Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

GannonFan wrote:I'm not sold on Christie, especially for higher office, but there is something refreshing about his style - he's very straightforward and very matter of fact.

danefan wrote:I like some of the principles that Christie is apparently trying to instill in the NJ government, but I'm not 100% sold on his methods of applying them.

For example, take the 2nd train tunnel between NJ and NYC. Currently hunderds of thousands of people commute daily into NYC on one single railraod track, a track which is owned by Amtrak and on which Amtrak trains also run and get priority. This has significatnly hampered the commute for most NJ residents and also has stymied the real estate market in a lot of NJ towns.

Construction on a multi-billion 2nd tunnel to be owned and operated exclusively by the Port Authority of NY/NJ was already underway as the funding was secured by the last Stimulus bill.

Christie pulled the plug citing the uncertainty of the final cost and who the responsible party would be (e.g. Feds, NJ, etc..)?

I understand the rationale that NJ shouldn't be writing a blank check, but initially this looks like a very short-sighted decision. He has offered no realistic alternative to ease the commute. Construction prices are never going to be lower then they are right now and while a risk, the hope is that the state of NJ will be in a much better position in 2017 or 18 when any additional costs arise then it is right now, not to mention the ability for private investment later on if necessary.

Only time will tell whether he made the "right" decision, but as of right now it looks awfully shortsighted to me.

HI54UNI wrote:Chris Christie: How Corzine tried to sabotage my governorship, and how I stopped him

Speaking in Indiana this week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, R, told a story about his inauguration day, and how his predecessor attempted to force him to raise taxes.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 24843.html

HI54UNI wrote:

danefan wrote:I like some of the principles that Christie is apparently trying to instill in the NJ government, but I'm not 100% sold on his methods of applying them.

For example, take the 2nd train tunnel between NJ and NYC. Currently hunderds of thousands of people commute daily into NYC on one single railraod track, a track which is owned by Amtrak and on which Amtrak trains also run and get priority. This has significatnly hampered the commute for most NJ residents and also has stymied the real estate market in a lot of NJ towns.

Construction on a multi-billion 2nd tunnel to be owned and operated exclusively by the Port Authority of NY/NJ was already underway as the funding was secured by the last Stimulus bill.

Christie pulled the plug citing the uncertainty of the final cost and who the responsible party would be (e.g. Feds, NJ, etc..)?

I understand the rationale that NJ shouldn't be writing a blank check, but initially this looks like a very short-sighted decision. He has offered no realistic alternative to ease the commute. Construction prices are never going to be lower then they are right now and while a risk, the hope is that the state of NJ will be in a much better position in 2017 or 18 when any additional costs arise then it is right now, not to mention the ability for private investment later on if necessary.

Only time will tell whether he made the "right" decision, but as of right now it looks awfully shortsighted to me.

Is the Port Authority on the hook or the state of NJ? Where does the Port Authority get its money to pay for this? Do they have the ability to tax? Is it paid for by the transit riders?

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I'm not sold on Christie, especially for higher office, but there is something refreshing about his style - he's very straightforward and very matter of fact.

I would like to see hime serve two terms as governor, a couple in the Senate, and then go for the top.

But damn, we may not have that luxury. You always go to war with what you've got.

GannonFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Is the Port Authority on the hook or the state of NJ? Where does the Port Authority get its money to pay for this? Do they have the ability to tax? Is it paid for by the transit riders?

I thought part or most of Christie's reason for pulling support for this is because New Jersey was going to be on the hook for 100% of te cost overruns. For projects of this scope, that could be huge. Maybe it will come back but with Jersey not in a position to take a beating when it does overrun.

HI54UNI wrote:

danefan wrote:I like some of the principles that Christie is apparently trying to instill in the NJ government, but I'm not 100% sold on his methods of applying them.

For example, take the 2nd train tunnel between NJ and NYC. Currently hunderds of thousands of people commute daily into NYC on one single railraod track, a track which is owned by Amtrak and on which Amtrak trains also run and get priority. This has significatnly hampered the commute for most NJ residents and also has stymied the real estate market in a lot of NJ towns.

Construction on a multi-billion 2nd tunnel to be owned and operated exclusively by the Port Authority of NY/NJ was already underway as the funding was secured by the last Stimulus bill.

Christie pulled the plug citing the uncertainty of the final cost and who the responsible party would be (e.g. Feds, NJ, etc..)?

I understand the rationale that NJ shouldn't be writing a blank check, but initially this looks like a very short-sighted decision. He has offered no realistic alternative to ease the commute. Construction prices are never going to be lower then they are right now and while a risk, the hope is that the state of NJ will be in a much better position in 2017 or 18 when any additional costs arise then it is right now, not to mention the ability for private investment later on if necessary.

Only time will tell whether he made the "right" decision, but as of right now it looks awfully shortsighted to me.

Is the Port Authority on the hook or the state of NJ? Where does the Port Authority get its money to pay for this? Do they have the ability to tax? Is it paid for by the transit riders?

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I thought part or most of Christie's reason for pulling support for this is because New Jersey was going to be on the hook for 100% of te cost overruns. For projects of this scope, that could be huge. Maybe it will come back but with Jersey not in a position to take a beating when it does overrun.

That was the initial justification for the pull. Then the Feds and Port Authority provided him with alternatives if there is a huge cost overrun, including low-interest (almost zero) guaranteed financing from the Feds and private investments opportunities. Reportedly he refused to really even listen to these alteratives.

The speculation is that Christie just wants the $3+ billion in transportation money NJ got from the Feds to fulfill a campaign promise regarding the other projects. The funding wasn't restricted to the Tunnel but it was allocated to it initially.

This would be the largest transportation project (in $$ figures) to ever occur in the US so a hesitation is justified. There were countless years of research on this though which all support the need for it and the costs associated with it. He apparently just threw all that out the window.

All of my knowledge on this comes from the media though and we all know how accurate it is. So I guess you never really know.

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
That was the initial justification for the pull. Then the Feds and Port Authority provided him with alternatives if there is a huge cost overrun, including low-interest (almost zero) guaranteed financing from the Feds and private investments opportunities. Reportedly he refused to really even listen to these alteratives.

The speculation is that Christie just wants the $3+ billion in transportation money NJ got from the Feds to fulfill a campaign promise regarding the other projects. The funding wasn't restricted to the Tunnel but it was allocated to it initially.

This would be the largest transportation project (in $$ figures) to ever occur in the US so a hesitation is justified. There were countless years of research on this though which all support the need for it and the costs associated with it. He apparently just threw all that out the window.

All of my knowledge on this comes from the media though and we all know how accurate it is. So I guess you never really know.

Getting to have low interest loans doesn't necessarily eliminate the risk of what could be incredible overruns. Look at the Big Dig in Boston - that thing went well over budget, and this would be an even bigger project. I agree that he may very well just be using the money to do other things (not that that's a bad thing, per se) but there was and still is plenty of reason to be skeptical of the long range costs for this project.

danefan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Getting to have low interest loans doesn't necessarily eliminate the risk of what could be incredible overruns. Look at the Big Dig in Boston - that thing went well over budget, and this would be an even bigger project. I agree that he may very well just be using the money to do other things (not that that's a bad thing, per se) but there was and still is plenty of reason to be skeptical of the long range costs for this project.

There is absolutely reason to be skeptical about the long range costs, but there is also reason to weight those potential costs against the potential return for NJ residents. That's my point. I'm not sufficiently satisfied that he did adequately weighed those competing factors.

This project began in process in 1995 and included a very detailed analysis, all of which indicated it was an absolute necessity for the long-term growth of NJ. Christie killed it in 30 days after construction had already begun.

GannonFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
There is absolutely reason to be skeptical about the long range costs, but there is also reason to weight those potential costs against the potential return for NJ residents. That's my point. I'm not sufficiently satisfied that he did adequately weighed those competing factors.

This project began in process in 1995 and included a very detailed analysis, all of which indicated it was an absolute necessity for the long-term growth of NJ. Christie killed it in 30 days after construction had already begun.

Maybe he's hoping somebody else will take on the responsibility of shouldering all the project cost overruns? I'm sure they'd do the project in a heartbeat if they didn't have that completely unknown, and potentially unlimited, cost hanging over their head.

First, Christie did cut the budget — to $31.9 billion authorized for the current year from $33.3 billion in state spending authorized by former Gov. Jon Corzine for fiscal 2010, according to figures provided by the nonpartisan New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, a state agency.

That's a 4.2 percent trim, well short of the 10 percent Brady is promising in Illinois, but real money nevertheless.

How did Christie do it? Nips and tucks here and there, but mostly by cutting education funding, reducing state aid to local units of government and suspending a property-tax rebate program for seniors and lower- and middle-income taxpayers.
...
Christie also campaigned against the "unconscionable" practice of state borrowing to make required annual payments into pension funds. His solution after he was sworn in earlier this year? He skipped the $3.1 billion pension payment altogether.
...
He also signed a cap of 2 percent per year on hikes in property taxes — taxes that a Gannett newspapers study found grew this year by an average 23 percent if you factor in the missing rebate. Such a cap sounds great, but critics say it's simply part of a shell game Christie is playing to force municipalities to own the painful cuts ahead.

"We send about two-thirds of our budget right back to schools and local governments," said New Jersey Democratic Party Chairman John Wisniewski. "Reduce that, and the locals either have to cut services or raise taxes," which will be very difficult under the cap.

UNI88 wrote:N.J.'s past may be Illinois' future: What to expect if you're expecting Gov. Bill Brady

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_co ... brady.html

First, Christie did cut the budget — to $31.9 billion authorized for the current year from $33.3 billion in state spending authorized by former Gov. Jon Corzine for fiscal 2010, according to figures provided by the nonpartisan New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, a state agency.

That's a 4.2 percent trim, well short of the 10 percent Brady is promising in Illinois, but real money nevertheless.

How did Christie do it? Nips and tucks here and there, but mostly by cutting education funding, reducing state aid to local units of government and suspending a property-tax rebate program for seniors and lower- and middle-income taxpayers.
...
Christie also campaigned against the "unconscionable" practice of state borrowing to make required annual payments into pension funds. His solution after he was sworn in earlier this year? He skipped the $3.1 billion pension payment altogether.
...
He also signed a cap of 2 percent per year on hikes in property taxes — taxes that a Gannett newspapers study found grew this year by an average 23 percent if you factor in the missing rebate. Such a cap sounds great, but critics say it's simply part of a shell game Christie is playing to force municipalities to own the painful cuts ahead.

"We send about two-thirds of our budget right back to schools and local governments," said New Jersey Democratic Party Chairman John Wisniewski. "Reduce that, and the locals either have to cut services or raise taxes," which will be very difficult under the cap.

NJ posters, how much is truth?

danefan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:N.J.'s past may be Illinois' future: What to expect if you're expecting Gov. Bill Brady

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_co ... brady.html



NJ posters, how much is truth?

100% true. My real property taxes went up mainly because Christie decreased funding to local government and schools, leaving the taxpayers to make up the difference as the local politicians and school boards didn't cut really anything.That's not necesarilly Christie's fault though.

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
100% true. My real property taxes went up mainly because Christie decreased funding to local government and schools, leaving the taxpayers to make up the difference as the local politicians and school boards didn't cut really anything.That's not necesarilly Christie's fault though.

Exactly. His job is to take care of the state.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Exactly. His job is to take care of the state.

Well, arguably what he did was say "Not my problem to deal with education funding" and passed the buck (pun intended) and the related blame to the local school boards. There is a pretty strong argument that the health of the schools in NU are very much the problem of the Governor.