Parking & Politics in Hoboken

Why you can't park in Hoboken, and why that probably won't change any time soon.



(The graphic above links to a 20MB PDF Report on the 916 Garden automated garage, which we wrote several years ago. If the file is too large for your connection, we have broken up a smaller version into two parts: Download them here and here. Those who don't know what this Report is about, or are looking for background information, should read on. Also: Our relationship with Robotic Parking.)

Jump to topic: Patterns of political behavior • How predictable political behavior hinders parking solutions • Why unelected political factions favor unworkable solutions • The 916 Garden automated garage • Municipal corruption is a factor • Donald Pellicano challenges 'Parking Today' • Donald Pellicano challenges our report's conclusions

• Patterns of political behavior

We believe in studying political patterns as a means of understanding and anticipating behavior and outcomes. For instance, recently we have been doing some research into how Republicans, basically unopposed in Long Island for years, have mirrored the corruption patterns we see here in (Democratically-controlled) urban New Jersey. The overhiring of municipal workers, and overpayment of police and fire officials (and too many captains in relation to force size) has led to financial insolvency in Long Island. This same pattern is being followed here, and Hoboken and Jersey City are themselves heading toward insolvency. [top]

• How predictable political behavior hinders parking solutions

We recently spotted a post on political attitude toward parking on Matt Rosenberg's site. Matt, a Seattle writer & blogger, had noted the same political behavior in Seattle that we've seen here in regards to parking. Here's an excerpt:

Today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer proffers a... story that plays to our local electorate's social engineering impulses. It hypes an urban planning professor's claim that easy parking is a social evil.

Unless and until mass transit routes offer the convenience, speed and flexibility that cars do for multi-tasking, errand-running, kid-ferrying Americans (even factoring in traffic jams) there will always be a need for more parking in urban areas, and increasingly, in many suburbs.

The problem is not parking that is too easy, but too difficult. Because of limited space, parking will remain a scare resource, priced accordingly. In the future, underground and high-rise mechanized parking facilities may become even more necessary.

Indeed, a good part of the parking problem in Hoboken is due to garage-averse local actiivists, who offer the public a parking agenda not dissimilar to that proposed by their Seattle counterparts. They'll tell you that traffic and parking problems will be solved only by making city driving more, not less, difficult. The theory is that people can be compelled or forced to abandon driving. That this theory has never been demonstrated does not deter anti-automobile zealots in the least. [top]

• Why unelected political factions favor unworkable solutions

Some Hoboken extremists have gone so far as to suggest that new residents be prohibited by law from owning cars at all. In this scheme, current residents who were allowed cars would park them at the city's borders, using them only to drive to destinations outside the city. When pressed with questions such as "What about the handicapped?", anti-car lobbyists insist that the handicapped must be given a special dispensation. "What about the elderly?" The activists concede that they too should have special permissions. "What about grocery shopping?" People must eat, so special permits would be issued there as well. "What about officials on city business?" City employees' cars would have stickers identifying them as such. By the time all the "special circumstances" are detailed it becomes embarassingly clear that no scheme to rid the city streets of cars could possibly be implemented.

Their fallback position is as Seattle's Mr. Rosenberg describes: Parking must be made as onerous as possible, so people will not drive. However, what actually happens is not that people cease driving, but that they park illegally. We have seen triple-parking clog Hoboken streets like a Haagen-Dasz addict's arteries. The activists welcome such aggravation. They believe as the stress of driving increases, drivers will eventually see things their way. But although the stress of operating a motor vehicle increases, the desire to do so never diminishes. Instead, drivers resentfully accept the increasing congestion as the price they pay for driving in the city. They have a car, and they are determined to avail themselves of it.

Unfortunately, our elected officials are often swayed by publicity-seeking activists (many of whom have cars themselves). Rather than accomodate the majority who clearly want less congestion and more parking, they simply avoid dealing with thorny and controversial traffic issues wherever possible. [top]

• The 916 Garden automated garage

Let's revisit this observation from Rosenberg:

...underground and high-rise mechanized parking facilities may become even more necessary.

And this one:

...if all U.S. parking spaces were combined into a surface lot, it would be the size of Connecticut.

We concur with even the most rabid parking 'activists' opinion of garages:

• They are at best, homely.

• The blocks on which they reside tend to be devoid of street life - they are merely blocks we want to get past, to get to our true destination.

• Inside, garages are often dark and somewhat dangerous. Carbon monoxide and other pollutants tend to linger in and around these structures.

• And they do take up a lot of valuable real estate (an area of agreement for both activists and developers).

This brings us to the unique and controversial 916 Garden automated garage, which addresses all these concerns. One might expect activist support for a facility that parks more cars in less space, and which, from street level, bears little or no resemblance to a garage. Hoboken's facility is designed to look like a condo building, and in fact we have been asked by out-of-towners about availability of condos inside the building. (Of course, the building's only actual inhabitants are automobiles.)

Unfortunately, not only were activists unsupportive of 916 Garden, but one actually emailed residents that the 916 Garden garage was a bomb waiting to go off (contending that gas tanks in proximity to computers were a lethal pairing - an allegation that, need we say, proved untrue). As the patterns noted by Rosenberg attest, urban activists typically do not seek pragmatic traffic solutions that consider the needs of drivers. Rather, they prefer to impede traffic in (vain) hopes of stopping it altogether.

Activists' first (and often only) stance is to endorse negative, vague, and often untenable proposals for alleviating traffic and parking problems. For many, the real goal is not to find viable solutions, but to eliminate the option of using a car in urban areas. Since these groups are not held accountable for providing solutions (as elected officials are), they can choose not to do so. In this manner, activists keep faith with their unempowered friends and proponents. And since their impractical proposals cannot be implemented, they are never held up to public scrutiny. Activists can (and do) therefore blame ongoing traffic and parking problems on a municipality's failure to implement their agendas. [top]

• Municipal corruption is a factor at 916 Garden

While 'activists' sowed public confusion about this facility in particular and parking in general, it was municipal corruption that sabotaged the 916 Garden facility. Details of how this transpired are worked out at length in the PDF report linked at the top of this post. A summary of the report's conclusions follow:

• At the time of 916 Garden's conception and construction, Hoboken's municipal operations were deeply corrupt from the top down. This is well-documented in the local papers' archives. The FBI monitored city officials' activities for years, and law enforcement made occasional arrests (for example, the head of the city's Alcoholic Bevereages board was indicted.) Rumors of illegal activites swirled around the city. Some of them even made the headlines (the Jersey Journal headlined extortion charges against the mayor). Most recently, this was demonstrated in the arrest and conviction of the city's mayor from that period, Anthony Russo.

• Also at this time, the Hoboken Parking Authority handled millions of the driving public's dollars annually, yet the agency's books were closed to the public. Donald Pellicano served as an "unpaid volunteer" at the HPA for over two decades, many of them as the agency's officially uncompensated head of operations.

• In this atmosphere of corruption, the head of the Hoboken Parking Authority conceived of a scheme to appropriate Robotic Parking's intellectual property. The idea was to closely monitor Robotic's progress on the project, physically remove them from the facility when it was near finished, plant a story that they were a fraud, and then pretend to 'fix and finish' their work.

• The Hoboken Reporter, sadly, co-operated with the corrupt HPA head and his ally Frank Belgiovine, and allowed allegations for which they were shown no supporting evidence to appear, unchallenged, in its front-page story. (The paper subsequently refused to include input from Robotic Parking's founder in its follow-up stories for 18 months.) The Reporter's deeply flawed account was later picked up by other news media, and the allegations that were launched in this way have dogged Robotic Parking (and to a lesser degree, the entire automated parking industry) ever since. [top]

• Donald Pellicano challenges Parking Today

As one might expect, the former HPA head (Pellicano was let go and his agency dissolved shortly after Robotic was reinstated on the 916 Garden project) famously hates Gerhard Haag, and vehemently disputes our report's conclusions.

It should be noted, first of all, that if Mayor David Roberts had followed through on his 2002 promise to launch an investigation, our report would not have to be the final word on this subject. (The local media, embarassed by its own sad performance in this affair, won't initiate any inquiries involving its origins. Although it does love stories alleging failure, with images of overturned cars a plus.)

To this day, unfortunately, neither the media nor our local politicians will follow through. For that reason our report remains not only the final, but the only, word on what happened at 916 Garden.

Pellicano has managed to attach himself to the HPU (Hoboken Parking Utility - the reconfigured HPA) head John Corea. As such he remains close to 916 Garden, documenting any real or imagined failures and distributing them to anyone who will listen. Here is an exchange on Parking Today (excerpted here):

[Parking Today] There have been a dozen articles written in local and national papers about the problems in Hoboken, NJ, in the past few weeks. Things aren’t going well at this automated facility.

Gerhard Haag and Robotic Parking got a contract to build an automated garage in Hoboken. It was the perfect application for the technology. Everyone was excited. Thus began an almost seven-year litany of issues, problems, lawsuits, blame, success and failure.

Don't think for a moment that Gerhard is the only one at fault in this story. There is plenty of blame to go around. It includes the general contractor, the mayor at the time, the parking authority, the local power company, the designer, the consultant, the architect; the person writing the specifications, the weather, and well, virtually everyone involved in the project deserves some part of the blame.

The project was way behind completion -- almost two years. When done, everyone was arguing as to whether or not it worked as it was supposed to, and who is to supply personnel to run it....

Even today, problems exist and from time to time folks have to wait a few hours to get their cars out. There is also the odd vehicle... dropped from the third floor. Not good....

The city is running for the hills, hiding behind contracts and lawyers. Gerhard is frustrated... he thinks the owner should begin to take some responsibility for what it bought.

And there you have it -- the reason a niche industry [automated parkiing] in our business is stalled and having such difficulty getting going. It is a classic case of what can go wrong in a project....

Gerhard Haag was the only manufacturer that put his money where his mouth is. He built a test system in Ohio. He showed people how it would work. And he got the deal. Of course, he didn't know how to work in an environment like Hoboken. Power, influence, politics, money and perhaps a bit of rubbing right up against the law were involved. Not a good place to cut your teeth on a new technology...

The result is a stalled technology. Virtually no other automated systems have been installed in the U.S. They work all over the world, but no one wants to be the first one here. (OK, there is one running in DC, and 50,000 that are going to break ground "next month.")

[Pellicano responds, shown in full] Yes, your story about Hoboken is sad. But sad for the industry, Hoboken and your readers. What needs clarification are some of the statements that you make.

1. Things have not been going too well at the facility, for a long time. It took all of 1999,2000,(to September). Then most if not all of 2001. It wasn't until sometime in October of 2001 when vehicles started in.

2. But the facility could only take 25 or maybe it was 60, vehicles a week. Then it was operation stop at around 200.

3. Gerhard Haag and Robotic, never ever had any signed agreement with Hoboken to build anything.

4. Robotics however, stated that they designed their garage.

5. The agreement (bid documents) were with the parking authority (autonomous body) and the general contractor. Robotics was a sub contractor to the general.

7. The bid stipulated, and all parties were bound by it, to conclude the job within 365 days. As you will note above. It tool, almost over 3 years to even move a car

8. Yes there is a lot of blame but lets be objective, if we can. Hoboken, decided to move ahead with an automated facility. We were informed, and it is in writing, that the facility would not require an attendant. Today there are at least two plus attendants on duty.

9. You state, every person deserves some part of the blame. But the major portion of the persons are from the perspective of the parking authority.

10. Haag is only mentioned once and he should be mentioned as Haag and the authority, Haag and the contractor etc.

11.That does not mean that the opposite of Haag bears all the blame.

12. Haag was responsible from day one, for the specs and for everything relating to the so called technology, that he supposedly had.

13. If that were the case then why almost three years. They fiddled while Hoboken burned for months and for months at triple time (24/7)

14.The only personnel that the authority was ready to supply were clerks to act as customer relations and keep the facility clean.

15. And this is what we anticipated from day one, not from day 900.
16. Odd vehicle dropped. Robotics blamed the owner of the vehicle, who has yet to be paid for the total damage to his Cadillac.

17.What about the jeep that was dropped. Robotics said that the emergency brake was not on. Yes it was, and they have pictures of it. What about the recent vehicle that came out with the rear, forward and then dropped into the pit, breaking the axle.

These are rare, but then the Robotics blames personnel. Then who is to blame for a jacket left on a pallet that then tied up the facility for over two hours, recently.

Yes Haag put his money where his mouth is. Anyone who visited his so called prototype would see that it was no more than an elevator that moved exactly one car, in once bay into one slot inside the building. On the occasions that I visited. Twice. The vehicle got as far as the interior and then stopped. I never saw the car go any further.

His money. No John, Haag put other peoples money where his mouth is.

Yes he had an idea and a patent. Read his patent, I did. It is fine but it contains no technology. If it did then why did Siemens pull out of their potential deal, why did he buy the license agreement with GE for their simplicity program, and then why did he go to at least two other companies,

Well, why did his technician say to me? We do not use GE.

Yes John it is a disaster. Too bad because there are companies out there that have the technology to install automated parking

You should contact the parking utility, before you write your next store. Get the facts from them.

I'm sure they can supply you with documents regarding their so called maintenance that costs $17,500 a month, plus $5.000 a month for parts. If you saw the facility a few months ago, you would get sick.

Donald Pellicano, Former Commissioner of the parking authority

[Parking Today responds] Full Disclosure: I sold Don Pellicano and the City of Hoboken a revenue control system about 20 years ago when I worked for Secom. Although the relationship wasn't quite as rocky as that with Robotic there were many similarities, most having to do with brand new technology and the salesperson (read that me) overselling the product and the customer having expectations that were not possible for anyone to meet.

My Response to Don:

Thanks for your note -- I think its time for you to put this to rest. Your former organization made some poor decisions, as did everyone else involved in the project. That's it. If you want to place blame, why not look at the buyer. They had plenty of opportunity to get good information. What they did was the best they could at the time. Why is that so terrible? They were then and are on the cutting edge of technology. Remember, that was almost what, 7 years ago.

I doubt seriously if there are any 400 vehicle facilities in Europe or Asia that have no attendants. Maybe the facts are that this stuff can't work with no attendants. If that's the case, so be it. If Gerhard was wrong about that fact, then he was wrong. Get over it, Don.

Hell, holding people's feet to contracts do little more than give people cold feet. There has to be some give and take when new technology is being installed. If there isn't, all will fail.

The truth is, and you know this Don, that it was Gerhard Haag that you bought, not some now bankrupt defunct general contractor. The city would have been much better off to have worked directly with him. However that, too, is water over the damn.

Relax, take a deep breath, and see if there is anything you can do to make the lemons you bought into lemonade...Become part of the solution..

1. Cut a better deal with Gerhard to cover the maintenance and/or hire someone else to maintain the system.

2. Accept the fact that the place needs to be staffed at least 16 hours a day and then staff it.

3. Hire someone who wants the garage to work and thinks its their job to do so, my guess is that it would.

4. Have a heart to heart talk with all the Don Pellicanos of the world and get them on the side of solving the problem, not fixing blame and spewing invectives.

Then they would most likely have a successful garage and and successful reputation. As it stands now, its only downhill. [top]

• Donald Pellicano challenges our report

Recently Mr. Pellicano continued his assault on Robotic in a series of emails to us. We directed him as best we could to answer a series of questions on subjects covered by our Report. His answers are reproduced here, in full.

One fact we want to correct - actually, the only factual error we are certain of in the Report - was Pellicano's birthplace. He tells us he was not born in Hoboken, and we figure he should know.

One thing we want to emphasize, however, is that the garage was never intended to be run unattended, and that this was no secret to Pellicano. The fact that an operator was expected to be on duty at all times is made clear in a Wall Street Journal article dated from the time of the garage's early construction, in which Haag says specifically that the garage requires an attendant. (As do all Eurpoean automated garages.) The question of an attendant is cited so frequently by Pellicano to the press that this matter deserves special mention.

Pellicano's answers to our questions, as his response to Parking Today, may not seem particularly well-considered. Or possibly, they may. Perhaps it's we who don't see things straight... you decide. (Or, email him and ask your own questions.)

All we could do was give him a chance to respond to the main charges in the Report. We did not edit or refine his points, as we didn't think that was our place. Here are Donald Pellicano's emailed responses to the following questions (click any one to jump to it): Why is the facade of the finished garage so different from the comps that were shown to the public? • How did you make your living while head of the HPA, and why were you removed from the HPA? • Why was the HPA dissolved? • What was your relationship with Belcor, and why was Robotic Parking hired, if they had 'no technology'? • Why was Robotic fired? • Why was Robotic reinstated on the project? • Why were the contractually-stipulated fines for late delivery never paid by the insurer? [return to very top]

How did you make your living while head of the HPA, and why were you removed from the HPA?

FUNNY

EVIDENTLY YOU ARE STILL OF THE OPINION THAT I, AM WAS ON THE TAKE.

WELL YOUR WRONG AND YOUR TREATISE ABOUT THE ANATOMY OF A SCANDAL IS ONLY A SCANDAL FROM THE POINT OF DEAR OLD ROBOTICS.

BUT THEN YOU CAN ONLY BELIEVE THE INFORMATION, WRONG, AND NOT FULLY COMPLETE OR HONEST, THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU BY ROBOTICS AND A COMMISSIONER. SOME OF THAT MATERIAL WAS ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

BUT SINCE YOU ARE AFRAID TO ANSWER EVEN THE SIMPLEST OF QUESTIONS. I WILL ANSWER YOUR SIMILAR SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

I. I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HPA UP TO AND UNTIL 1994, WHEN THE PREVIOUS MAYOR TOOK OFFICE. IT STAYED THAT WAY UNTIL THE YEAR 2000. THAT IS SIX YEARS, AND ALL THE GARBAGE WITH ROBOTICS TRANSPIRED DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING SOMETIME IN 1996.

2. WHEN IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE 916 GARAGE WAS A DEBACLE, AND NOTHING WAS GETTING DONE AND IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT ANYTHING WOULD GET DONE, THE COMMISSIONERS, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ONE COMMISSIONER, DECIDED TO REPLACE THE THEN CHAIRMAN AND APPOINTED ME THE CHAIR.

3. THAT DIRECTIVE CAME FROM THE SECOND FLOOR.

4. THE COMMISSIONERS FELT THAT SOMEONE HAD TO TAKE HOLD OF A STUPID MISTAKE AND TRY TO GET IT ON TRACK. THEY DECIDED THAT THAT WAS ME. UNFORTUNATELY FOR ME, I SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED MY CONSCIENCE AND SAID NO. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.
5. ALL DURING THE YEAR 2000, THE ONLY THING WE GOT WERE \PROMISES, THAT WERE BROKEN AND NEVER MET. UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2000 WHEN THE SUB WAS FIRED. AFTER ALL THE CONTRACTOR WAS BEING FINED @ $2,000.- A DAY. NO SMALL CHANGE

6. THE CONTRACTOR WAS THEN PUT INTO DEFAULT SOMETIME IN JULY OF 2000 BECAUSE THE SUB CONTRACTOR STATED THAT THEY WOULD BE ALMOST COMPLETE IN JULY OF 2000

7. JULY CAME AND JULY WENT. AUGUST CAME AND WENT AND SEPTEMBER CAME AND WENT. YOU KNOW ABOUT THE PROMISE TO OPEN ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 26 OR 27, 2000.

8. AS FOR WHAT WAS I DOING. I WAS OPERATING MY OWN BUSINESS. PRIOR TO THAT I WAS EMPLOYED BY A REAL ESTATE COMPANY IN SOUTH JERSEY AT A VERY HANDSOME SALARY AND BONUS POSITION. MY OWN BUSINESS WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE BILLS.

9. I DID NOT NEED ANYONE, AND AS YOU STIPULATE IN YOUR REPORT. I WAS ON THE TAKE AT THE TIME. WRONG AGAIN

10. AS I STATED I WAS NOT

11. YOU HOWEVER WERE WRITING STORIES, FOR A CAMPAIGN, THAT I WAS NOT PERMITTED TO ANSWER. THAT IS CALLED PROFESSIONALISM.
YOUR STATEMENTS WERE MOSTLY UNTRUE. WE STAYED THE COURSE BECAUSE LEGAL COUNSEL MADE IT THAT WAY. TOO BAD THE REPRESENTATIVES WHO FIRED LEGAL COUNSEL WOULD HAVE AT LEAST OFFERED LEGAL COUNSEL THE COURTESY OF A NOTICE. NO THEY WERE FIRED AT A MEETING THAT I ALLOWED THEM TO ENTER THE MOTION TO DO SO. BUT YOU NEVER GOT THAT INFORMATION. I WONDER WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IF YOU REALLY HAD THE TRUTH OF THE EVENTS OF 916

12/ WE KNEW FROM WHENCE YOU WERE GETTING YOUR INFORMATION BECAUSE WE LET LEAK ERRONEOUS INFORMATION TO JUST TWO PEOPLE AND THEN DETERMINED WHO THE LEAKER WAS. WHO WILL GO UNNAMED HERE

SO, JEFF OLD BUDDY. IF ANYONE WAS/IS ON THE TAKE IT IS THE SUB CONTRACTOR.
\
HERE IS A FACT THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE

BACK IN JANUARY OF 2002 ROBOTICS STIPULATED THAT THEY HAVE

"A 24/7 HOTLINE TO THE ROBOTIC HOME OFFICE AND TO THE APPROPRIATE TECHNICAL CONTACT FOR GE"

THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS SET UP AS PER THE "TECHNICIAN" ROBOTICS ON SITE. AS EARLY AS THREE WEEKS AGO.

SO JEFF YOU NOW HAVE ANOTHER ANSWER

I MAY OR MAY NOT ANSWER YOUR FUTURE QUESTIONS BUT THEN YOU CAN KEEP TRYING

ALL I, AM, TRYING TO DO IS GIVE YOU THE FACTS BUT IT SEEMS THAT YOU ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT WHAT I WAS DOING AND TO WHOM. YOUR SO CALLED ASSUMPTIONS OR WHAT YOU THINK IS TRUE ARE FALSE WILL ALWAYS BE FALSE.

STAY WELL.

ANSWER THIS ONE

DO YOU STILL LIVE ON FIRST STREET OR IS IT GARDEN STREET

AND DO YOU STILL VOTE.

DP [return to Pellicano questions]

Why was the HPA dissolved?

Amazing

You should know the answer to that simple question

It is called MONEY.

The administration could not get the HPA money. The only way to do it was to disband the authority and then the City became the UTILITY.

WITH THAT THEY GAINED ACCESS TO SOME $14,000,000 MILLION Dollars. They also became the owners of all the property.


The garages on Hudson Street. Estimated value is over $30,000,000 MILLION

The garage at Midtown. Estimated value is over 25,000,000. Million


the property at wonderful and exciting, (cynical) 916 which could be worth over $10,000,000


then the City under the auspices of the AUTHORITY went ahead and

refinanced the debt, which we will really start paying, either next year or the year after. They included all of the properties with a new bond refinancing. Including the Midtown garage, that was financed at a very good rate, and the term had just started.

But then the gurus decided that they should include the midtown.
The refinancing, including the Hudson Street garages, (and they only had about 5 or 6 years remaining on the debt service.

They bonding came to over $35,000,000 Million for 30 years.

Included was 916 that had and still has a 5,000,000% construction loan. That means that only the interest was being paid on that facility. The others included interest and principal.

916 was refinanced for 5,500,000 Million.

What I meant by really paying is simple

All of the refinancing payments in the first three years (could be 4) was for INTEREST ONLY. So we can look forward to a potential tax increase to pay for it.

That is the real reason why the Authority was eliminated.

As an aside, there were two members of the Local Finance Board, who said that they would prefer to vote NO on the disbanding of the Authority. But the deal was already struck and the board voted to abolish the HPA

As to why I was relieved. Actually I was relieved of any responsibility in September or was sit October of 2001.

Since the Authority was no longer in existence there were no more commissioners

So what I \said at the time. when I was notified, well in advance of the actual abolishing of the HPA.
Two good things will come out of the cancellation

1. The top spot will be replaced. That took three years
2. The chair will no longer have anything to say or do. I was not the chair.

I am certain that you can find out who the chair was.

So, here we are with another question being answered____________________________________________________

I would like an answer to one or two.

You owe me that much

1. Why did you write the anatomy of a Scandal

2. Ask Haag to tell you about his so called patent, or go to the web and get a copy of the patent. I got it. Lot of words with no technology

3. Then ask him how many technology companies he used to get the garage running (????) that he calls automated, WITH AN ATTENDANT.

Either way, if I do not hear from you before Christmas. Have a Happy Christmas

DP

3. [return to Pellicano questions]

If they had 'no technology' as claimed, why was Robotic reinstated on the project?

WELL

MAYBE IT IS TIME FOR ME TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS

BUT I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ANYWAY

IT IS SIMPLE.

SURETY WAS CONFRONTED WITH A DILEMMA. WHAT WOULD BE THE CHEAPEST AND LESS TROUBLESOME METHOD TO

TRY AND FINISH THE JOB THAT WAS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2000, WHEN THEY WERE FIRED, WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY OUT $6,300,000.-

AS I STATED IN PREVIOUS ANSWERS, THEY ROBOTIC, WERE FIRED BECAUSE THEY HAD NO TECHNOLOGY TO SPEAK OR.

WHAT I FORGOT WAS THAT THEY STARTED WITH SIEMENS, THEN WENT TO GE AND THEN WENT TO A FIRM IN CALIFORNIA, IN OCTOBER OF 2001. I CANNOT REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND THEN THEY ALSO HAD ANOTHER COMPANY IN THE FACILITY, WITH SO CALLED TECHNOLOGY,

AFTER THAT, THEY WERE BROUGHT BACK ONLY WITH VERY STRINGENT PROVISIONS.
FINISH WHAT THEY AHD STARTED IN 180 DAYS.\SURETY FELT AFTER MUCH AND WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, THAT ROBOTICS WAS THE CHEAPEST WAY TO GO.

AND, CONTRARY TO WHAT HAAG WILL TELL YOU. I TOLD SURETY THAT WE WERE BOTH IN THE SAME B OAT AND TO CONSIDER BRINGING THEM, ROBOTICS BACK

WHAT A MISTAKE

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT LAST WEEK, A PERSONNEL SITUATION CAME ABOUT. A JACKET WAS LEFT ON A PALLET, BY A ROBOTIC EMPLOYEE. THE RESULT WAS THAT THE JACKET GOT CAUGHT UP IN SOME MECHANISM AND THE BUILDING WAS DOWN FOR OVER 2 HOURS,

ASK HAAG WHO WAS TO BLAME

HE IS TELLING THE WORLD THAT IT IS THE HPU, THE CITY AND PREVIOUS HPA COMMISSIONERS, WHO ARE. WERE AT FAULT.

I WILL ASK A QUESTION THE NEXT GO AROUND.

YOUR QUESTION REALLY DID NOT NEED ANOTHER REPLY, BUT OUT OF COURTESY I ANSWERED IT

IN PERVIOUS E. MAIL I, AM, CERTAIN THAT I ADVISED YOU WHY.

DP\

PS

AS EARLY AS THREE WEEKS AGO, A PERSONNEL AT 916 CALLED ME A SNEAKY THIEF. NICE. SHADES OF CHRISTMAS PAST [return to Pellicano questions]

Why were the contractually-stipulated fines for late delivery never paid by the insurer?

THE CONTRACT WIT THE SURETY WAS WITH THE GENERAL AND SURETY

SURETY KEPT STALLING BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO GET TRAMPLED WITH A BIG LAW SUIT.

SO, THEY STRUNG IT OUT WITH EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED BEFORE THEY DECIDED AGAIN AT MY PRODDING) ALLOW ROBOTICS BACK IN
\
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THEY WERE NOT SURE ABOUT ROBOTICS TO BEGIN WITH AND THEN WHEN THE GC FIRES THE KEY SUB CONTRACTOR, THAT WAS THE RED FLAG FOR THE BULL TO CHARGE.

BUT THEY HELD BACK, RIGHTFULLY SO IN MY OPINION. SURETY DID A LOT OF INVESTIGATING AND THEY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY EVEN BEFORE LETTING HAAG BACK INTO THE BUILDING.

JUST THE AGREEMENTS ALONE TOOK WEEKS BECAUSE ROBOTICS KEPT INSISTING ABOUT ADDITIONAL CLAUSES, AND ADDITIONAL TERMS THAT THEY WANTED.

LIKE THE SURETY WOULD INTERCEDE IN THEIR BEHALF WITH THE HPA TO ALLOW SIGNS, VISITORS, PICTURES, AND MORE IN THE FACILITY

WE SAID NO WAY JUST THE INCSURANCE ALONE PREVENTED ANYONE OTHER THAN STAF PERSONNEL COULD GO INSIDE.

BUT THEN ROBOTICS WILL TELL YOU DIFFERENTLY.

WHEN THE HPA WAS DISSOLVED IT WAS UP TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO COLLECT THE PENALTY, BUT THEY LET EVERYBODY OFF THE HOOK

DO BE IT

NEXT

DP [return to Pellicano questions]

What was your relationship with Belcor, and why was Robotics hired, if they had 'no technology'?

WELL

IF YOU WANT TO PRINT THE REPORT WITH MY COMMENTS INCLUDED, I WOULD APPRECIATE THE COURTESY OF READING IT FIRST.

AS FOR THE ROBOTIC SITUATION

THEY WERE FIRED IN OCTOBER (OFFICIALLY) OF 2000.

STARTING ON OCTOBER 10â?? 2000 THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR (BELCOR) BROUGHT IN AT LEAST FOUR COMPANIES THAT HE HAD CONTACTED TO FINALIZE THE JOB AT 816. Â ONE FROM GERMANY ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. Â UNKNOWN TO US BELCOR WAS IN GERMANY WHEN ROBOTICS WAS FIRED. Â THEY WERE WORKING WITH A GERMAN COMPANY (NAME ESCAPES ME TO COME IN AND GIVE US A REVIEW OF WHAT THEY WOULD DO.

THEN THERE WERE OTHER COMPANIES, WHO ALSO HAD THE SAME BASIC INTEREST. Â ALL OF THIS TOOK TIME

WHAT IS NOT PUBLISHED BY ROBOTICS, IS SIMPLE

THEY (ROBOTICS) WERE NOT THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR

THEY WERE SIMPLY PUT ANOTHER SUB CONTRACTOR. Â THEY HAD THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY AS THE CARPENTERS, THE ELECTRICIANS, AND EVERY NONE ELSE.

THE HPA AGREEMENT (A BID DOCUMENT) WAS WITH BELCOR.

ROBOTICS BECAME THE "TECHNOLOGY" CONTRACTOR BY ALMOST DEFAULT. Â ROBOTICS WAS THE SUB CONTRACTOR THAT BELCOR ARRANGED TO HAVE AS THEIR SUB. Â

CONTRARY TO WHAT ROBOTICS HAS SAID, PRINTED AND STILL CLAIMS. Â THEY DID NOT SIGN ANYTHING WITH THE HPA AND THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BID OTHER THAN TO BE THE SUB THAT WOULD SUPPLY THE TECHNOLOGY.

SO, THE HPA WAS CONFRONTED WITH A LEGAL SITUATION (BELIEVE IT OR NOT) WHEREIN WE HAD TO STAY WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AS THEY HAD ALL THE RIGHTS TO NAME ANYONE AS A SUB CONTRACTOR.

AND THAT IS CLEARLY SPELLED OUT IN THE BID DOCUMENT.

THE HPA COULD NOT SPEND ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS, OVER AND ABOVE THE ORIGINAL BID, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF GOING TO BID AGAIN, OR AGREE TO ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT.

SO, WE COULD ONLY LISTEN TO THE PROPOSALS/

DURING THIS PERIOD, WE (MOSTLY ME) MET CONSTANTLY WITH SURETY TO GET THEM TO FINANCE THE NEEDED ADDITIONAL FUNDS. Â THEY BALKED STATING THAT THEY COULD NOT TAKE A CHANCE ON MORE

\UNKNOWN, TECHNOLOGY AND COSTS ATTACHED TO ANOTHER WHAT WAS DESCRIBED AND STILL IS, A DEBACLE.

SO, WE WERE STUCK, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WAS STUCK, SURETY WAS STUCK/

ALL BECAUSE ROBOTICS SAID THEY HAD TECHNOLOGY BUT THEY COULD NOT DELIVER ANYTHING DURING THE PERIOD THEY WERE IN THE FACILITY.

ALL OF THIS ONL.Y ADDED TO THE TIME LOST. Â THE MONIES LOST WITHOUT AN OPERATIONAL FACILITY.

AND WE HPA, HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONTINUE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL. Â WHAT WERE WE TO DO? Â WE NEEDED THE LAWYERS. WE HAD TO CONTINUE WITH CONSULTANTS AND OTHERS TO KEEP US INFORMED ABOUT ANYTHING RELATING TO ROBOTICS.

WHEN I (YES ME) WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE SURETY THAT THEY (SURETY AND THE HPA DID NOT HAVE MUCH ALTERNATIVE BUT TO TRY AND GET EITHER ANOTHER COMPANY (WHICH SURETY WAS VERY APPREHENSIVE ABOUT OR PERMIT ROBOTICS BACK INTO THE BUILDING

SURETY THEN DETERMINED THAT THEY WOULD RETAIN AN EXPERT TO REVIEW THE "TECHNOLOGY" THAT ROBOTICS CLAIMED TO HAVE (CHECK THEIR PATENT ON LINE) AND YOU WILL FIND THAT IT IS A LOT OF WORDS AND IDEAS BUT NO TECHNOLOGY OR HOW TO.

SO SURETY RETAINED A DOCTOR GUNTHER SHARPE, FROM ATLANTA) GEORGIA. Â HE CAME IN AND SPENT ALMOST TWO OR WAS IT THREE MONTHS WITH ROBOTICS TO REVIEW AND DETERMINE WHAT THEY HAD WOULD WORK

THIS WAS SURETY'S IDEA, AND WE AGREED TO THE PLAN.

FRANKLY I NEVER SAW THE FINAL REPORT FROM DOCTOR SHARPE.

BUT I DID SEE HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT ROBOTICS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BACK INTO THE BUILDING, WITHOUT DIRECT SUPERVISION.

HIS RECOMMENDATION WAS RETROTECH.

SO SURETY RETAINED RETROTECH. Â ROBOTICS WILL TELL YOU THAT RETROTECH GAVE THEM A RECOMMENDATION WITH A LETTER DATED SOMETIME MAY OF 2001.

WHAT ROBOTICS WILL NOT TELL YOU IS THAT THE SAME COMPANY STATED IN WRITING SOMETIME WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED THEIR REVIEWS, THAT

IN THEIR OPINION, THE TECHNOLOGY WASCODE AS YOU GO

AND THEY WERE THE SECOND CONSULTANTS THAT TOLD US THAT.

YOU CAN FILL IN THE BLANKS.

SURETY WAS RIGHT IN THEIR SITUATION TO THINK THAT THEIR WAS NO TECHNOLOGY, BUT THEY WERE WILLING TO SPEND THE MONEY ANYWAY, UP FRONT RATHER THAN PAY THE HPA $6,000,000.

AND WE AGREED, UNFORTUNATELY.

SO YOU NOW HAVE THE SCENARIO FROM OCTOBER OF 2000 TO WHEN ROBOTICS WAS PERMITTED BACK INTO THEIR BUILDING, ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2001. ALMOST ONE YEAR

WHAT ROBOTICS WILL NOT TELL YOU, ALSO, IS THE FACT THAT THERE WERE THREE CONTRACTS OF AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAD TO AGREE TO BEFORE THEY COULD MOVE A FINGER AT 916

ONE WAS AN AGREEMENT WITH SURETY, ROBOTICS AND RETROTECH WHEREIN ROBOTICS AGREED THAT RETROTECH WOULD BE THE CONTRACTOR AT THE SITE THAT THEY (ROBOTICS) WOULD REPORT TO.

ROBOTICS WILL SAY THAT THEY HAD TO REPORT TO NO ONE. Â REALLY.
DOES ANYONE THINK THAT AFTER WE WERE BURNED FOR ALMOST 6,000,999 OF WHICH $3,000,000. WAS PAID TO ROBOTICS THINK THAT WE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE THE PRIMARY

YOUR SMARTER THAN THAT.

THE SECOND AGREEMENT WAS WITH ROBOTICS AND SURETY WHEREIN ROBOTICS AGREED TO MANY CLAUSES, THAT ARE TOO NUMEROUS AND FRANKLY THAT I DO NOT REMEMBER SO I DO NOT WANT TO GUESS AT THEM. Â ONE WAS HOWEVER, IN ROBOTICS OPINION WAS IMPORTANT

THEY WANTED APPROVAL TO PUT UP A SIGN THAT READ ROBOTICS

THEY WANTED APPROVAL TO BRING PEOPLE (POTENTIAL CLIENTS) INTO THEIR BUILDING. Â
THESE WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE JOB ITSELF. Â AUTOMATED PARKING. Â YET THEIR REPORT TO THE HPA BACK IN EARLY OR MIDDLE OF 1998 STATED Â Â Â no attendant required

THEY ALSO HAD TO SIGN A TAKEOVER AGREEMENT WITH THE HPA. Â THIS AGREEMENT STIPULATED (THEIR TIME FRAME, NOT HPA) THAT THEY WOULD COMPLETE THE JOB IN 180-DAYS.

WE REFUSED TO AGREE TO ANY SIGNS, ADMISSION TO THE BUILDING OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD PUT THE HPA AT RISK FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT WORK.

BUT ROBOTICS, BEAT US AT THIS CLAUS ANYWAY BY HANGING A BANNER INSIDE THE BUILDING THAT WAS 20/30 FEET LONG AND ABOUT 5/8 FEET HIGH.

THEY ALSO, MOSTLY AT NIGHT, ARRANGE TO SHOW THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING TO OTHER POTENTIAL SUCKERS (OOPS) CLIENTS.

THEY STARTED SEPTEMBER 10, 2001, AND WERE NOT FINISHED UNTIL NEXT MAY OR JUNE.

FROM SEPTEMBER OF 2001, I WAS JUST ANOTHER LOWLY COMMISSIONER, BECAUSE THE NEW ADMINISTRATION WAS IN AND I WAS OUT OF THE LOOP.

THAT WAS FINE WITH ME.

WHEN THE NEW COMMISSIONERS GOT THEIR FEET WET WITH THE LIKES OF GERHARD HAAG THEY TOO SAID THE SAME THING

CODE AS YOU GO. Â BUT PROMISES WERE MADE AND THE MONIES SPENT WERE NOT TAXPAYER FUNDS. THEY WERE ALL HPA RESIDUAL FUNDS.
SO THE BEAT WENT ON AT 16 AND SOMETIMES 24 HOURS A DAY, SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS INCLUDED. Â YET IT TOOK THEM WELL OVER THE 180 DAYS AND WORKING DOUBLE AND TRIPLE TIME IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THEM 90 DAYS ON THE OUTSIDE. Â REMEMBER IN OCTOBER OF 200 THEY STATED THAT IF THEY WERE ALLOWED BACK INTO THE FACILITY THEY COULD COMPLETE THE JOB IN 50/54 DAYS

SO THE NEW COMMISSIONERS, AND I HAVE EMAILS THAT STATE. WHEN AND IF THE JOB IS COMPLETED, WE WILL SUE HIS ASS OFF.

THAT'S THE STORY JEFF/.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT BUT BELIEVING IS REALLY THE WAY TO GO BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE GAVE YOU CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT WAS VERY MISLEADING AND THEY

DID NOT GIVE YOU

ALL OF THE INFORMATION
I Â Â HAVE AND DID,

YOUR REPORT ABOUT ANATOMY OF A SCANDAL, WOULD NOT PERMIT TO SUE ANYONE BECAUSE I WAS CONSIDERED A PUBLIC FIGURE.

TOO BAD, BECAUSE 1) I WAS NOT BORN IN HOBOKEN AS YOU SAY ON PAGE 15.
2) I NEVER TOOK A DIME FROM BELCOR, ROBOTICS OR ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. Â IF I DID I WOULD BE LIVING HIGH OFF THE HOG.
3) MY ASSOCIATION WITH BELCOR WAS STRICTLY BUSINESS AND WHEN HE GAVE ME, YEAR ONE, A BASKET OF FRUIT, I GAVE THE ENTIRE BASKET, LESS THE WINE BOTTLE TO THE HPA.

4) AND THE ONLY PERK THAT I TOOK WAS A LUNCH NOW AND THEN WITH A CONSULTANT.

5) AND FINALLY -- WHEN I SHAVE THEN AND NOW I COULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND NOT CUT MY THROAT/.

YOURS FOR THE TRUTH.

DP [return to Pellicano questions]

Why was Robotic fired?

you might as well hit print now. since this is very long
first

There is no argument. You are asking the questions and I am giving you the answers. The sense of courtesy is somewhat missing here.

But then I will answer your questions since you need the facts. And if the truth is not helping then that is your decision to believe whoever you want

Why was robotics fired?

1. The contract called for the completion of the facility within 365 days. No more but if it came in less that was fine with us.

2. Robotics had made arrangements with Siemens to give them, or they would buy it, the technology they needed to make the facility work

3. In October or sometime in late 1998 Siemens advised robotics that Siemens would not be available for any advice, licensing agreement, with Robotics

4., Robotics had to scramble to get a company with systems that had technology to move equipment

5. Robotics signed a license agreement with GE for their Simplicity program at a cost of $600,000.-

6. In other words Robotics had an idea that did not have the technology.

7. Robotics will claim that they were stymied at every turn by everyone but themselves.
8. The General Contractor was noticed to give the HPA a schedule for completion sometime in February or thereabouts (I do not have any files, so the date is somewhat from memory). This was in 2000, well beyond the 365 days.

9. The new completion date for Robotics was now July 2000. that came and went and robotics was in the facility doing whatever they had to do all during this time,

10. The HPA was in a catch 22. Continue or Stop. We had to continue, since we had paid
robotics and yes the General Contractor a lot of the 6,000,000 million contract. And a great portion went to Robotics.

11. Sometime in August or September of 2000 we were again notified by the General Contractor and ALSO ROBOTICS that they would start to test cars in the facility, around September 15, 2000.

12. The HPA immediately went into high gear.

13. We notified the over 1000 applicants that there would be a drawing for the 324 spaces on September 26, 2000.

14. Then we determined that there should be a full blown public relations campaign for the first vehicle to go into the first automated garage in the United States.
The General Contractor was elated.

15. We even ordered a plaque to comerate the date. The plaque was order, with RUSH DELIVERY, so that it could be unveiled at the ceremony.

16. We put into the works, the closing of the street and all other necessary details. At the time Meadowlands Associated (Anthony Amabilie) was our PR consultant and he was ready to notify every major newspaper in the country, including TV and Radio

17. September came, we were ready. Robotics was not.

18, Unbeknownst to us Robotics sent a letter (that was resurrected when law suits were being discussed) stating that they were not ready and needed another 7.8 or more weeks to finish.

19. The General contractor was on the hook for $2000 a day if the facility did not open and HE now was in a serious financial bind.

20. THE HPA DID NOT KNOW that the General Contractor was going to fire Robotics.

21. It came to light when we received a cop;y of a letter dated in September of 2000 advising robotics to vacate the premises and that they were fired.

22. The General Contractor was making arrangements to bring in another CONTRACTOR (which is what Robotics was) to complete the job.,

23. This is what the bid stated and our arrangement was with the General Contractor, NOT ROBOTICS.

24. So we had to work with the GC. Otherwise we would be out millions.
And the GC would also be out more monies that they anticipated. They were already out of pocket payments over and above what they anticipated. And most of that was as a result of Robotics not being ready. Yes, robotics will say that they could not finish the job because the steel was not fabricated properly. Rubbish.

25. Or they would say that there were a myriad of other reasons that they could not finish.

26. What were they doing with their so called Technology?

Allow me to introduce here another point. Robotics either called or wrote to GE fori advise and help AFTER they were dismissed.

Strange that the correspondence, two letterers, dated OCTOBER 6, (or thereabouts) that GE could not do anything to assist robotics because GE did not know what Robotics did with the GE Simplicity program.

Note the dates,

fired late September 2000

They vacate the premises, TAKING THE COMPUTER WITH THEM. October 5 (or thereabouts) from the facility.

They (Robotics) claimed that the computer was theirs. They had perviously stated that they were at level 2 or whatever that meant with the technology.

27/When they were permitted to address the Authority (against the advice of legal counsel) but a commissioner stated that we would allow them to give their side of the story.

They said that they were at level 2. When a question was posed to them as to what was in the computer, that they brought to the meeting.

Robotics stated that THE COMPUTER CONTAINED LEVEL 1. Note level 1 not 2.

28. Our agreement was with The GC not Robotics. We had no alternative but to work with the General Contractor, as advised by legal counsel.

So, we did and we also instituted the daily penalty of $2000.

So you ask why were they fired.

Simple. A major technical company (retained by Surety) stated, in writing that they concluded that the technology they investigated in 2001, was

CODE AS YOU GO.

But I was the commissioner who got surety to allow robotics back into the facility, not the disgruntled commissioner who was feeding other information that was confidential.

You have most of it in your report on the 916 facility where I am accused of being on the take.

NEVER.

So, now you can answer the question and give YOUR opinion about the facade and now the firing of Robotics, or you can continue to ask questions that you will no doubt discuss with your buddy at robotics.

Let me know.

Yours for a better 916. And you should know all of the problems at 916 since opening day. And yours for less taxation for 916

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sequence

Contract let December 1998

HPA signs papers for $5,000,000 Construction loan, December 1998

Work to begin January 1999.

No work going on.

No permits being secured.

February 1999. Robotics advised Contractor that they CANNOT meet the timing requirements stipulated in the Bid document.

As a sub contractor they are held liable for all of the required standards in the Bid.

1999, March or thereabouts, work starts.

December 31, 1999 nothing completed

2000. Work continues with completion date, FOR THE TECHNOLOGY at July 2000.

July 21, 2000, noting.;

August, noting

September 20 or 30, 2000 Robotics is fired. after they (Robotics) advised that they would be ready for testing on September 15, 2000

October 6, 2000. Letters from GE

October 10, 2000. Meeting with General Contractor and Robotics to discuss what plans are ready to complete the facility. Robotics given the courtesy to give their side of the issue.

Robotics pleads for reentry into the garage with the promise that they can COMPLETE, the job in 54 days. Note that is October 2000.

They were allowed back into the facility on September 10, 2001, with a completion date, THEY SELECTED of 180 days @ 8 hours per day, their terms.

They actually worked @ 16 and sometimes 24 hours a day, or should have completed in 89 days

Note. October 2000 complete in 54 days
September 2001, started @ 180 days.

February 2002, roughly 180 days or even April of 2001. NOTHING.

So, I have informed you over and above what you think you have regarding the firing of Robotics.

What is also important is that the Commissioners, ALL SEVEN OF US. along with Legal Counsel, Engineers, consultants, after very serious deliberations determined that it was in the best interests of the CITY and the HPA to sell the garage.

We did, But robotics financial backer, backed out and the City released robotics from the sale.

And here we are today with the same problems. A facility that require AN ATTENDANT to be on duty, whereas the literature and the Robotic web site stipulates

NO ATTENDANT REQUIRED.

Amazing

Next. And the courtesy of your opinion would be appreciated. [return to Pellicano questions]

Why is the facade of the finished garage so different from the comps that were shown to the public?

WRONG

THE FACADE WAS INITIALLY DESIGNED TO BLEND IN WITH THE SURROUNDING HOMES AND THE ENTIRE AREA

THE ARCHITECTS WERE INSTRUCTED TO MAKE THE FACADE LOOK LIKE AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT STYLES BUT TO TRY AND MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE AREA

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THE NEIGHBORS ADVISED THE HPA THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE THE DRAWINGS.
SO, WE APPOINTED DEAN MARCHETTO TO DESIGN THE FACADE, AND HE DID

PICTURES WERE TAKEN AND SENT TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS ON GARDEN STREET AND THEY WERE ASKED TO SELECT THE SCHEME THEY LIKE THE BEST

THE FIRST SCHEME OR THE SECOND SCHEME WHICH WAS MARCHETTOS DRAWING

THE UNANIMOUS DECISION WAS FOR THE SECOND SCHEME, MARCHETTO

THE FIRST DRAWING WAS ACTUALLY CHEAPER THAT THE SECOND AND THE COSTS FOR THE BRICKS WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE FIRST, SINCE MARCHETTO DID NOT SPEC A CHEAP BRICK.

IF YOU HAD THE DOCUMENTS YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE ORDER PUT THROUGH FOR THE ADDITIONAL COSTS APPLICABLE TO THE NEW DESIGN

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE HPA DID NOT MAKE THE DECISION AND THE HPA SAID TO THE NEIGHBORS OK

ASS FOR THE CURRENT FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

IT IS STILL COMPLETE.

AND FOR ROBOTICS. HE CLAIMS THE HE DESIGNED AND BUILT 916

IF YOU HAD ASKED THE SAME QUESTION BACK IN 1999/2000 YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE FACTS, NOT THE WORDS OR EVEN DOCUMENTS THAT YOU CLAIM ARE APPLICABLE

NOW MY TURN. IF YOU HAVE DOCUMENTS THEN SUBMIT THEM SO THAT WE CAN BOTH KNOW WHAT YOU ARE USING FOR YOUR FACTS THAT ARE NOT REALLY FACTUAL.

DP

AND I KNOW YOUR TRUE NAME

SO LETS CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. I HAVE NOT OPENLY CALLED YOU A LIAR. YOU ARE USING INFORMATION THAT IS ONE SIDED AND THAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A LIAR IT DOES MAKE YOU SUSPECT.

I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR CONSTERNATION WHEN A COMMISSIONER ADVISES SO CALLED EVIDENCE. OR WAS IT AN EMPLOYEE WHO GAVE YOU ALL THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE REGARDING 916.

EITHER WAY IF YOU STILL WANT THE TRUTH, AS I SAID NEXT.

PS

I FORGOT THE DOORS

THE DOORS WERE LEFT OFF OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING SO THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE TO BID ON THEM.

THEY WERE TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUILDING'
WE WERE ADVISED THAT 'NO ATTENDANT WOULD BE REQUIRED"

ALSO THEY STATED THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITY WOULD BE VERY NOMINAL IF AT ALL.


ROBOTICS KNOWS ALL ABOUT THE DOORS SINCE THEY WERE ON THE SITE WITH THE APPROVAL OF SURETY AND THE HPA, WHEN ADDITIONAL QUOTES WERE REQUESTED TO INSTALL THE DOORS

WHY THE DOORS. SIMPLE. WE FELT THAT WITH AN AUTOMATED FACILITY IT WOULD BE PRUDENT AND SAFER IF THE DOORS WERE INSTALLED AND USED AT NIGHT, WHEN SUPPOSEDLY THERE WOULD BE

NO ATTENDANT AT THE SIGHT.

THE BIDS ARE AT THE HPA AND ROBOTICS KNOWS ALL ABOUT THEM.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT DRAWINGS YOU HAVE SO IF YOU WANT TO SEND THEM TO ME, COPIES OR OTHERWISE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

AS SOF THREATS. THEY ARE COMING FROM YOU WITH STATEMENTS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOTHERED WITH THE ISSUES IF I DO NOT ANSWER YOUR EMAILS

I DO NOT LIVE BY THE COMPUTER. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WEEKS GO BY THAT I, AM, EVEN CHECKING ANYTHING

REMEMBER, I, AM, INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS OF HOBOKEN., JUST 916 SINCE THAT IS THE RAPE OF HOBOKEN

DP [return to Pellicano questions]

A few years ago, we did some pro-bono work for the startup tech company that designed the automated mechanism enabling Hoboken's automated parking garage at 916 Garden. They were under attack from corrupt city officials & their allies (who wanted to co-opt the idea and present it as their own). Compounding this was a local paper's publisher & editor (the Hoboken Reporter) who printed front-page statements they knew to be false, in order not to antagonize the powers-that-were at that time. Robotic was taken off the project, then reinstated a year later when the then-Hoboken Parking Authority could not make good on promises to get the facility operational. (The paper, for its part, refused to run any statements by Robotic for 18 months.) Once reinstated, Robotic finished the garage.

We were not compensated (nor did we expect to be) for several months (total hours) work. We eventually were issued stock options to be cashed at the equivalent monetary value of the services. At this moment we have no way of knowing whether the options will in fact be valued at the cost of lost wages (that's the nature of such options and startups, they may turn out to be worthless).

All this is by way of explaining our relationship with the company: Open and cordial, but essentially uncompensated. [return to top]

UPDATE: This post is frequently hit, and there has been a great deal of new information gathered since the report was written. To know more, email mistersnitch@hotmail.com. Please state the reason for your inquiry when writing, and identify yourself. (Otherwise we will not respond, as this matter generates a certain amount of crank emails.)

Categories: Hoboken+parking