Feature of Stuiver’s letter was divisive
Jul 28, 2013 | 2973 views | 5 5 comments | 122 122 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Dear Editor:

Despite agreeing with a number of his points, I have to take exception to a particular feature of Jake Stuiver’s letter concerning the Housing Authority’s Vision 20/20 plan – a feature which I found to be quite offensive.

In addition Vision 20/20’s unfortunate name – which makes me think of eye charts – I too am concerned with the possible displacement of individuals who might be forced to leave Hoboken because they are unable to find affordable housing. Personally, I don’t want to live in Short Hills-on-Hudson. But that’s simply an expression of personal preference.

And, as a taxpayer, I also am concerned about the obvious danger of this becoming a financial boondoggle – Hoboken’s own Solyndra, as it were.

However, Mr. Stuiver’s principal line of argument is to suggest that certain people are associated with this project – people whom he apparently suggests are inherently evil in some way – and that this constitutes sufficient justification for condemning the initiative.

Notably, almost all of the “evil parties” cited are – unlike me and Mr. Stuiver – born and bred Hobokenites. Hmm.

It is precisely this kind of unjustified attitude of moral superiority displayed by “newcomers” that causes more than half the rancor in local affairs.

And this is such an old, recurring issue, that I am stunned that a (former) public official would make such a crude, prejudicial statement – let alone do so in public, in writing.

I think you owe some people an apology, Mr. Stuiver, for your crude, ignorant behavior.

Michael Evers

Comments
(5)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Tottenhamwins
|
August 11, 2013
Until the actual plan is released, it should be condemned. Nothing should be done on this plan until every piece of paper associated with it is public. Would anyone in their right mind support tearing down 17 acres of buildings of public housing w/ no clue as to what the HHA agreed will show up in its place, who will live there and how many tens of millions in reduced taxes b/c of a PILOT a developer needs to make the project viable? And what about knowing who will own the buildings in the long term, how long HHA residents can stay there and all the other dozens of unanswered questions that can easily be answered by seeing the actual plans? Why is it those of us who demand these answers are the problem? Why don't you vilify the people who have the answers and deliberately choose to remain silent and opt to trying to bully their super secret plan through the approval process?
PanzoSancho
|
July 28, 2013
In an effort to take my own advice and put forth a positive tone in town I should share a valant activity I have been involved with for many years along with the help of others both born n bred and new. Registration goes until next weekend. http://www.hobokenyouthsoccer.com/

Also thanks to the Mayor we are looking forward to the new Field. I call that an 'Advantage Rule' !

Thank you to Mayor Zimmer for that.
PanzoSancho
|
July 28, 2013
I have to agree in some respects with AnotherFlood. In my opinion, Jake's letter for the most part was not so bad. And I think that battling corruption can require some very extreme reactions.

However, when it comes to the blogs, they have ceased to become, by and large, good for the dialogue and climate in town. They were good in the beginning and perhaps one day can become useful again. But the blog authors' and some anonymous commenters' meannness, unproven accusations and (in my opinion) harassment has stopped simply confining itself to the likes of Councilwoman Mason or shady politicians and has attacked anyone who mildly disagrees with the blog author or with any action done by Town Hall. It has gone so far that any thinking person is afraid to say anything against the blog authors, for fear they will get repeatedly harassed as well. We sometimes enjoy reading the blogs but who would want to jump into that fray? How many people on those blogs are willing to give their names?

This is not to say that I support harassment by the Old Guard. Any sort of harassment is a scary proposition. I do hope, as a resident, the mayor understands that.

When the blogs refer to their political enemies as fat, mention their children, criticize anyone who has shaken the old guard's hand, it goes too far.

The list that Jake gave had some people who I think deserve scrutiny. Let's leave it at that. The blog authors work very hard and if the blogs uncover corruption, they should send the details to the Start Ledger. They can be a force of good.
anotherflood
|
July 28, 2013
I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Evers on this. I just looked at Mr. Stuiver's letter and it doesn't strike me as that obviously egregious. (Though I agree with Mr. Evers' larger point.)

I think the condescending ones are the posters on the blogs, many of whose posts are appalling in what they say about "born and breds" and how they say it.

They are shrill and suggest the worst of "Short Hills".

Hopefully we can all find a happy mélange and way to co-exist (lawfully).

Personally I think Mr. Stuiver has done yeoman's duty by taking on this job and all the baggage it brings with it. Best of luck to him and his family and thanks!
anotherflood
|
July 28, 2013
I guess I'd like to add that I wish the people posting on the blogs would think about how their tone (and content) come across. The posts can be so snarky--basically mean.

Personally, I think I might prefer having corrupt neighbors to mean ones... I don't think they realize how unseemly (ugly) their riffing is. (And I hate that they're Zimmer supporters--she herself seems so much better than that.)