description
Councilman Chiappone: New Parking Regulations are NOT state Mandated
Posted 03-25-2008 at 10:10 AM by neilbarton
If you have been following the city council meetings then you are aware of a resolution that has been tabled for a number of meetings now that is a complete overhaul of the local traffic ordinances. According to the police department, who worked with the state to adopt these new regulations, they would bring the city in line with state law. However these regulations would eliminate a number of parking spaces, along with changing street directions and turning existing 2 way streets into one ways. According to what was said at the meetings, if the city does not adopt these new regulations, then we would lose out on state grants, and also would face a number of legal challenges by citizens who receive parking tickets that are in contradiction to state law. Councilman Chiappone commented on this today:
"I've contacted the State, low and behold, the proposed changes that would severely impact upon this city which would result in over 600 parking spots lost between Ave A and the Bay are NOT mandated. The changes were merely recommendations that we could follow if we choose to do so. The State will NOT come in and mandate those changes as the City Council was told. The recommendations can be adopted individually or collectively tossed out. It is entirely up to us as a community."
This seems vastly different than what we have been hearing for weeks. I do not believe we have heard the last on this issue.
"I've contacted the State, low and behold, the proposed changes that would severely impact upon this city which would result in over 600 parking spots lost between Ave A and the Bay are NOT mandated. The changes were merely recommendations that we could follow if we choose to do so. The State will NOT come in and mandate those changes as the City Council was told. The recommendations can be adopted individually or collectively tossed out. It is entirely up to us as a community."
This seems vastly different than what we have been hearing for weeks. I do not believe we have heard the last on this issue.
Total Comments 14
Comments
|
MikeMasoneThis is a classic example of being mislead by the "professionals" who seem to be advancing their own hidden agendas. You did a great job in checking it out before they slipped it by us. If I recall correctly the same mandate ploy was used on the Boulevard when they created huge bus stops and no parking zones, maybe that should be revisited.
|
 
|
|
|
SloppyJoecan anyone answer if this is not a mandate, then who said it was? Mike Masone, who is trying to advance their position? The reason I ask who is due to the fact that there are ALOT of Doria leftovers and they as we type are trying to forge ahead, with no reguard to the city and our financial distress.
Thank You |
|
|
|
|
IGotNoMoneyIf you listened to Coffey, Sgt Mack, and Mark Smith at the council meeting, it sounded as if we had NO choice in the matter. Kudos to Mr Chiappone for investigating this further (and to the other councilmen who were firmly against it and didn't just accept the opinions of our "experts")
|
|
|
|
|
luluJoe,
Mr. Coffey, at the last two council meetings was trying desperately to get the council to adopt the parking ordinance. He constantly used the term MANDATED when referring to the document. He also stated the Nj DOT would not allow any changes to their recommendations. Fortunately several council members were not ready to penalize the residents and refused to merely accept the new regulations. |
|
|
|
|
GREENVILLESO TYPICAL OF THE CURRENT CORE OF LEADERS IN THIS ONCE GREAT CITY TO TRY TO SHOVE THIS DOWN OUT THROATS. AS IF PARKING IN THIS CITY WEREN'T HARD ENOUGH ALREADY, THEY NOW TRY TO STEAL AWAY MORE PARKING.
ONCE AGAIN, TONY CHIAPPONE COMES TO THE RESCUE, UNLIKE THE 3 YES MEN. JAY COFFEY SHOULD BE FIRED. HE CLEARLY DOESN'T HAVE A CLUE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS CITY. |
|
|
|
|
cityeditionTo the rescue again? Really now, was was being rescued when he held up the bonding in order to get a meeting for Ragucci who never had the financial backing he lied about all along? Someone needs to make it claear to you how much assistance Coffey's provided to the council throughout the years, Chiappone included.
|
|
|
|
|
HappyPolskiCity, I thought it was so port developers could come in and provide we citizens with a chance to see their proposals. Or do I have the wrong meeting in mind?
|
|
|
|
|
cityeditionStan, The underlying reason was undoubtedly to get WorldWide back to the table.
Wasn't it odd, how after so many months of supporting Ragucci's quest that Conaghan, after learning the truth, (that Ragucci never had the financial backing,) said "I have no horse in this race"? As a potential candidate should he not have KNOWN what the financial status of his political benefactor actually was as opposed to finding out from Joe Baumann at a meeting? |
|
|
|
|
HappyPolskiPerhaps Ragucci mislead Pat the same way that we were mislead by Doria?
|
|
|
|
|
cityeditionStan...
|
|
|
|
|
cityeditionStan,
Why do you try to distract the issue by refering to Doria? He has nothing to do with the issue. The fact of the matter is that Conaghan could and SHOULD have known the facts about the entity he was trying to bring into the base, especially with so much at stake. There's no excuse. Now, if he DID know that Ragucci was lying to the council and still allowed him to try and hoodwink the city that raises some very interesting questions............. |
|
|
|
|
HappyPolskiCity, you're attempting to make Pat look like a fool for backing Ragucci. You claim he should have known that he was being mislead by Chris. You suggest that Pat should have known what was going on behind the closed doors of a major corporation. How could he know that? Just look how Enron fooled everyone.
You're comments can have an adverse affect on Pat's campaign. I'm attempting to negate that affect by reminding everyone how easily we were mislead. While I will agree with your last statement, I perceive it as planting a seed of doubt in people's minds about Pat. And yes, at this time I am a Conaghan supporter; just as I was a supporter in the last mayoral race. And I will continue to support him until such time that someone convinces me otherwise. And although I am supportive of Pat I remain critical of ALL polticians. And if I disagree with his position rest assured I will be verbal about it. |
|
|
|
|
cityeditionStan,
You're partially correct. While the fact of the matter is tht neither of us known what actually happened, I believe that Pat Conaghan could and should have done more to see that Ragucci had the financial backing he claimed to have had. Were I in Conaghan's place, after months of advocating for Worldwide or the Shaw group concerning a transaction then over time is worth BILLIONS of dollars I would have found it odd that there was no person other than Chris Ragucci that had interest in meeting with me. Apparently Joe Baumann and others knew something wa amiss, why didn't Conaghan? It's not a matter of planting seeds of doubt. I've raised a legitimate issue. Although it seemed that Pat Conaghan was blindsided by Ragucci's apparent lies people should want to know more about how he was able to do so what was done by Pat Conaghan to safeguard US while advocating for Ragucci. |
|
|
|
|
Shep4PayonneWhile it is great that Councilman Chiappone noted the difference between "mandatory" vs. "optional," a question to Councilman Chiappone might be, "how come you are not advocating to have the person who misreprented the state's guidance, Joe Coffey, removed?" Identifying the problem and then not advocating to solve it, "solves nothing."
|
|
|
Recent Blog Entries by neilbarton
- 6/18 Bayonne City Council Meeting - Last Minute Fireworks (06-18-2008)
- Time to get over big government (06-09-2008)
- The details of my Fri May 30th deposition (05-31-2008)
- The Port Authority delays deposition (05-28-2008)
- How much did the Bayonne Economic Development Corporation Pay in the Lawsuit? (05-27-2008)
