The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
In Case You Missed It: Councilman Lenz on Taxes
“I don’t think they were elected to reduce taxes.” - Councilman Michael Lenz, 01/30/10, referring to Mayor Dawn Zimmer and her council allies.
Lenz dismissed campaign talk of significantly lower taxes as unrealistic. Instead of cutting taxes, the councilman argued that we should focus on spending tax dollars more "carefully."
Video of the councilman’s remarks (the relevant portion starts at 02:54:40): http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4327046
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Red Elephant on -
It is disappointing to read that Councilman Lenz views downsizing government and cutting taxes as just one "goal" among many others (including creating more recreational space, which usually militates against the goal of tax relief). Hundreds didn't rally outside city hall demanding "more recreational space." Over the past year or so, taxes and spending have (rightly) dominated our city's political discourse. To the extent that Lenz views taxes as just another issue facing the council, I am afraid that he's severely misreading the pulse of the electorate.
Despite the councilman's protestations, it wasn't Mayor Zimmer's opponents who created the expectation of a 25% tax cut. It was Zimmer's own campaign that made that promise. Perhaps in retrospect it was a reckless promise that shouldn't have been made. Her opponents, as I recall, expressed skepticism concerning Zimmer's commitment to cutting taxes. In the case of Mason, she actually warned of a tax hike under Zimmer. It seems to me that Zimmer's opponents only served to LOWER expectations of the new administration. So let's make no mistake, Zimmer and her team are victims of their own raised expectations.
Casting aside the politics of it all, I think most of us here want to see real fiscal austerity measures put in place. We do expect meaningful tax relief, if not right now, then ASAP. That means prioritizing tax cuts over competing interests (like creating more parks). If you don't view downsizing government as job #1, then you're not really committed to lowering taxes. If "doing it all" is your first priority, then nothing is your first priority.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Lenz on -
My analysis of the reval never gets to whether it is a "goal" of mine or not. It IS, in my opinion legally required and long overdue, and as such is something I fully support. I have previously stated elsewhere on this site that I intend to propose updating the taxmaps this year and will support starting the reval during the next.
Michael Lenz
Sven said:Michael Lenz said:... 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?
-
Permalink Reply by TJ on
-
nice - turn this into a Dem vs. Republican argument to distract us from the main issue.
Doesn't matter what party we're from. Zimmer was partly elected to cut taxes. Yes, for me getting a non-corrupt politician into office was more important, and I'd rather get better services than cut taxes, honestly.
But I think Lenz' comment was disingenuous. I don't care if they slash taxes or not, but be honest about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Lenz on
-
TJ:
Sorry if I come across as disingenuous. These are complicated issues and I'm trying to be clear. Let me spell it out:
I AM IN FAVOR OF CUTTING TAXES
and will work to "reduce professional costs, bargain tough with the unions and support the Mayor in her effort to improve efficiency and professionalism" so that the maximum tax cut can occur while maintaining/providing city services at an acceptable level. What do I consider acceptable? See below.
I said what I said to make the point that for me cutting taxes is one goal among several. I will and am working to cut taxes. I won't support a tax cut if it requires:
-- Continued dis-investment in out infrastructure, deferring maintainance leading to massive capital outlays.
-- Borrowing to fund operating expenses in any form, hiding the true cost.
-- Reducing Director saleries to the point that no one able to do the job will take it.
-- Eliminating needed new projects such as providing recreation space and sewer pumps.
-- Cutting 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.
My view is a fair reading of the Zimmer campaign will make clear that the promise to work to reduce taxes was in the above context. Whether I am right or not that has been my personal view for as long as I have been part of the public debate.
Sven asked the question will I (and implicitly the rest of the Zimmer team) move toward implementing a reval. I have consistanly said yes, and have heard no one speak against.
Red is disappointed "to read that Councilman Lenz views downsizing government and cutting taxes as just one "goal" among many others (including creating more recreational space, which usually militates against the goal of tax relief)."He claims " Hundreds didn't rally outside city hall demanding "more recreational space." and correctly points out "Over the past year or so, taxes and spending have (rightly) dominated our city's political discourse."
He's right of course, about recent matters, but I have over a longer term seen many hundreds come out for open space, and seen many thousands vote yes for parks in the open space referendum which Red would repeal.
Red makes the claim: "Casting aside the politics of it all, I think most of us here want to see real fiscal austerity measures put in place. We do expect meaningful tax relief, if not right now, then ASAP. That means prioritizing tax cuts over competing interests (like creating more parks). If you don't view downsizing government as job #1, then you're not really committed to lowering taxes. If "doing it all" is your first priority, then nothing is your first priority." and lays out clearly and cogently his position.
Not exactly knowing what he/she means by "here" when he says "most of us here want to see real fiscal austerity" and "If you don't view downsizing government as job #1, then you're not really committed to lowering taxes." I can't really say if I agree with him. I am quite sure he/she honestly feels that way. Some on Revolt clearly do as well (though equally clearly not all). I myself view reducing taxes as a constant goal against which every expendature must be justified, but given the choice between finishing 1600 Park Avenue as a soccer field, and selling it off to a condo developer and reducing taxes with the proceeds I will opt for the field.
I don't think it is a stretch to say such positions are more consistant with what Mayor Zimmer and her team ran on, than " prioritizing tax cuts over competing interests (like creating more parks)." or the position that if "you don't view downsizing government as job #1, then you're not really committed to lowering taxes."
As for what the public wants, and voted for? There was a fine candidate in the November election whos's positions mirrored Red's. That candidate did support "prioritizing tax cuts over competing interests (like creating more parks)." That candidate believed that "If you don't view downsizing government as job #1, then you're not really committed to lowering taxes." That candidate is a credible individual, who ran a creative, honorable and innovative campaign, and got a slew of major endorsements. His name was Nathan Brinkman and he also got very few votes.
I my opinion Mayor Zimmer DID run on lowerering taxes as PART of an overall plan to run the city better. I am in full accord with that. My comment was an (obviously failed) effort to clarify thet tax cutting had been PART of a program, NOT the program itself. I regret the confusion I seem to have caused.
Michael Lenz
PS I also regret my earlier implication that Red may not have been calling it like he/she sees it. As Red writes more it is clear that they are expressing a strongly held belief, not taking a political pot shot. Sorry, Red.
TJ said:nice - turn this into a Dem vs. Republican argument to distract us from the main issue.
Doesn't matter what party we're from. Zimmer was partly elected to cut taxes. Yes, for me getting a non-corrupt politician into office was more important, and I'd rather get better services than cut taxes, honestly.
But I think Lenz' comment was disingenuous. I don't care if they slash taxes or not, but be honest about it.
-
Permalink Reply by SmartyJones on -
Yesterday Mile Square View had a conversation covering many topics with the mayor at City Hall. We'll allow people to draw their own conclusions but for the moment it's clear the problems that have arisen in infrastructure are problematic and the 4.2MM pension issue appears crucial in what occurs.
Here's a quote from the Mayor on the matter of the moral obligation to taxpayers on tax relief, "Absolutely, we are trying to show as much tax relief as we can... we have had a number of crisis'.. Sinatra Field... It's also going to depend on the Council's decision on the 4.2MM pension issue."
There's a lot more on this on a whole other host of topics from the comprehensive interview and will look to make it available this weekend.
Mile Square View
-
Permalink Reply by Red Elephant on
-
Thanks, councilman, for sharing your opinions here. Thanks, also, for considering different points of view. In this economic climate, I would prioritize tax relief over competing interests like creating more parks. I fully respect that your priorities differ from my own.
As for what voters want, I don't find your interpretation compelling. While it's true that voters did approve the municipal open space tax, it was passed in a very different political and economic environment than we're in today.
You offer Brinkman's modest showing on Election Day as further evidence that voters weren't primarily demanding tax relief. While I concede that a Brinkman victory would have constituted a more explicit mandate for lower taxes, I think you understate the extent to which Zimmer was viewed as a fiscal conservative on municipal issues. She campaigned on a 25% tax cut plan, for crying out loud. Many voters whose views were more in line with Brinkman nevertheless voted for Zimmer, as she was deemed the more viable candidate in a very crowded field. I'm not sure if this phenomenon was completely lost on you, or if you're now willfully misreading the intent of many Zimmer voters.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
This thread is getting silly - Red E. of course it's true that many might have viewed Zimmer as the best 'viable' option - It's silly that Lenz suggests a different picture. It's also silly for you to presume that if every candidate were viable Brinkman would have had a much stronger showing. He views were extremist - even in these austere times - He should be running around the country with the silly tea baggers
I'm as much for cutting taxes as the next person - but are the "cut taxes" "cut taxes" whiners willing to accept the following:
much higher crime w/half the police force (I am)
no street cleaning - dirty/pot holed roads, no snow removal - hey, why are we paying anyone to keep the town clean, right? (I am)
unkempt parks - hey, we don't have to pay anyone or replace/fix anything in the park, do we? (I am)
no new technology in city hall (I am)
1/2 the city street lights turned off (more crime) hey we don't need to pay those bills do we? (I am)
lower fire response, and more building damage w/half the fire force (I'm not)
It always seems to me that the same people who are SCREAMING about cutting taxes - also think that the town still needs to be/should be maintained like some suburban elite gated community - and they are avaricious about cutting other people's salaries, laying people off, throwing people out on the street - real race to the bottom BS.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony Soares on -
Excellent response Jack.
When I voted for Zimmer, I read her 25% cuts as a GOAL. Not a Promise.
Nathan Brinkman was a Lonegan extremist. The sort who whines about Rent Control, but lives in a rental building.
Brinkman was out giving speeches in other towns (Jersey City) in the middle of the lection. He's about higher office.
Like Palin, he's not just a fiscal conservative...
-
Permalink Reply by Sven on
-
Jack Dawkins said:I'm as much for cutting taxes as the next person - but are the "cut taxes" "cut taxes" whiners willing to accept the following:
much higher crime w/half the police force (I am)
no street cleaning - dirty/pot holed roads, no snow removal - hey, why are we paying anyone to keep the town clean, right? (I am)
unkempt parks - hey, we don't have to pay anyone or replace/fix anything in the park, do we? (I am)
no new technology in city hall (I am)
1/2 the city street lights turned off (more crime) hey we don't need to pay those bills do we? (I am)
lower fire response, and more building damage w/half the fire force (I'm not)
Jack, you are totally missing the point here. The "cut taxes whiners" as you call them are not asking for fewer policemen and firemen, they are asking for fewer Battalion Chiefs. I doubt that any one of the 9 Fire Battalion Chiefs is going to hold the hose when your house goes up in flames. Likewise, you don't really expect the higher-ups in the police department chasing down burglars and robbers, do you?
-
Permalink Reply by Tony Soares on
-
That's a valid point
Sven said:Jack Dawkins said:I'm as much for cutting taxes as the next person - but are the "cut taxes" "cut taxes" whiners willing to accept the following:
much higher crime w/half the police force (I am)
no street cleaning - dirty/pot holed roads, no snow removal - hey, why are we paying anyone to keep the town clean, right? (I am)
unkempt parks - hey, we don't have to pay anyone or replace/fix anything in the park, do we? (I am)
no new technology in city hall (I am)
1/2 the city street lights turned off (more crime) hey we don't need to pay those bills do we? (I am)
lower fire response, and more building damage w/half the fire force (I'm not)
Jack, you are totally missing the point here. The "cut taxes whiners" as you call them are not asking for fewer policemen and firemen, they are asking for fewer Battalion Chiefs. I doubt that any one of the 9 Fire Battalion Chiefs is going to hold the hose when your house goes up in flames. Likewise, you don't really expect the higher-ups in the police department chasing down burglars and robbers, do you?
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
Hello Sven:
No, I don't miss the point - I'm all for tax cutting, just as you are, I'm totally on the same page w/you with regard to the top heavy police force - I was referring the the extreme "red elephant" comments - not any of your (and several others) calls for tax cuts. When I read between the lines on RE's comments - or read any of Nathan Brinkman's comments about tax cuts - I see(aw)/hear(d)/read something very different than ;your sensible comments. These are people that don't want anyone in city hall paid more than 20K/yr with no benefits - (and, of course, they will continue to rail how they PAY those -unlivable- salaries) - they want the police & fire paid maybe 30K - they want the entire city privatized - no services for the people - you want services - you pay for them out of your own pocket - sort of mentality. Than on the other hand, they expect the existing government (which is not to their liking) to provide clean, safe streets - beautiful (existing) parks - efficient city services...it's ridiculous. And, they, of couse, give no creedance to the corrupt mess that the current administration has to sort through. The previous administration gave this city away to developers - the damage caused by the PA PILOT alone will cost the taxpayers millions over the next decades.
I was watching the budget hearings - Nick T. was talking about how that was built on PA land....News Flash Nick: It was our land that we sold it to the PA for a song. We practically gave it away (thanks Anthony Russo)!!!...but now, our current administration has inherited this way undertaxed property and they can't do anything about it. That's just one example.
Sven said:Jack Dawkins said:I'm as much for cutting taxes as the next person - but are the "cut taxes" "cut taxes" whiners willing to accept the following:
much higher crime w/half the police force (I am)
no street cleaning - dirty/pot holed roads, no snow removal - hey, why are we paying anyone to keep the town clean, right? (I am)
unkempt parks - hey, we don't have to pay anyone or replace/fix anything in the park, do we? (I am)
no new technology in city hall (I am)
1/2 the city street lights turned off (more crime) hey we don't need to pay those bills do we? (I am)
lower fire response, and more building damage w/half the fire force (I'm not)
Jack, you are totally missing the point here. The "cut taxes whiners" as you call them are not asking for fewer policemen and firemen, they are asking for fewer Battalion Chiefs. I doubt that any one of the 9 Fire Battalion Chiefs is going to hold the hose when your house goes up in flames. Likewise, you don't really expect the higher-ups in the police department chasing down burglars and robbers, do you?
-
Permalink Reply by SmartyJones on
-
Followed the campaigns pretty closely, actually I covered all the campaigns. No one proposed 20K salaries for municipal workers. In the battle of the teabaggers and fisters, the teabaggers appear to be getting the upper hand with the fisters getting teabagged.
Americans don't seem to be taking to the fisting. Neither should Hoboken.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by 
.
