An Expensive Sump Pit

A news article said the Port Authority decided to spend $20 billion to dig a new tunnel under the Hudson. This would not be finished until 2030 at the earliest. If they can get along without this tunnel for fifteen years that is proof they really don’t need it. Another news article predicted the ocean level will rise about 18 inches by then. That means the next super storm will do even more damage. What then?

The reasonable and practical solution would be to restore ferryboat service across the Hudson to transport passengers. This was used before 1968 when a NY governor ended it to force people to use the PATH monopoly. Ferryboats are not affected by fluctuating water levels, and do not require the high costs of another tunnel. Or would a monopoly ignore costs since they can always charge more?

Maybe the best solution is to reorganize the PATH monopoly so there is popular representation on its Board of Directors. If this can’t be done PATH has outlasted its usefulness. Keeping jobs in NJ will increase tax receipts, PATH works against this by sending tax receipts to another state.

Ronald A. Sobieraj

In Response to Mr. Lionel Giron’s Letter of  March 16, 2016

Dear Mr. Giron,

I share your concern about decorum at city council meetings, but every meeting is a balancing act between allowing residents to freely express their opinions and minimizing inappropriate statements and behavior.

You mentioned several remarks that were made in recent meetings about the law director, and you were upset that I did not gavel down the residents who made them. May I remind you that I also haven’t gaveled down remarks that were made about me or other members of the council. But to use the words you chose to defend the law director, I am also a WOMAN, a MOTHER, and a HUMAN BEING. But I don’t remember seeing a letter from you defending me against those negative remarks and chastising the people who made them. So your outrage seems to be very selective.

The bottom line is that I have never prevented any speaker from expressing an opinion when that opinion has been critical of me or my fellow members of the city council. If I allowed people to speak who were critical of the law director and prevented criticism aimed at myself or others, you would have an argument. But that isn’t what happened.

Besides the inappropriate and unprofessional comments made by some of the Mayor’s staff,  I would also hope that you would be concerned with the lawyers present who spoke during public portion, who were willing to jeopardize the city with a lawsuit for denying residents their freedom of speech. If their professional acumen was current, they should have known that in New Jersey, the precedent had a been set and the NJ Supreme Court awarded a resident $100,000 because he was stopped from expressing opposing views by a board president.  Why does your city council president know this and not these attorneys?

Also, when the law director abandoned her position and went before the public, she declared her political support for the Mayor and for women: yet I, the only women on the council, was the only council member attacked, and for running for mayor no less, which I have never declared.

I will do my best to stop inappropriate remarks .  When city governments try to restrict speech, it can have serious consequences.  This city cannot afford the possible damages that could result if our attempts to restrict speech result in litigation. There is real danger in going down that road. So I will always err on the side of protecting a resident’s first amendment rights to speak, even when I don’t agree with what they say or like the way they say it. That seems totally appropriate in the same building, our city hall, in which New Jersey ratified the Bill of Rights more than 200 years ago.

Lisa Nanton,

President- Perth Amboy City Council