New Gov and RU

[S_Janowski]

The only thing I can see that Norcross can do is to cut the appropriation to Rutgers-Camden (yes, it has a separate line item -- thanks to Norcross). But he has shown zero interest in doing this. Norcross's priority right now seems to be steering money to projects in the City of Camden, and cutting money for Rutgers-Camden doesn't accomplish that goal.

If he doesn't cut it, he will do what he can to gain control of $.

The proposed demolition of Campbell's field (only about 15 years old) and construction of "world class" athletic fields for Rutgers Camden and the city of Camden is a perfect example.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Yeah I agree. Re-electing Christie was one of the dumbest things NJ ever did.

All they got in return was several tax hikes and fare increases.

 

[mdk01]

All they got in return was several tax hikes and fare increases.

Which will pale in comparison to what's coming down the road.

 

[T2Kplus10]

"He's a scumbag, but he's our scumbag."

Same mindset for their support of Menendez!

 

[NotInRHouse]

Which will pale in comparison to what's coming down the road.

Do you realize that that's not a fact? It's a projection from the GOP who raised taxes themselves.

I do love it when after the GOP raised taxes, the argument against Dems is they're going to do the same!

I guess that's all the GOP has. Between Crispy Creme and Cheetolini can't really run on achievement so you need scare tactics.

A tax increase on millionaires and legal weed are all well worth it. Not to mention an AG who will sue the admin nonstop.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

They cannot abolish the Rutgers BoT now.. but you have seen the calls to do just that, haven't you? They called it an anachronism, etc etc. What they can do is target the members of the BoT and BUY a vote that, in effect, gives control of the BoT to the politicians and then they will abolish it... in effect, getting the BoT to disband itself. The progression is influence, infiltrate, control and disband, thereby making it simple case of total control moving to the politically dominated Rutgers BoG. Then there is no more need for transfers of ownership of anything.. they will have the whole enchilada.

I actually do not think this can happen. Trustees are "trustees" because they have a fiduciary duty to the body they govern. This is a heightened standard that requires them to act in the best interest of the University. If the politicians somehow bought influence of the BoT, there would be a lawsuit for breach.

While items of joint governance are arguably decisions a trustee could rationally decide was best, any divestiture of control or transfer of assets would be nearly impossible to justify.

This being NJ, whether anyone actually pays attention and does something about it is of course a different story.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Yeah I agree. Re-electing Christie was one of the dumbest things NJ ever did.

All they got in return was several tax hikes and fare increases.

Who are you responding to? This whole thread is about political impact on Rutgers. Take the partisan name calling bullshit to the CE board. It is important for the broader fan base to see this discussion, without you getting the whole thread killed.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

"He's a scumbag, but he's our scumbag."

I think there is more to it than that, I think most people just have given up and stop voting.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

Being out of state I keep forgetting how poorly NJ does with governors...like really awful!

But heck I'm in NY now and we suck at it too...Cuomo-the-clown only looks mediocre because of the two aholes that preceded him!

 

[NotInRHouse]

Who are you responding to? This whole thread is about political impact on Rutgers. Take the partisan name calling bullshit to the CE board. It is important for the broader fan base to see this discussion, without you getting the whole thread killed.

The poster who claimed NJ elects the wrong people and the repeated claims that this election will cause a tax increase.

 

[RU-AGK]

Who are you responding to? This whole thread is about political impact on Rutgers. Take the partisan name calling bullshit to the CE board. It is important for the broader fan base to see this discussion, without you getting the whole thread killed.

That's right! Nobody should have it if you don't!

The culture of dragging someone down rather than raising yourself up is so small minded.

Enjoy making your rich boss even richer as he throws you crumbs (this is where you tell us all you are your own boss etc. etc.) while you pay PWs what is owed. I hope you feel like every nickle of it is coming out of your pocket.

And screw you @RUskoolie. I know you're trolling me.

 

[RUskoolie]

And screw you @RUskoolie. I know you're trolling me.

Huh? About Corzine? I swear that's true bro. I like to thumb through our donor list in one of those programs (trying to find it online). His name is attached to a 7 figure lifetime donation to RU.

 

[RU-AGK]

Huh? About Corzine? I swear that's true bro. I like to thumb through our donor list in one of those programs (trying to find it online). His name is attached to a 7 figure lifetime donation to RU.

That's not what I'm talking about. I believe that because I remember it.

 

[e5fdny]

Huh? About Corzine? I swear that's true bro. I like to thumb through our donor list in one of those programs (trying to find it online). His name is attached to a 7 figure lifetime donation to RU.

That's not what I'm talking about. I believe that because I remember it.

Glad to be wrong on this one as I thought the figure was $75,000.

 

[SkilletHead2]

I know that many of the young people here view Bloustein as part of a golden age, but he was also very talented at talking out of both sides of his mouth. I know; I was at Rutgers when he was president.

Me, too. No fan of Ed's.

 

[JoeRU]

The present governmental arrangement at Rutgers is established as part of a contract between Rutgers and the state of New Jersey that has been in effect for sixty years. The state can't change the arrangement without the consent of both the BOT and the BOG. The BOT can potentially take away from the state all property of Rutgers that existed since 1956. That's a nuclear weapon, but one that could be used in an extreme situation.

Does that include Newark and Camden or just NB/Piscataway? Douglass?

 

[retired711]

If he doesn't cut it, he will do what he can to gain control of $.

The proposed demolition of Campbell's field (only about 15 years old) and construction of "world class" athletic fields for Rutgers Camden and the city of Camden is a perfect example.

I am virtually sure that Campbell's field was financed by the Port Authority of Phladelphia (PATCO), which at the time was using commuters' money to support other dubious projects. The field is actually nice -- I've attended games there -- but the idea that Camden could support a minor-league team was not a good one.

 

[retired711]

Me, too. No fan of Ed's.

He was president for so long -- twenty years -- because he couldn't get a better job, although he sure tried. I do know two good things about him: (a) he was a distinguished First Amendment scholar; and (b) if a faculty member sent him a letter, he would answer quickly, even if briefly. At least he did with my letters when I was a junior faculty member.

This is totally OT, but Bloustein once told a story from his first day as a junior faculty member at NYU's school of law. The Dean asked him, "Now, remind me, Mr. Bloustein, did you apply for a job here or did we seek you out?" "You sought me out," said Bloustein. "Just so," the Dean replied. "We never hire anyone who applies to us."

 

[retired711]

The poster who claimed NJ elects the wrong people and the repeated claims that this election will cause a tax increase.

This is OT, as the poster said, but I can't believe that Murphy won't propose a substantial tax increase. He promised to do so, after all. That's one reason why my vote for him was *very* reluctant.

 

[retired711]

Does that include Newark and Camden or just NB/Piscataway? Douglass?

It includes virtually all of the property on the Camden campus (interestingly enough, the law school is half on and half off the traditional property!) and I believe it covers most property at Newark (except I don't think their present law school building qualifies either).

 

[mdk01]

This is OT, as the poster said, but I can't believe that Murphy won't propose a substantial tax increase. He promised to do so, after all. That's one reason why my vote for him was *very* reluctant.

He can't fund all the programs he's proposing unless he does so. And that's not even considering the underfunded state retirement and medical plans.

 

[NotInRHouse]

This is OT, as the poster said, but I can't believe that Murphy won't propose a substantial tax increase. He promised to do so, after all. That's one reason why my vote for him was *very* reluctant.

Yes- on millionaires. Not on the middle class. That's a big difference, IMO.

 

[retired711]

He can't fund all the programs he's proposing unless he does so. And that's not even considering the underfunded state retirement and medical plans.

And he's admitted that not even his proposals to increase taxes would cover all he wants.

 

[retired711]

Yes- on millionaires. Not on the middle class. That's a big difference, IMO.

I understand that, but I do not think it would be desirable for NJ to tax rich people more than neighboring states do, and my understanding is that his proposals would do that. We don't need an exodus of those who are paying a lot of our taxes right now.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I understand that, but I do not think it would be desirable for NJ to tax rich people more than neighboring states do, and my understanding is that his proposals would do that. We don't need an exodus of those who are paying a lot of our taxes right now.

I'm not sure it would be more than NY or CT. Unlikely NYC with the city tax. We'll see. I just think it's not genuine to make it seem like he proposed a middle class tax increase- especially when those doing so have no issue with the middle class increase proposed by the GOP in Congress.

 

[S_Janowski]

I am virtually sure that Campbell's field was financed by the Port Authority of Phladelphia (PATCO), which at the time was using commuters' money to support other dubious projects. The field is actually nice -- I've attended games there -- but the idea that Camden could support a minor-league team was not a good one.

I've been to Campbells field plenty of times. It was nice, and ageee Camden probly can't support a minor league team so it was a waste of DRPA and taxpayer money.

My point was about what they are currently proposing - the demolition of Campbell's field and construction of "world class" athletic fields for Rutgers and the city which was made public by Norcross himself last week.

The fact that this news was made public by Norcross should tell you enough. You can bet he will be using Rutgers funding to payoff his cronies for this project. Rutgers Camden and the city itself needs plenty of things and "world class" athletic facilities would be at the bottom of the list.

 

[mdk01]

I understand that, but I do not think it would be desirable for NJ to tax rich people more than neighboring states do, and my understanding is that his proposals would do that. We don't need an exodus of those who are paying a lot of our taxes right now.

More than NYS and Ct. and WAY more than PA. And that's not even considering the fact that you can't deduct mortgage interest or charitable contributions in New Jersey. New York phases out itemized deductions at certain high income levels but no matter how high your income is you can deduct at least 50% of your charitable contributions. New York City residents may pay higher taxes because of the city income tax that would be determined on a case by case basis given the difference in allowable itemized deductions.

And as you said, the tax increases proposes, including that on the rich, don't cover what his programs will cost plus restore balance to the retirement plans. The only way that happens is if you start tapping into lower income levels. However, he might want to look at what happened to Florio when he did precisely that, and the political gaffe of the century that Florio's aid made when he commented to the press that the increases (they kicked in for single taxpayers at $35k of income) "only affected the wealthy".

 

[rurichdog]

I've been to Campbells field plenty of times. It was nice, and ageee Camden probly can't support a minor league team so it was a waste of DRPA and taxpayer money.

My point was about what they are currently proposing - the demolition of Campbell's field and construction of "world class" athletic fields for Rutgers and the city which was made public by Norcross himself last week.

The fact that this news was made public by Norcross should tell you enough. You can bet he will be using Rutgers funding to payoff his cronies for this project. Rutgers Camden and the city itself needs plenty of things and "world class" athletic facilities would be at the bottom of the list.

I haven't heard of this project...is there retail, residential, and office development tied in to this as well? Maybe some dubious land-swaps too?

 

[S_Janowski]

I haven't heard of this project...is there retail, residential, and office development tied in to this as well? Maybe some dubious land-swaps too?

George just broke the news himself the other week at a Roundtable discussion in South Jersey.

I'm sure there will be some of what you describe above. He's currently erecting a new home for his Insurance agency on the waterfront and right next to Campbells field that he received millions in tax breaks to move 10 miles from Marlton to Camden.

 

[PSUTony]

Say what you want about Christie but in the last 15years he's the only one that put a real stop to the insane property tax increases. Corzine tried but that was after he allowed all part-timers on the state pension.

Prior to him, & no lie, my taxes doubled from 2004 to 2010......
oh and since I was at Rutgers in the late 90s for the record the state government has been cut funding resulting in double digit % increases in tuition since then; Dems & Reps.

 

[MADHAT1]

Checked this thread out hoping it would stick to the question: "What is the take on the new Governor and his feeling towards RU?"
Quickly that question was forgotten and became a thread that belongs on the CE board.

 

[RU4Real]

Checked this thread out hoping it would stick to the question: "What is the take on the new Governor and his feeling towards RU?"
Quickly that question was forgotten and became a thread that belongs on the CE board.

I disagree.

The simple fact is that nobody knows the answer to the question in the OP; it's all speculation based on slim anecdotal evidence. This answer is implicit in a number of posts in the thread.

Given that, it's only natural that the thread would go after the first shiny object it encounters. That's what they do.

 

[MADHAT1]

I disagree.

The simple fact is that nobody knows the answer to the question in the OP; it's all speculation based on slim anecdotal evidence. This answer is implicit in a number of posts in the thread.

Given that, it's only natural that the thread would go after the first shiny object it encounters. That's what they do.

"Given that, it's only natural that the thread would go after the first shiny object it encounters. That's what they do."
You'll get no argument from me over that statement, nor your opining line :"The simple fact is that nobody knows the answer to the question in the OP; it's all speculation based on slim anecdotal evidence."
Excellent reply to my complaint and I consider it constructive criticism [cheers]

 

[Wolv RU]

Checked this thread out hoping it would stick to the question: "What is the take on the new Governor and his feeling towards RU?"
Quickly that question was forgotten and became a thread that belongs on the CE board.

My thoughts after reading:
1. The Governor has lots of spending priorities. Rutgers may be on the list somewhere but it seems unlikely that the Governor will be able to accomplish many of the things he may want to do. "Fully funding" education and the pensions, along with "fixing" infrastructure seem to be the top priorities and if so, those items alone are more than NJ could hope to pay with any palatable tax increase at the moment.

2. Even if the Governor wanted to increase funding for Rutgers, many feel that Rutgers gets no increase unless other items (like Rowan) get an increase too, meaning that even if the Governor had Rutgers as his #1 priority, it would only see a portion of what he might try to allocate.

3. It is amazing but not surprising that some people seem to treat political parties as a team to root for, and only express an opinion on whether things are positive or negative based on whether their supported candidate/party won or lost.

 

[Wolv RU]

Oh, I agree with you about both parties at the Port Authority (and other quasi-governmental agencies) trough.

This was particularly aggredious, in my opinion, however, because that tunnel addition under the Hudson River was REALLY important for development, lifestyle and the overall economy from Central NJ to the North and into NYC. I think the project will still have to be done (the trains are REALLY bad now), but at twice the cost.

And, on top of that, the NJ gasoline tax was increased anyway, in 2016, because despite raiding the Port Authority Fund inappropriately, the Transportation Fund was still depleted ... so NJ had its gasoline tax increased, but did not get the Hudson River tunnel addition. Bad trade all around, almost solely for Christie to tell Republican primary voters he was anti-tax enough to get the presidential nomination.

I might suggest that getting the Port Authority to pay for the Pulaski was a very good thing for NJ. While in an ideal world this would not be within the purview of the PA, this is exactly how NY gets NJ to pay for many things that are located in, or primarily benefit NY. The only other way to pay for the Pulaski would be even higher NJ taxes or tolls. I don't see how that is a preferable alternative.

Also, the ARC project should never have been a political party thing. Anyone who has examined the plan, from either side of the political aisle, knows it was the wrong project, and risky for NJ. There is a lot out there on it, but the essential problem was that, at the insistence of NY, it didn't actually provide "Access to the Region's Core." It would be a shame to spend all of that money and not even get something that addresses the problem. The Gateway project is still not perfect, but it is far superior to what would have been done with ARC.

Finally, politicians are going to politic. Yes, Christie wasted any political capital he had, and then a lot more, on trying to position himself for president. NJ was a mess before Christie took office. Christie now owns a part of that mess because he did very little (although he did do some things to stop the bleeding at the beginning of his first term) to clean up the mess. Now it is up to the new Governor to try to clean up an even bigger mess.

 

[RU old timer]

Being optimistic, I think that any Governor of NJ would know that the objective of a football team each week is to go 1-0, which was the extent of our expertise under the previous football head coach.

 

[RutgersRaRa]

Murphy says he's going to legalize marijuana.

Rutgers should leverage its reputation in plant genetics to create a special "New Jersey Hothouse" strain and make gazillions.

 

[50 yd line RR]

Say what you want about Christie but in the last 15years he's the only one that put a real stop to the insane property tax increases. Corzine tried but that was after he allowed all part-timers on the state pension.

Prior to him, & no lie, my taxes doubled from 2004 to 2010......
oh and since I was at Rutgers in the late 90s for the record the state government has been cut funding resulting in double digit % increases in tuition since then; Dems & Reps.

The biggest reason for tax increases in the state is due to the loss of rate-ables.
Companies from throughout the state left in droves. Think of the companies that we grew up with ,that provided not only jobs but a great revenue stream for the municipalities . Look how many are left? People don't want a cut in services. So taxes go up. Taxes go up. People and companies move out. Its a vicious cycle.

 

[mdk01]

The biggest reason for tax increases in the state is due to the loss of rate-ables.
Companies from throughout the state left in droves. Think of the companies that we grew up with ,that provided not only jobs but a great revenue stream for the municipalities . Look how many are left? People don't want a cut in services. So taxes go up. Taxes go up. People and companies move out. Its a vicious cycle.

Don't worry, I hear MS-13 is leasing moving vans all over Long Island now that we're gong to be a sanctuary state. Howdy neighbor!

 

[retired711]

The biggest reason for tax increases in the state is due to the loss of rate-ables.
Companies from throughout the state left in droves. Think of the companies that we grew up with ,that provided not only jobs but a great revenue stream for the municipalities . Look how many are left? People don't want a cut in services. So taxes go up. Taxes go up. People and companies move out. Its a vicious cycle.

This sounds right, but can you document it with a link. The reason I'm doubtful is that I suspect New Jersey suburbs never had much in the way of ratables; they were intended instead to be residential communities with little, if any, business and no industry, since that was thought incompatible with residential use.