirements as here in Hoboken, nor do any of them provide FREE equipment to the participants in these programs, let alone not collecting such equipment after the season. There is one Hoboken department where IMHO substantial savings SHOULD BE ACHIEVED RIGHT AWAY without needing union approval and without jeopardizing anybody's livelihood.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony Soares on February 5, 2010 at 9:55am

Sven to your earlier response:

Yeah right, throw Lenz out and get one of Russo or Cammrano's leftovers to take the seat. That's what WILL happen if this silly impatience continues.
I was hit with tax increases too. So was Lenz.

Who exactly is out there in the 4th Ward that is actually able to deal with numbers better than Lenz?

While Revolt may have shown quite a bit of outrage in the past, it was basically invisible at the budget hearings, or any recent council meeting.

The financial problems in this city did not begin with last year OUR 46% tax increase.

Idle threats and suggestions like fire everybody, stop all these services and screw the needy is not going to fly.

In 2005 Marsh and I voted against spending, the city shutdown and guess who was most upset about the Library Closing, Parks Gated and Trash piling up? Taxpayers.

They didn't care about spending and re-elected Roberts. In fact TWO of Revolts Steering founding committee members endorsed him over Carol, Ines Garcia Keim and me because he was not shutting the city down and we were "disruptionists ".
I believe it was one of your recent departing steering members who stated " The Roberts team had a vision for a unified Hoboken" whereas the Marsh team did not.
Yes I know that was then, but the fact is Hoboken residents at large will not accept eliminating services at any great scale. Proven when voters continue to support increase taxes via school budgets each year.

The FACT is nobody wants their special interest cut, so everyone is forced to pay. Just ask the pro St Pat's people who help run THIS group

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sven on February 5, 2010 at 12:51pm

Tony Soares said "Sven to your earlier response:

Yeah right, throw Lenz out and get one of Russo or Cammrano's leftovers to take the seat. That's what WILL happen if this silly impatience continues."

I am by no means suggesting to throw out Councilman Lenz. In fact, I respect him for his expertise and his ability to be a voice of reason in stormy times. I just would like him (and the rest of the City Council) to be a tiny bit more aggressive when it comes to at least attempting to get the cutting of the budget started this go-around. That's all.

P.S. I am fairly certain that Mr. Lenz and Mayor Zimmer's allies on the City Council do have sincere intentions to bring the budget in line as soon as the Financial Monitor leaves town (which I hope will be sooner rather than later).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Red Elephant on February 5, 2010 at 2:11pm

I certainly have no personal animus towards Councilman Lenz, although my worldview is decidedly more conservative than his. I do think he's writing some revisionist history when he claims that Mayor Zimmer and her allies were not elected to cut taxes. They campaigned on a 25% tax cut plan (you can view one of their mail pieces here)! While I'm sure we could do worse than Lenz, I will say this: if a true anti-tax, fiscal conservative does run in the fourth ward, he or she will have my unwavering support.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony Soares on February 5, 2010 at 2:21pm

All I can do here is quote a friend of yours...

"read my lips-no new taxes"-- George H Bush


There is a lot of stupid things said in a campaign, there are a lot of broken promises, there is no way anyone, not Crooked Cammrano or Losing Candidates Mason or Glatt could do to deliver a 25% cut given what has been discovered.

I pay as well. It sucks. And no I'm not on any public payroll.




Red Elephant said:

I certainly have no personal animus towards Councilman Lenz, although my worldview is decidedly more conservative than his. I do think he's writing some revisionist history when he claims that Mayor Zimmer and her allies were not elected to cut taxes. They campaigned on a 25% tax cut plan (you can view one of their mail pieces here)! While I'm sure we could do worse than Lenz, I will say this: if a true anti-tax, fiscal conservative does run in the fourth ward, he or she will have my unwavering support.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe Brennan on February 6, 2010 at 6:34pm

"Zimmer people weren't elected to cut taxes". I find that statement baffling. That's certainly why I voted for them. I wouldn't have voted for Cammarano instead anyway, but I might well have voted for somebody else further back up the line if Mayor Zimmer's stated position was really to 'spend more carefully' with super high taxes as now, and I would certainly be looking for new candidates who do have a clear goal of cutting taxes, a lot, if that's not really her goal.

As someone else mentioned, we know that Hoboken politics are 'non-partisan' but actual elected 'reform' candidates are mostly liberal Democrats who generally favor 'smarter spending' or 'investment' as excuses not to confront public employee unions and bring about lower taxes, at least at higher levels of govt. Mayor Zimmer for example supported Gov Corzine, who clearly would not confront the public employee unions who are a major reason NJ state taxes are also so far out of line. People like Mr. Lenz and Mayor Zimmer, with all due respect to their basic integrity as I see it (unfortunately it's not 'damning with faint praise' in Hoboken to call somebody non-corrupt, you can't assume it generally!) don't start out with lots of crediblity about having tough showdowns with public employee unions and other entrenched interests in town needed to get Hoboken's taxes under control. I will give them benefit of doubt about honesty but not about that. They have to prove that. In that context, 'not elected to cut taxes' is quite disturbing.

I read Mr. Lenz' explanation of his statement in this week's Reporter. I understand that Hoboken property taxes could not have been reduced 25% by anybody from full election in November until now (Mayor Zimmer was in a tough spot in the 'acting' capacity before that); probably not from June till now (given state control). But he didn't just say 'I mis-spoke' when it came to 'not elected to cut taxes'; I don't know why not.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Lenz on February 8, 2010 at 8:15am

Joe Brennan:

I don't have much disagreement with your thoughtful post. I suspect I am more of a liberal democrat than would in other circumstances be your cup of tea. The reason I didn't say I 'mispoke' is because I didn't. Reducing taxes to their lowest reasonable level was certainly a stated goal and to that end the Zimmer team made specific proposals, most notable of which was aggressive demands for a collective bargaining posture based on salery restraint, workrule concessions, and healthcare concessions, and full contemplation of lay-offs and furloughs as available. Non of that has changed oun iota and it all has my complete support. Note for example my amendment last Wednesday to the resolution that would have funded retroactive pay increases.

The reason I reject the formulation "elected to cut taxes" is it sounds like being willing to do almost anything to accomplish that goal. Among the things I will do is reduce professional costs, bargain tough with the unions and support the Mayor in her effort to improve efficiency and professionalism. But there are things I won't do as well. Among them:

-- I won't continue to dis-invest in out infrastructure, deferring maintainance leading to massive capital outlays.
-- I won't support borrowing to fund operating expenses in any form, hiding the true cost.
-- I won't be penny wise and pound foolish, further reducing Director saleries so no one able to do the job will take it.
-- I won't support an elemination of new projects such as recreation space and sewer pumps. Zimmer was elected to do that every bit as much as taxes.
-- And I won't cut the public saftey budget without clear and convincing evidence -- which we are actively seeking -- that it can be done in a manner consistant with a high level of public saftey.

Mostly though, I reject those -- not Revolt by the way who has generally been quite thoughtful -- who having failed to defeat Zimmer, are now trying to set unmakable goals for her administration.

No administration, in my time in Hoboken has ever worked this hard to cut taxes. We and I will do everything we can. But running a city is more than one goal. Zimmer was no more just "elected to cut taxes" then she was just "elected to fix flooding" than she was just "elected to build parks" than she was just "elected to restore competence and integrity".

She and her team were elected to do it all, and they are working to do that. I am proud to be a part of it.

Michael Lenz

Joe Brennan said:

"Zimmer people weren't elected to cut taxes". I find that statement baffling. That's certainly why I voted for them. I wouldn't have voted for Cammarano instead anyway, but I might well have voted for somebody else further back up the line if Mayor Zimmer's stated position was really to 'spend more carefully' with super high taxes as now, and I would certainly be looking for new candidates who do have a clear goal of cutting taxes, a lot, if that's not really her goal.

As someone else mentioned, we know that Hoboken politics are 'non-partisan' but actual elected 'reform' candidates are mostly liberal Democrats who generally favor 'smarter spending' or 'investment' as excuses not to confront public employee unions and bring about lower taxes, at least at higher levels of govt. Mayor Zimmer for example supported Gov Corzine, who clearly would not confront the public employee unions who are a major reason NJ state taxes are also so far out of line. People like Mr. Lenz and Mayor Zimmer, with all due respect to their basic integrity as I see it (unfortunately it's not 'damning with faint praise' in Hoboken to call somebody non-corrupt, you can't assume it generally!) don't start out with lots of crediblity about having tough showdowns with public employee unions and other entrenched interests in town needed to get Hoboken's taxes under control. I will give them benefit of doubt about honesty but not about that. They have to prove that. In that context, 'not elected to cut taxes' is quite disturbing.

I read Mr. Lenz' explanation of his statement in this week's Reporter. I understand that Hoboken property taxes could not have been reduced 25% by anybody from full election in November until now (Mayor Zimmer was in a tough spot in the 'acting' capacity before that); probably not from June till now (given state control). But he didn't just say 'I mis-spoke' when it came to 'not elected to cut taxes'; I don't know why not.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sven on February 8, 2010 at 8:47am

Michael Lenz said:

-- I won't continue to dis-invest in out infrastructure, deferring maintainance leading to massive capital outlays. -- I won't support borrowing to fund operating expenses in any form, hiding the true cost. -- I won't be penny wise and pound foolish, further reducing Director saleries so no one able to do the job will take it.
-- I won't support an elemination of new projects such as recreation space and sewer pumps. Zimmer was elected to do that every bit as much as taxes.
-- And I won't cut the public saftey budget without clear and convincing evidence -- which we are actively seeking -- that it can be done in a manner consistant with a high level of public saftey.

Michael,

I am in full agreement with the above goals. I have a couple of comments, though.

First, there appears to be ample "circumstantial evidence" that the HPD and HFD are extremely top heavy (9 battalion chiefs in the HFD!) and the top echelons are extremely well compensated (at some point the Hoboken Police Chief's salary was higher than that of the Police Commissioner of New York City - including all 5 boroughs!). "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows." (Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues)

Second, I believe your list is missing one important action item that the Zimmer administration had committed to, namely the property reval. Are you actually in support of that goal as well?

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page