Jim Mangin
-
Posts
295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Jim Mangin
-
-
I'm looking forward to hearning more. Maybe a forum could be put together for a calm and intelligent discussion of the issues. If so, I would expect both sides to skip the generalities and be specific. For me, that's what missing so far.
An intelligent discussion of the issues in Kearny would be refreshing. I've watched the tapes of Kearny Town Council meetings and I haven't seen one single discussion of any issue. Of course, some people like it when everyone agrees. For example . . .
"I like Al Santos because he acts like a professional, and so I'm inclined to believe him. I watched him take control of a town council that used to look like a mud-wrestling troup and turn it into a respectable, functioning body."
For me, I think it's more productive when the governing body takes on the tough issues, or at the very least discusses them in public. This is also my opinion (and yours, or so I thought) of the Board of Education.
Jim Mangin (former mud-wrestler)
-
Jim, Your problem is that you think you're brilliant and know all the answers. Reality is you aren't and don't. And you dodge and run when confronted with facts.
Bottom line is that a recall committee has the power to decide whether or not the Town has to spend some $50,000 on a special election. That assumes they can get enough signatures, of course.
I don't have all the answers. Nobody does. I do have lots of opinions and I'm not afraid to ask the questions. Just like I'm not afraid to post my name.
Jim Mangin
-
Jim,
I am impressed with your ability to articulate the specific issues you have with the current administration. Few of us have this ability. The mayor said he wanted a healthy debate in the article he submitted recently to the Observer. Why don't you challenge the Observer to give you equal time. Submit your list of issues and challenge the mayor to respond. The Observer owe's those of us who think like you the opportunity to challenge the mayor. After all, they apparently seem to be working for his campaign, they allowed him to submit virtually the same article two weeks in a row. If Canessa isn't going to do his job and play Devil's advocate and challenge him with tough questions, we need you to.
I've submitted a letter to the editor regarding the Mayor's call for a debate on taxes. Let's see if it gets published. I don't have any reason to believe it won't.
Jim Mangin
-
Jim, that's fair comment and a good point. When is next regularly scheduled mayoral election?
You have an interest in this, potentially, since you ran against Al before, so I'm glad to see you here. How fair are the charges being leveled against Mayor Santos? How would you answer my questions? What are the statistics, and what were the alternatives? What would you have done differently had you been mayor, and what difference would you have expected it to make? I'm looking for specifics.
Paul,
My interest in this is the same as everyone else's. I do think the charges against the Mayor are fair and I'll site all the statistics, documentation and alternatives you'd like to prove the point. You say you want specifics and I'll be happy to provide it. Ask me a specific question or my opinion on a specific topic and I'll give you a specific answer.
One point though - as a veteran of this board I've learned (the hard way) that posts should be kept short. I'm glad to see you contributing to this board. You make my long-winded posts seem like abbreviations.
Jim Mangin
-
By the way, if you succeed in forcing a recall election, how much will that cost the taxpayers? And for what? How much more time until the next mayoral election?
I know you don't like to hear this. There are many people to whom the facts don't matter, and if they are presented with the facts, they get angry. But think for a change, before you end up costing the taxpayers money on a recall election.
Paul,
It's been a while since I've posted on this board, but lately I'm finding the increasing amount of mis-information to be disturbing. Not just here. Frankly, I'm very concerned about distortions of the truth in taxes, bonding, "binding arbitration," "debt leveling off," and a host of other false statements that are going unchallenged. I'm going to have start challenging them again.
Now, to your statement. There is no cost to the taxpayers in a recall election if the recall is held during the November general election. If the recall election is a special election, there would be a cost to the taxpayers. That cost would have to be identified and made part of the recall petition and told to the voter before they signed.
The decision as to whether the recall is held in November or at a special election is made by the recall committee. No one else.
Bottom line - extra cost to the taxpayer is a non-issue in deciding if a recall is justified.
Facts. They're a beautiful thing.
Jim Mangin
-
Ah! The black knight!
"T'is but a scratch! OK, we'll call it a draw!"
-
Despite published reports, Mangin will be on November ballot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He says Eckel, Santos use typical Hudson County tricks to try to have him booted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Kevin Canessa Jr.
The Observer
KEARNY – Despite published reports to the contrary, former Kearny Councilman James Mangin’s name will appear on the November ballot as a candidate for a Third-Ward town council seat.
Mangin said he was able to prove to Hudson County Clerk Javier Inclan that a challenge to his petition filed by Third-Ward Councilwoman Eileen Eckel was, in fact, invalid.
Initially, Mangin was tossed from the November ballot after Eckel wrote the clerk on June 9, asking for Mangin to be removed from the ballot, for having three invalid signatures and one apparent forged signature.
Had all those signatures been deemed invalid, it would have left him one short of the necessary 50 signatures to get on the ballot. But one of the signatures that was challenged was that of a person who Mangin assisted in getting registered to vote.
Mangin says Inclan had no record of the new voter, but after calling the Hudson County Board of Elections, the person’s registration form was found and was validated.
A June 13 letter from Inclan reinstated Mangin’s petition.
Mangin says this entire process was “Hudson County politics at its best,” and he was extremely critical of Mayor Alberto Santos’ role in attempting to get him off the ballot.
“Al Santos is a player in Hudson County now, and it was disappointing that the clerk just said, ‘OK, you’re off the ballot,’ ” Mangin said. “At one point, the mayor and I were on even terms, so I know how he operates. And this smacks of Al Santos. It’s (also) interesting how quickly she’s (Eckel) gotten on board with the Hudson County political way.”
Eckel, meanwhile, dismissed Mangin’s charges, saying she and Santos check every ballot of opponents to ensure they’re properly filed.
“Absolutely not. This is a process we follow all the time,” Eckel said. “There are things that must be followed, and we do this all the time. In fact, I think I’d be foolish not to (check the petitions). When we looked at Mr. Mangin’s petition, there were four signatures questioned. We thought we had found a real problem, but as it turns out, one of the signatures in question wasn’t on our roster of eligible voters because it was a new registration.”
Eckel says she is looking forward to a fair and exciting race against Mangin. This is the second time the two have been pitted against each other in a Democratic Primary. In 2004, Eckel narrowly defeated Mangin, by less than 40 votes.
Inclan, meanwhile. who is away at a conference, could not be reached for comment.
I really have a problem with the way Eileen Eckel and Mayor Santos try to justify their actions on this one. I don't blame them for checking my nominating petition. But before you go to such drastic steps as filing a challenge, and accusing a constituent of forgery, shouldn't you at least check to make sure you're right first?
Why wouldn't you make that phone call to the Supt. of Elections to see if those people were registered or not? Is it arrogance? Intimidation?
Personally, I just think it's sad. I'd rather talk about the issues.
Jim Mangin
-
The man has NONTHING AT ALL to offer!! He is a shallow, pea bran who can't think for himself! Go home JImmy Boy, fun with John in Shop-Rite, and say "Bye-Bye!!" YOU ARE A LOOOOOOOSER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"NONTHING" to offer?
You must be new to this board.
". . . can't think for himself"
You must've never gone to a Town Council meeting.
Sorry, I just refuse to sit back and watch what this Town is turning into.
Jim Mangin
-
Jimmy Boy couldn't win a thing in this ward or town! It's a dream Jimmy Boy! When you wake up, Jimmy Boy, let me be the first to say, "I told ya so"!!!!!!!
First, you're not even close to being the first to say "I told ya so."
Second, if my campaign gets one member of the public to ask a question at a meeting, or for that matter, gets even one member of this Town Council to question one thing this Mayor does, then I've already won. In that light, I can't lose.
Jim Mangin
-
It's about time there is some opposition to the Santos crew I don't live in his ward but I will support him. I haven't always supported his political decisions or some of the company he has kept. Looking past all that he knows his mistakes and has moved on. I think he si right for council because 1 He continues to fight for the Town 2 He stood fast in his believes against the Mayor (no puppet) 3 He is honest & gets his facts straights. Lets face it folks we need some dissent if the Town is going to survive.
Thanks for the boost!
I'll try not to let you down.
Jim Mangin
-
This is horrible ? Mr. Mangin please respond tell us what happened!
Well, what happened was Mayor Santos and Councilwoman Eckel tried to pull a "Hudson County fast one" on the people of Kearny. They scrutinized every single signature on my petition . . .
If they scrutinized their own budget the way they scrutinized my petition - I probably wouldn't be running!
Then they went to see the County Clerk. They brought a lot of phony claims, trumped-up charges, there was probably a lot of whining and pleading and finally, the Mayor threatened to hold his breath until my name was taken off the ballot.
The County Clerk (loyal Hudson County Dem, that he is) finally gave in and said, "Oh alright, enough already. Get up off the floor. I'll take him off the ballot."
There's just one problem. No one did their homework.
No one, not Mayor Santos, not Councilwoman Eckel, not County Clerk Inclan, bothered to check with the Supt. of Elections to see about the registration status of these people that supposedly were not registered.
All it took for me was to make one phone call to the Supt's office and *POOF* I'm back on the ballot again.
I don't get it. Did they think this would intimidate me into pulling out of the election? Are they that desperate?
This is going to be one very interesting election in November.
And all of you people have a front row seat!
Jim Mangin
ps - There's no truth to the rumor that upon learning that I have been reinstated and WILL be on the ballot in November, Mayor Santos blew up so much at Town Hall that they named the hurricaine in Florida after him.
-
The man is probably working or taking care of his family duties. Unlike you and Mayor Santos, Mangin has a real job.
Thanks for the thought. And you're right. I have been very busy lately between the two jobs and "back to school' issues. I don't check this board every day. It's important, but not nearly as important as other issues.
Thanks again.
Jim Mangin
-
Did everyone get a chance to examine this official campaign information?
Wow, Mangin spent almost two and a half times as Santos spent and he still lost! Even at $500.00 a throw (obviously not geared to attract the average Dem), that's a lot of tickets. (And Mangin has the nerve to call someone else a "sellout".) I guess the folks who bought them thought they were going to get some return on their investment. Must have been disappointing for them, huh?
What I don't understand is why Mr. Mangin lied about where he got his funds and how much he spent; especially when it is so easy to check it out.
I'm sure there must be some explanation. Right, Jim?
The only explanation I can offer is simple - I made a mistake. The figure I quoted from Mayor's Santos' campaign report was his total disbursements and not his total campaign expenditures. I was wrong and I should've checked the detail of the report. I won't make that mistake again.
As to the fundraiser you mentioned, I'm assuming you meant our first fundraiser and not the one held at the LCC. Those tickets were I think $30 each. At our first fundraiser I had the chance to speak to everyone there (it was a small crowd). And every person there, including Mayor Stack of Union City and Mayor Elwell of Secaucus told me their own person reasons for supporting us. It was a very eye-opening experience.
But if your question was did we have a fundraiser where tickets were $500 each, the answer is yes. But you knew that already didn't you?
Now that I've answered your question, how about answering mine. Do you honestly think that anyone will believe your explanation that the $1,500 Mayor Santos gave to the HCDO in April 2004 was a "regular annual assesment"?
Could you please answer that and then we'll move on.
Jim Mangin
-
Newcomer to Hudson politics? If you only knew!
I worked on the Santos campaign. I know how much money was spent and you are not telling the truth! As to the financing of your campaign: How much were the tickets to your "fundraiser/soiree" in **** ******** law office? How many blue collar Dems were able to attend? And how is ******* connected to Nick Sacco and the other Hudson County Dems? Just because the check wasn't directly from the HCDO coffers, doesn't mean they didn't finance you. (I was born at night, but not last night.) You couldn't raise $34,000.00 on your own if your life depended on it.
Don't you get it yet? The campaign wasn't about getting you elected, it was about preventing Santos from getting elected. But it didn't work, did it? By the end of the campaign, even your own running mates weren't happy with you.
You just can't stand the idea that Hudson County used you to take its shot and you lost; but, unlike you, they admitted it, made nice, and everyone else is moving on.
I knew you wouldn't mind, so I sent a copy of your response to Bernie Kenny. He is not happy. Wouldn't be surprised if you heard from him soon.
KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.
Gee, it seems I really hit a nerve with you this time - syntax errors, typo's, and poor grammar. Calm down, will you?
Now go check the NJ ELEC website if you don't believe me.
And try to relax.
Jim Mangin
ps - Bernie's not happy with me? With his recent operation I sincerely doubt I'm on his mind. And as much as I wish him well in his recovery, try to imagine how much I care if he's happy with me or not. He's still mad at me for not dropping out the race in 2003.
-
Did you ever think that the check, if there was one, was the regular annual assessment that each Municipal Democratic Party chips in to the County Democratic Party? I would assume that each town has to pay its share of the joint signs and joint literature (that includes local, county and state candidates). Kearny Republicans would be doing exactly the same, if they were still active.
Are you serious? Do you really expect anyone to believe your explanation. If his $1,500 check was a "regular annual assessment," then why didn't he pay it in 2000? or 2001? or 2002? or 2003? or 2005?
Doesn't seem very "annual" to me.
Just admit it. Your boy bought the line. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.
Jim Mangin
-
I hope you can prove the $1500 check. If you can't I wouldn't blame Santos for sueing. If it is true he should be impeached. I am so sick of Hudson County politics. Bring back the Kearny Republican Party.
Click on this link to check on campaign reports.
Jim Mangin
-
Jimbo,
Tell the truth. Hudson County decided BEFORE April 29, 2004 to give the line to the Santos candidate; and not because Santos sent any check but because they knew she would win. Do you really believe that Hudson County would trade a "winning" candidate's slot for a mere $1500.00? And why couldn't you win off the line? Santos did.
Remember, the County gave you the line in your ill-fated 2002 full slate run against a Santos team that included two virtual unknowns---a team that was relegated to line E----and they still beat you and your heavily County backed, heavily County financed team. You'd rather lose than sell out? Please, I can only imagine the butt-kissing and pandering that went on during that campaign. The favors done for you in that fight didn't come without conditions. Hey, the County took its shot. You didn't produce, so you became "Jim Who?"
Face it. Santos and the council candidates he supports are winners. Not one loss yet and now they're going for four!
Welcome back.
You want the truth. You can't handle the truth.
So, you're saying that after telling me I had the County line, Bernie Kenney met with Al Santos and Al Santos wrote a check to the HCDO for $1,500 - and these two events are not related? Are you a newcomer to Hudson County politics?
And speaking of the truth, my so-called ". . . heavily County financed team" was anything but. We didn't receive one dollar from the Hudson County Dems. And we were out-spent by Mayor Santos $59,000 to $34,000. Our money came from fund raising. His money came from emptying his Santos for Senate Campaign Account.
Not even Leo Vartan spent that much money to get elected Mayor.
Jim Mangin
-
Did anyone else notice that as soon as the NJ Meadowlands Commission got their hands on a signed agreement from the Town of Kearny to re-open Keegan, they announced that the golf course will not be built in Kearny.
The NJMC admits to being responsible for cleaning this landfill. Why won't they admit responsibility for cleaning Keegan as well? (And I mean cleaning it without re-opening it). The NJMC is just one of three "responsible parties" who should have to pay to properly close Keegan without subjecting the people of Kearny to another open landfill.
I've said it before - worst policy decision in Kearny in the last 30 years. It even makes the water deal look good by comparison.
Jim Mangin
-
You obviously are not a part of the inner circle. Not only are County officials tripping over themselves to make him happy, but the scuttlebutt is that he has been receiving phone calls from some very high level State folks, too! Who's been calling Jim Mangin?
I don’t doubt that County officials are tripping over themselves to make Mayor Santos happy. Why? And I sure as hell know that no County official has been calling me? Why?
Same answer to both questions - money.
In April 2004 the County Democratic leadership promised me the County line. By the end of the month they had changed their mind and gave the line to Santos’ candidate.
Some people think it’s because of the $1,500 check Santos wrote to the Hudson County Dems on April 29, 2004.
Sorry. My integrity’s not for sale. I’d rather lose than sell out. Once you sell out your integrity it’s only a matter of time before you sell out your constituents. Like the Mayor and Mary Torres did with the Abbott Rim bill – now there’s a good lesson in Hudson County politics!
Jim Mangin
ps - It's good to be back.
-
At the last BOE meeting a bid was accepted for the wall project. Don't recall the specifics, but if you had called Les before posting, you would have had your answer. But that didn't fit your needs now did it?
JW
Joe,
You're saying the BOE awarded a contract for this project at the last meeting? You can't accept a bid without awarding a contract. And you can't award a contract without knowing where the money is coming from. I'd check your facts.
As for me calling Les, I don't think so. Over the last 10 years I've probably posed more finance questions to School Business Administrator Les Gaulton than anyone else, with the possible exception of Mike Martello. I can honestly say, his answers were always evasive at best and I'd end up checking and researching myself. I did this as a member of the public, as a member of the Board of Ed's Finance Committee and as a member of the Town Council's Finance Committee.
I'll tell you what "fits my needs" though - all I've ever asked for is the public to be aware. Be aware of how much we've borrowed. And be aware of what we're spending money on. That's all. If the BOE "finds" the money for the wall project, that's great. But, it will prove my point that they've over-appropriated other accounts to generate more surplus than they need. That's not what I call a bare-bones budget.
Jim Mangin
ps - You and I have been posting on this board longer than anyone else. The difference between us is that I have no problem offering opinions on issues. You have no problem offering opinions on people.
-
And isn't this exactly what I said? Insurance protects investors and helps municipalities by allowing them to offer their bonds with the highest ratings in order to lower borrowing costs. Like I said, it's a tool used to save money.
Next question.
Jim Mangin
What happened? No more bonding questions?
OK, I'll ask one. Now that the Board of Education has climbed aboard the bonding bandwagon, how many people think that the school bond will pay for the stadium wall that crumbled on Davis Ave? I'll admit it. I thought the bond was to be used to pay for the wall, but it's not.
Since the Board of Ed made the decision to not include the wall in the bond they should have money for it elsewhere in the budget. But do they? Is there an extra $750,000 in the budget to fix the wall? I'm not so sure. If there is why hasn't anything happened yet with this project?
Even I would have supported the notion that bonding is a proper financing vehicle to fix the wall. The improvements will last much longer than 5 years (unlike the shirts and pants the Town bonded for). And a Bond Anticipation Note could be used to get the BOE money for the wall immediately while preparing for a bond sale. Instead the wall stays down. Is there money for this project or not?
Stay tuned. I feel another bond coming! We haven't maxed out our credit cards yet.
Jim Mangin
-
From The Bond Market Association:
Municipal bond insurance protects investors primarily in two ways.
Occasionally, cities or states that issue debt securities get into financial difficulty. When that happens, they may not be able to pay interest and principal on their debt as scheduled. Even if an issuer does not default, the rating agencies may lower the ratings on an issuer’s securities if its financial condition deteriorates, causing the market value of its securities to decline. Investors in bonds insured by Triple-A rated municipal bond insurers are insulated from these risks because they can depend on the insurer, whose claims-paying ability is rated Triple-A, to make timely payment of scheduled principal and interest. The strong demand for insured issues (almost half of all new issues are insured) is due to investors’ desire for secure investments.
In addition, when an issuer faces financial difficulties, history has shown that its insured bonds have more liquidity and price protection than its uninsured bonds. Issuers often prefer to offer their bonds with the highest ratings in order to lower borrowing costs.
And isn't this exactly what I said? Insurance protects investors and helps municipalities by allowing them to offer their bonds with the highest ratings in order to lower borrowing costs. Like I said, it's a tool used to save money.
Next question.
Jim Mangin
-
You propose budget cuts? There's a fantasy spin. But for the sake of honest debate, tell us what each of your cuts was and how the town auditor & Council responded to each.
$1.2 million capital surplus? Now you're beyond spin, you've reached Manggin-warp. You were told over and over by the auditor and the town's bond attorneys that the 1.2 million amount was for UEZ projects only because the State UEZ had agreed to pay that amount in full. By shifting it to nonUEZ projects, you would have blown 1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State. The auditor and bonding attorneys put their professional reputations on the line. You then questioned the professional reputations of two individuals with a combined 40+ years of municipal experience.
You uncovered debt statement errors? Tell the other half of the story, Jim. That $10 million was debt authorized but not yet actually borrowed for sewer separation work at the time you "uncovered" it. You know, the sewer separation work for the 2nd ward that you voted against? Whoa, I hear another spin coming fast about not voting against the sewer separation...spin....warp...liar.
I promised a response to the rest of your tirade. Here y'go . . .
For the sake of honest debate (your words), I told you what my budget cuts were. Here's the link to my post of Dec. 12, 2003 at 8:36 p.m. (I hope it works) As for the Town Council's response, they were opposed. But you knew this already, didn't you? As for the Town Auditor, he wasn't at the meeting when the budget cuts were discussed. You'd have to ask him for his response.
For the umpteenth time (pay attention A. Realist, Al Santos, Barbara Sherry, et al) - the $1.2 million can be used for non-UEZ projects simply be ammending the bond ordinance. Even the Town Auditor admitted this. The Zone Assistance Fund pays for our UEZ projects, not bond ordinances. We bond because we get the money faster - that's all. If we had used the $1.2 million in capital surplus instead of a new bond we would've saved $240,000 in administrative costs AND we would still be eligible for "$1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State." How? Just by applying to the ZAF, like we did for every other UEZ project.
I questioned the Auditor and Bond Counsel because they said it was OK to bond for station wear in the Fire Dept - and didn't know that station wear consists of shirts and pants. Do you take a bank loan for your clothes? Of course not. Why not? Because it's ridiculous to pay for something for 20 years that only last 1-2 years. For the rates they charge those two deserved the punk slaps they got.
On the Debt Statement errors - Yes, the $10 million mistake was the debt authorized for sewer seaparation work, but not actually borrowed. But that's what the Annual Debt Statement is supposed to show! At the Aug 2004 meeting Mayor Santos announced that our Debt Statement was filed on Aug 10, 2004, showing that our total debt was $1 million lower than the previous year. The next day I sent a memo showing that it was actually $10 million higher. A corrected Debt Statement was then quietly filed on Aug. 26. The next time you're in Town Hall, ask to see the two copies. Or e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of my memo. Let me know if you want to hear about the $10 million error in 2003.
There, did I miss anything? You'll let me know, won't you?
Jim Mangin
ps - as always, if anyone would like a copy of the documents I've cited just e-mail at jimmangin@aol.com.
-
Jim,
There you go again, telling half-truths. You're wrong on Hoboken (there is no underlying rating, the rating you gave is through the State Qualified Municipal program, like Kearny's) and Bayonne (it's underlying rating is the same as Kearny's, Baa3). All the detail is posted below, straight from Moody's. The most untruthful part of your posting is the part on municipalities without ratings. They don't have underlying ratings because they opt not to get one. Why not? Because it would be below investment grade (junk status) if a rating were issued by Moody's. Moody's gives them a face-saving way out. Those towns then go through the State Qualified Muncipal program or have to buy expensive insurance on their bonds. That's Hoboken (their threat of junk status was news a few years ago). That's Union City. That's West New York. That's Harrison. Kearny has never had to buy insurance on its bonds. So to say we're the worst is beyond spin or warp, it's a lie. We're equal with Bayonne and Jersey City and ahead of the unrated municipalilties.
Kearny's rating while not great is decent. For the record, the definition of Baa is: Baa Issuers or issues rated Baa represent average creditworthiness relative to other US municipal or tax- exempt issuers or issues.
Jim, since you're the part-time Chief Financial Officer of East Newark, tell us when East Newark will seek an update on their rating. It's almost 7 years. Or will they opt for insurance of the Qualified Municipal program?
From Moody's:
MOODY'S ASSIGNS A2 RATING TO THE NORTH BERGEN (NJ) $9.7 MILLION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004 A (26 February 2004)
MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 RATING TO TOWN OF SECAUCUS'S (NJ) $10 MILLION GENERAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS (16 May 2002)
MOODY’S ASSIGNS UNDERLYING Baa2 RATING TO BOROUGH OF EAST NEWARK (7 Oct 1998)
MOODY'S ASSIGNS AN INITIAL RATING Baa2 RATING TO THE TOWN GUTTENBERG NJ'S $2.23 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF 2003 (7 Feb 2003)
MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa3 ENHANCED RATING AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING TO THE TOWN OF KEARNY'S (NJ) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (14 Jan 2003)
MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 ENHANCED RATING AND STABLE OUTLOOK AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING TO CITY OF BAYONNE'S $55.3 MILLION SCHOOL BONDS (2 Dec 2004); MOODY'S DOWNGRADES CITY OF BAYONNE UNDERLYING RATING TO Baa3 (16 Jul 2004)
MOODY'S ASSIGNS A1 ENHANCED RATING WITH A STABLE OUTLOOK AND Baa3 UNDERLYING RATING WITH A STABLE OUTLOOK TO $29.875 MILLION JERSEY CITY'S (NJ) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2005A (17 May 2005)
UNRATED AS TO UNDERLYING CREDIT:
MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 RATING TO HOBOKEN'S $5.5 MILLION SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS REFLECTING SECURITY PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF NJ'S MUNICIPAL QUALIFIED BOND ACT (31 May 2001) (NO UNDERLYING RATING ISSUED)
WEST NEW YORK (TOWN OF) NJ GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2003 GENERAL OBLIGATION NO OUTLOOK, 15 NOV 2003 INSURED
MOODY’S ASSIGNS Aaa RATING TO INSURED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF CITY OF UNION CITY (3 Oct 1997)
MOODY'S ASSIGNS Aa2 RATING TO WEEHAWKEN'S $6 MILLION INSURED BOND SALE (8 May 2001)
I quoted a newspaper article verbatim and I'm accused of half-truths? C'mon, even you have to admit, that doesn't make sense.
Speaking of trying to make sense, from your post we learn this:
- Hoboken's rating is supported by its state aid.
- Bayonne's rating was downgraded to the same as Kearny's in 2004 (I said the article I was citing was from 2003).
- A bond rating of Baa is not bad. (But you have to admit - Baa2 is better than Baa3, and Baa is better than Baa2)
- We learned that no other municipality in Hudson County has a bond rating lower than Kearny.
- IN YOUR OPINION, the municipalities without a rating ( Harrison, Union City and Weehawken) must have ratings below Kearny, because they bought insurance for their bonds.
Bond insurance has nothing to do with a municipality's financial status. Insurance is a tool used to achieve a more attractive rate and save money. But, you probably don't believe that because I said it, right?
"Municipalites have also been able to reduce their interest costs by having their bonds insured. Municipal bond insurance is a 'voluntary cost of issuance,' which assures payment in case of default. . . Even municipalities with an Aaa rating may find it attractive to purchase bond insurance."
Municipal Financial Administration in New Jersey. Robert Benecke pg IV-16.
Still don't believe me? Santosian blindness is curable.
Again, if you'd like - e-mail me at jimmangin@aol.com and I'll be happy to send you a copy of the analysis the Jersey Journal did on municipal bond ratings in 2003.
And since Michaelangelo Conte thought enough of what he wrote to put his name to it, I'm sorry but I'll believe him over you. If you'd prefer, you can take up this argument with him - mconte@jjournal.com
Jim Mangin
ps - as for East Newark - the recent bond ordinance for the combined sewer overflow project is being financed by the Envinronmental Infrastrcuture Trust Fund. There's no need to bond, and so, no need to seek a new bond rating.
Keep the questions coming!
Mayor Santos running out of excuses?
in Kearny
Posted
More like 3,000 signatures are needed.
A recall drive is not something to be taken lightly by either side. The voter apathy in Kearny recently is great. Getting one fourth of the registered voters to sign a recall petition would be a mammoth effort. On the other side of the coin, I don't think any elected official should dismiss a recall effort with a wave of the hand as if "it'll never happen." Just the fact that people are angry enough to attempt a recall should prompt elected officials to act. A recall drive could potentially dismiss the entire sitting Mayor and Town Council in just one election. The power of the people in a recall election is enormous, and that's just how it should be.
Personally, I'm not involved in this recall effort although in my opinion I think it's a good idea. First, it gets people talking about issues and that can only be a good thing.
Second, remember Kearny always held its elected officials accountable through two years terms. Every year there was an election in Kearny and we've seen majority shifts and entire Town Councils turn over in just two years. We no longer have that accountability. A recall effort restores, somewhat, that accountability. Especially since the people of Kearny had no say in the switch to four year terms.
Third, it gives people an avenue to get involved in the political process. Kearny boasts about its ethnic diversity, but what happened to its historic political diversity? That's why Kearny broke with Harrison 140 years ago. Kearny always showed political independence from Hudson County, but not any more. Do the people in Kearny now think that Hudson County is good for Kearny? I don't think so. But there's no mechanism to channel their feelings into political action. And this is exactly what a recall drive does.
Again, just my opinion - a recall effort in Kearny is good for Kearny.
Jim Mangin