Comments
Accomplished_Day2991 OP t1_ivbdlih wrote
Totally agree! So sounds like change for children it is! It would be great to actually see some change for children! What is the name of these morons currently in place?
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivbvt6w wrote
Alexander Hamilton. And by the way, only ONE person from the opposing slate voted yes on that last budget that increased taxes, and when she was elected she was on the Change for Children slate too. 🤷
Reddit seems to ignore those facts.
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivbwx9i wrote
No one is ignoring those facts. Her choices taint her and everyone who is currently running on the same slate as her even if they weren’t on the board when that disastrous vote was done. When someone shows you who they are, believe them. It takes a lot of hutzpah to believe they would get elected after the voting choice they made. The current board president at least had the humility to know he wouldn’t get elected again and made the wise choice not to run.
[deleted] t1_ivcbapy wrote
Bro, you ignore facts like Herschel Walker ignores his kids.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivcd3u2 wrote
You literally just ignored it in your response. AGAIN...when she was elected, she was running with Alexander Hamilton on the same slate that Alexander Hamilton is currently on. 🤷
keepseeing444 t1_ivd1ud2 wrote
Noemi Velazquez was a teacher in the system so was likely corrupted by her connections and friends. On linkedin she’s “Special Assistant To JC Public Schools”not teaching but likely padding her pension with barely show job. This why I will never vote for anyone who comes from inside that culture. Likelihood to be corrupted is almost guaranteed.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivd2468 wrote
She was also the Aide to the current Governor. As uncomfortable as you are, I'm equally uncomfortable voting for people backed by real estate developers.
keepseeing444 t1_ivd3jdj wrote
You forgot to tell everyone that Murphy fired her for saying things like all evangelical Christians are “Molesters, liars, drunks, racists, heartless, bigots” among other very inappropriate things as a public official. You rather vote for this lady?
[deleted] t1_ivg0hs9 wrote
She sounds awesome.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivdbkyj wrote
I didn't forget, I hadn't heard that before. I also didn't say I was voting for her, although I have yet to rule her out.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivdf1pe wrote
So I just looked it up, and while her response on social media was inappropriate, she didn't exactly say what you said and it seems she was suspended for 10 days. Her comments were about Republican evangelicals who support Trump, and were made in response to comments by far right Republicans who were trashing Murphy and Democrats.
Tens of millions of people voted the most vulgar, inappropriate, unprofessional, charlatan, despicable President ever and put him into the White House several years back. I'm certainly not clutching my pearls from those comments from her in regards to being in the school board.
keepseeing444 t1_ivf2bdy wrote
You’re saying I am making this up? https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2018/10/05/murphy-aide-cursed-about-evangelicals-on-facebook-640507?_amp=true
Why are you excusing such vile, divisive, racist vitriol uttered by a public official? You want a person who thinks like this to have power over schools? You’re the problem!
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivfovti wrote
Not sure what comment YOU read, but that's certainly not what I said. 🤔
I think I was pretty clear in clarifying what was said, which wasn't exactly how you framed it. I also was clear that I thought it was inappropriate. I have no idea why people read what they want to read and hear what they want to hear. 🤦
You're very dramatic. Are you auditioning for something?
"YOU'RE THE PROBLEM!" 😂😂😂😂😂
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivcdz5s wrote
No, I did not. When someone shows you who they are believe them. Fact: when given the opportunity, Alexander Hamilton voted against the outrageous tax increase and the other candidate voted for the outrageous tax increase. He showed an interest in fiscal accountability and the other candidate did not. They are no longer on the same slate which implies they have different views. One for fiscal accountability and one for profligate spending. This implies that if he is voted back in, he wouldn’t rubber stamp the tax increase and the other candidate will. No one can predict the future but people’s past actions are a good proxy for their future actions.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivcepw1 wrote
AGAIN, nothing you said is relevant to my point. Not sure why you keep repeating it. It's just dumb to vote exclusively for a slate because you like what 1 person on it did and equally dumb to disregard everyone on another slate because you don't like what 1 of them did, and it's also dumb to say everyone on a slate is guilty by association, when the person you don't like was voted in on the slate that you currently like. By your rationale, you shouldn't like Alexander Hamilton or anyone else on his slate since the one you don't like was on Hamilton's slate too. It's also dumb to ignore that individuals on the slate you hate, are also concerned with reducing the tax burden on residents. Personally, I'm not satisfied with the totality of any slate that's running, and will be choosing individual candidates from the totality.
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivcfs02 wrote
This isn’t about you. You can make your own decisions. This is about everyone else who reads this. Alexander wouldn’t be able to bring about fiscal accountability if his entire slate is not voted in. His ideas will consistently be voted down. He will be powerless just like he was with the 2022 budget. The choice is simple. If the people believe in fiscal accountability, they will support his entire slate. If not, get ready for 2 more years of profligate spending.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivcgdtx wrote
Really? Wow, I thought it was all about me. Thanks for letting me know! Now, I can stop reading your nonsense. 🌟
Bonus point: it's also not about your taxes. 🤷
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivde3ct wrote
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. Thankfully, the majority have common sense and will make their voices heard loud and clear in a few days.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivdfgx7 wrote
I didn't read whatever you wrote... because...well, I previously told you I was happy you let me know I didn't have to. 🤷
DontBeEvil1 t1_ive0cnj wrote
>Her choices taint her and everyone who is currently running on the same slate as her
Lol. Then you can't vote for Alexander Hamilton or anyone else on Change For Children, since Hamilton ran alongside her when they both were last elected. 😂🤦🤡
EyesOnImprovement t1_ivbk7l4 wrote
Ok, I didn't realize this was a shill post.
I regret my heartfelt reply.
Accomplished_Day2991 OP t1_ivbzbwz wrote
No I am honestly asking. I don’t follow I really wish I did more. I am just super busy and personally send my kids to catholic school bc I am so horrified by the jc school system. I wish that wasn’t the case but it is. I enjoy hearing from people who do follow. As a owner and tax buyer and someone who chooses to not send their kids to the schools in this city I am wondering how we improve this situation.
thebigodigo t1_ivcimt5 wrote
Hamilton park bought to buck
keepseeing444 t1_ivcygxp wrote
Alexander Hamilton voted 3 times during his first term as a trustee. He voted NO to budget increase his first year in 2020 as he was the lone dissent in 8-1 vote. He voted NO to budget again in 2021, and 2022. He was also lone voice of outrage when the board FAKE searched for superintendent search after Walker retired. The board passed resolution to look for new superintendent but they lied to JC citizens that they performed this national search and instead promoted 40 year lifer in Dr Fernandez. He was also lone voice of dissent when board member Paula Jones Watson flip flopped a 4-5 NO vote to 5-4 YES vote on $1B budget. Please remember the depth of corruption of BOE has been going on for multi decades, maybe longer and our only chance of fixing the school is entirely new non union backed board, new superintendent from outside, and new upper management in administration. Zero accountability, transparency culture has to be completely destroyed from top down and within.
jersey385 t1_ivc9g0v wrote
We need to vote for people that have some real world finance experience and can review an almost $1 billion budget, understand it, ask the right questions and vote yes or no based on facts. Guess what? You are not likely to find too many people, let alone unpaid volunteers, (the fact they are elected is basically moot, they are volunteers) with the experience to do this. The problem is the the board of ed system is kind obsolete and useless for this city. Giving well intentioned volunteers who are completely out of their depth, as most people would be, (that’s not a diss), the power to approve $1 billion in spending just perpetuates the problem.
VanWorst t1_ivchykf wrote
One of the things Hamilton is proposing is to hire a budget officer who would be able to do just that.
jersey385 t1_ivddgz3 wrote
Honestly a budget officer would be pretty useless. They first need a full forensic audit. I swear I’m not trying to be a hater, but the problems are huge and it would take a year or two, in my opinion, to get a grip on where the money is going. Also, who, if not a “budget officer” is in charge of creating the budget to begin with? Let’s get some transparency into the current process before adding another salary.
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivfufen wrote
If Education Matters wins, the only people that will be able to afford to live in Jersey City are the rich. That will be a sure way to accelerate gentrification and turn Jersey City into a version of Short Hills, NJ
Positive_Debate7048 t1_ivez9xa wrote
Change for children
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivndia6 wrote
Education Matters swept it. Imagine that, people didn't put their personal property taxes as priority in voting for the Board of Education. 🤷
Congrats to all winners. 🎉
Accomplished_Day2991 OP t1_ix6hslu wrote
I asked this question bc I don’t follow as much as I should. I’m really disappointed that others didn’t try to find the better option. And clearly went blindly in.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ix6nui5 wrote
I don't think others have different opinions and priorities in choosing candidates, than you do, indicates they went blindly in. They could just as well say the same about you.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ive0k7e wrote
My main priority in voting for the Jersey City School Board is finding candidates who will provide the best for the needs of the children enrolled in the educational system of Jersey City. Not who will best lower your taxes. 🤔
restricteddata t1_ivg28i2 wrote
The problem is that the increases do not seem to be translating into better educational outcomes. A board stacked with people who rubber-stamp every budget increase in the name of "the children" is an opportunity for waste and corruption. A board with several members who are non-union, who will cause every increase to be justified, who will ask how, exactly, the money is being used, not only will possibly keep the tax burden from getting too crazy (nobody expects them to be lowered), but will also push so that the money that is spent is spent well.
Better accountability is a win-win for children, parents, and citizens. The present lack of accountability does not help the children at all. If it did, there wouldn't be anybody questioning it. Nobody on the ballot is trying to gut the system, nobody is anti-child or anti-teacher.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivgdyd3 wrote
You realize everything you said is speculation and not fact? One person on the opposing side, voted once. Everyone from all sides have said they don't want to see taxes continue to increase. You have no idea about all the inner workings of the BoE and exactly where money is being allocated. That 1 one vote that FINALLY brought them up to be fully funded is not going to produce miraculous changes overnight. A seriously neglected school system will take years of investment to build up. All the luxury homes that people are crying about paying taxes on, were sitting on wasteland 10, 15, 20 years ago; those areas didn't go from trash dumps to luxury high rises overnight, so why do you think the school system would? 🤔 Just because someone SAYS they want better accountability does not mean they WILL get and give it once elected and doesn't guarantee you know exactly how they will vote regarding tax hikes once elected. ONCE AGAIN, the ONE PERSON running who voted for tax hikes, was on the Change for Children Slate when she ran and was elected. So you have zero clue or guarantee of how anyone on Change for Children will vote in regards to taxes. And sorry, when I have to choose between actual Educators, experience in many facets of Education, BoE and government, and backing from a teachers Union, OR no experience in Education whatsoever or Government, and backing from Real Estate Developers, I ain't picking the Real Estate Developer Side.
restricteddata t1_ivh6bac wrote
One never knows whether a politician will do what they say they will do — that much is clear. But the Change for Children slate has been pretty clear about their views and priorities in the debate and in their Reddit AMAs. So I do feel I have a sense of what their approach is, and that they are serious about making it "work." I went into all of this with a very open mind, but I need to be convinced. I don't take for granted that a union-backed candidate actually cares about educational outcomes more than anyone else, anymore than I would take for granted that a member of the Teamsters' would have a passion for moving freight.
I don't expect miracles. The Change for Children would be, at best, a component of the BOE, which itself is embedded in a much bigger system. I agree with you on that. If you think that three skeptical seats on the BOE would somehow unseat the union, I think you're the one being speculative. At most I would expect them to make it harder for things to be done without some better explanation. Is the money going to the places that it should? That's the question that I don't get any the sense the union-backed candidates care about.
But the opposing slate has said, essentially, that they don't really think the budget should be a major consideration, that they have no problem with raising taxes, and that they don't really believe in any measure of accountability.
So given the two options (plus the independent candidates, who don't seem all that serious), I think the chance is there that the Change for Children slate is more likely to produce accountability and oversight than the other one. I also have just not been impressed with the other slate explaining to me how we would not end up in a situation where our property taxes would go up 4X in one quarter again. That is just not a livable situation; things need to be run better.
I don't love developers, don't get me wrong. But I have not had anyone explain to me what evil developer agenda is going to be enacted here (other than, maybe, the ideal of not just endlessly raising the property taxes — which is not just a developer agenda).
I'm an educator myself (a history professor who teaches in Hoboken), and my wife is a high school teacher in NYC, and we are both products of public schools, for whatever that is worth. I am pro-union when they are in a position to help workers have a voice, but my experience is that when they have unchecked power (whether in education, labor, policing, etc.) then it easily becomes abused, like all unchecked power. So I would prefer a BOE that was not entirely union, for their own sake — if an all-union BOE keeps raising taxes without accountability or showing results, it will ultimately lead to a real anti-union backlash, and that isn't good for anyone.
DontBeEvil1 t1_ivhmwcz wrote
"The Change for Children would be, at best, a component of the BOE, which itself is embedded in a much bigger system."
They already have been. And one of them voted to raise the taxes, and is now running on the opposing slate, while another remains on the Change for Children slate.
"But the opposing slate has said, essentially, that they don't really think the budget should be a major consideration, that they have no problem with raising taxes, and that they don't really believe in any measure of accountability."
This is simply not true. I spent the past several days reading interviews with the candidates both together and individually, as well as reading coverage on their debate, and they have said the exact opposite of what you are claiming here they had.
"So I would prefer a BOE that was not entirely union,"
I agree. And it's not. Also, important to note that being Union and being backed by the Union are 2 different things.
EyesOnImprovement t1_ivbjwcj wrote
There's nobody really. We might have a chance with Solomon but we have to wait for Fulop to either run for governor or retire to Rhode Island and i don't have too may summers left.
I understand people's anger with the BOE, but I don't see the other side as a viable alternative so we're fucked either way,
I think the letter with the 4th quarter bill quite insane, but I feel Fulop forced his own hand, he must not have known this was coming to have sent the letter with the 3rd quarter. The council also claim ignorance, you have to wonder how that happens. Solomon did mention $36m surprise cash deficit, so likely it's true there were unknowns, but that 36m can't also be the BOE/covid funds in the letter. All very fishy.
Anyway, I'd already decided to look for greener pastures. Good luck everyone.
Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivbpdkx wrote
Solomon cannot get elected Mayor without making the exact same deals with the corrupt JC power brokers that Fulop did. As a councilman, Fulop was exactly the reformist gadfly Solomon is.
VanWorst t1_ivco3k6 wrote
I wouldn't say he would not be able to get elected. After all, Fulop became mayor without establishment support.
It's just that if he does get elected and refuses to play within the existing power structures, he won't be able to get anything done because he'll have enemies at every government level.
Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivd0zed wrote
>Fulop became mayor without establishment support.
He was opposed by the HCDO, but made lots of deals with other power brokers like Sandra Cunningham. Deals brokered by seasoned political operative Tommy Bertoli. That's how the sausage is made.
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivbn02u wrote
The 4th quarter tax amount from the city was due to the city tax levy reverting to what it was in 2020. The 2021 City tax levy was lower due to the city using Covid funds to cushion the outrageous $1,000 BOE tax increase last year. How can voting for Alexander Hamilton and his two running mates be wrong? We’ve seen the outrageous BOE tax increases from the union backed board members. Let ‘s see how the board does when there is more accountability and oversight. The teachers union will be negotiating their contracts and we don’t need the board to rubber stamp whatever the union puts in front of them.
EyesOnImprovement t1_ivbtq6g wrote
Then how was this a surprise to Fulop and the council? Explain that.
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_ivbtz15 wrote
This wasn’t a surprise. It was mentioned last year that the offset for the BOE tax levy would only happen in 2021. What should happen is that the budget for both City and BOE should be set before the year begins.
EyesOnImprovement t1_ivbwhth wrote
The city budget was certainly a surprise to every member of the council, you'd think they and Fulop would have anticipated this, if what you are saying is true.
EyesOnImprovement t1_ivbq2v0 wrote
Zzzzzzz.
Colomspin t1_ivenfnu wrote
All this anti union talk…. Best investment we can do is our children
Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iveox59 wrote
Children do not equal union. The union controlled board can’t even provide clean drinking water to students. We can do better than the current union controlled board.
Positive_Debate7048 t1_ivezghq wrote
Good. People are finally realizing that the teachers Union sucks.
restricteddata t1_ivg2l1f wrote
Unions are super important when it comes to giving workers a voice and leverage. But when the union has a monopoly, it just becomes another source for corruption. This has been shown many, many times throughout history, certainly in New Jersey, in many different sectors, from the longshoremen to the police. Power is power. If you think the union necessarily cares about your children, you are being naive; they represent their own interests first.
One can be pro-union but not believe that a union monopoly is a good idea. Three non-union members of the BOE are not going to significantly degrade the power of the union, but they might make the union have to act more transparently and with more accountability. That seems like it would be the best thing, to me, in the short and long run. If, instead, the union takes the slate and continues to hike up the tax burden without improving the educational outcomes, in the long run will be a very, very harsh backlash against them.
DirectorBeneficial48 t1_ivbl61o wrote
Personally, I would like to vote for someone who would raise taxes even more. Especially on units of 20 or more buildings and homeowners with valuations of 1mil or more.
The_Nomadic_Nerd t1_ivbbhpo wrote
Alexander Hamilton (that’s his real name) and his "Change for Children" running mates Doris Ervin and Kenny Reyes. He did an AMA on this sub last week. I’d recommend checking it out. They're for stopping the tax increases and, more importantly, increasing transparency so we can see how this money is actually getting spent. Taxes have been going up due to the BOE, yet the schools stay just as shitty.
I voted and the Change for Children candidates are all next to each other on the ballot. You select 3 and they're all next to each other.
I think what's more important than these 3 getting elected though is that the people who are increasing these taxes can't get reelected. They need to know that there are consequences for doing shit like this and if they get elected and see they'll never have any blowback, then you can be 100% sure the BOE will raise taxes again next year.