• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time for some TRAFFIC!

I can't believe this was a Rube Goldberg plot to change the development scheme. From the emails, it sounds like the mayor was the target, but probably for some other reason than because he didn't endorse Christie.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
I can't believe this was a Rube Goldberg plot to change the development scheme. From the emails, it sounds like the mayor was the target, but probably for some other reason than because he didn't endorse Christie.
Click to expand...

You're ruling out the two explanations I've heard. Do you have a better one?

It might be the non-endorsement was one of two or more reasons.

If you're just saying it wasn't the sole reason, ok.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
You're ruling out the two explanations I've heard. Do you have a better one?

It might be the non-endorsement was one of two or more reasons.

If you're just saying it wasn't the sole reason, ok.
Click to expand...

Another possible explanation is that they just did this kind of thing all the time just as a general show of force, and it didn't take much for Christie to send his goons after someone. Think King Geoffrey.
 
Puppycow said:
You're ruling out the two explanations I've heard. Do you have a better one?

It might be the non-endorsement was one of two or more reasons.

If you're just saying it wasn't the sole reason, ok.
Click to expand...

I'm not ruling anything out. Quite a few informed people think the idea of a vendetta because the mayor didn't endorse Christie does not add up. That accords with my intuition. But, clearly the mayor was a target of resentment for some reason.

This story interests me because it doesn't make sense, and I suspect there's something we don't know yet.

It could be purely personal, arising from disparaging comments made by the mayor that fed into a rumor mill.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Partisan? Does that change the facts they are reporting on?
Click to expand...

It doesn't change the facts if they are the facts. I think there's a good chance they're right. But a Democratic Party site might not be as reliable or objective a source as, say, the NY Times or the Bergen County Record, any more than a Republican site could be relied on for a straightforward report on the mayor of Hoboken. A possible bias needs to be recognized.
 
The Port Authority isn't going to pay Wildstein's legal bills. I wonder how long he can hold out now before talking.
 
BenBurch said:
He'll sing like a Soprano quickly enough. If he lives.
Click to expand...

I know you're joking (sort of), but seriously, if the guy met with "an accident" before he could spill his guts it would be an even worse P.R. nightmare for Christie.
 
Could someone explain how temporarily shutting down bridge lanes would result in a developer being unable to secure financing for a nearby project? Why would a bank or group of investors care about temporary traffic snarls before a project broke ground?

Please know that I'm a structural engineer and am familiar with the bidding process of projects that run in the $100 million+ range. Technical terms are perfectly okay. :)
 
Newtons Bit said:
Could someone explain how temporarily shutting down bridge lanes would result in a developer being unable to secure financing for a nearby project? Why would a bank or group of investors care about temporary traffic snarls before a project broke ground?

Please know that I'm a structural engineer and am familiar with the bidding process of projects that run in the $100 million+ range. Technical terms are perfectly okay. :)
Click to expand...

I'm sure all the investigations into this matter will provide you with answers to these questions... and then some.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Could someone explain how temporarily shutting down bridge lanes would result in a developer being unable to secure financing for a nearby project? Why would a bank or group of investors care about temporary traffic snarls before a project broke ground?

Please know that I'm a structural engineer and am familiar with the bidding process of projects that run in the $100 million+ range. Technical terms are perfectly okay. :)
Click to expand...

It's actually still a mystery WHY they did this, so until they get Wildstein under oath with some immunity it's all guesswork, but Christie open wondered why Fort Lee should have three lanes at all.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jerse...christie-claims-3-lanes-george-washington-br/

The fact that one town has three lanes dedicated to it, that kind of gets me sauced," Christie said Dec. 2 in response to Democratic lawmakers subpoenaing the director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey -- which operates the bridge -- to appear before a state Assembly committee about the lane closures from Sept. 9-13. The closures caused massive traffic jams in Fort Lee, leaving some drivers stranded for hours.
Click to expand...

So while a temporary closure of two of the three lanes wouldn't scuttle a development, a permanent closure, with the display of gridlock that occurred during this stunt, likely would.

So if you were putting pressure on a mayor to do something in particular with regards to a real estate development, demonstrating your ability and willingness to kill the project would be effective.

But, it's all a guess. This whole episode is just baffling. All we know for sure is that everyone in Christie's office knew (except Christie, who we suspect) and that they did it on purpose to cause a traffic jam.
 
I think the first and simplest explanation will turn out to be the correct one.

It doesn't have to be well thought-out (and in hindsight, it obviously wasn't).

The King Joffrey theory mentioned by Unabogie above feels right to me. It was a habit to punish people who went against Christie (and conversely to reward supporters) and this is the lever that someone thought of to use.

There's a certain kind of person who always has to have the last word in everything, and simply cannot let any perceived slight, no matter how small or inconsequential, go unanswered. Even if it's just a random person on the street heckling him.
 
Newtons Bit said:
So you don't know how this scheme was supposed to work... you could have just said that plainly.
Click to expand...
And you could have just said regardless of the facts, you'll stick with the most favorable Christie narrative.

Steve Kornacki Floats New Theory About Chris Christie's Bridge Scandal
As Kornacki explains, the closure of two of the three access lanes may have been part of a larger effort to shut them down for good, which could have significantly diminished potential investors' interest in the project. Close the lanes, and the entire project could be derailed.
Click to expand...
More than one comment was made from the Christie camp involved that Fort Lee didn't need three exit lanes from the bridge. And it makes a lot more sense there was a financial and a bigger political motive here than just petty revenge against Mayor Sokolich.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
I think the first and simplest explanation will turn out to be the correct one. ...
Click to expand...
Let's see, petty political payback or sabotage of the competitor for a lucrative government contract?

Ignorance (which Christie is not) or clever and cutthroat?


Hmmmm, which is more likely? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
And you could have just said regardless of the facts, you'll stick with the most favorable Christie narrative.
Click to expand...

Don't bother applying for Randi's million, your mind reading skill sucks.

Steve Kornacki Floats New Theory About Chris Christie's Bridge Scandal
More than one comment was made from the Christie camp involved that Fort Lee didn't need three exit lanes from the bridge. And it makes a lot more sense there was a financial and a bigger political motive here than just petty revenge against Mayor Sokolich.
Click to expand...

The article you linked posited three different theories for the lane closures. You've posted another link in this thread stating that the lane closures was to help Larry Silverstein. You might know of him, he's the guy that the "Truthers" claim intentionally "pulled" WTC7 for profit. The conspiracy theorists in that group claim that a new investigation will reveal how Larry Silverstein did it. Hmm... awfully similar to Mattus' remark, isn't it?

Can you answer, without resulting to "an investigation will reveal it", how the temporary lane closures in the link you posted were supposed to effect the financing of a future project?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Let's see, petty political payback or sabotage of the competitor for a lucrative government contract?

Ignorance (which Christie is not) or clever and cutthroat?


Hmmmm, which is more likely? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think the former one. Mind you, I didn't say that the idea originated with Christie himself (although it's possible). Ignorance doesn't really come into it, it's that they thought they could get away with it. Regardless of which motivation, the likelihood of getting caught is the same. So the latter is actually no more "clever" than the former.
 
Newtons Bit said:
.....
Can you answer, without resulting to "an investigation will reveal it", how the temporary lane closures in the link you posted were supposed to effect the financing of a future project?
Click to expand...

The bridge closing occurred during final negotiations for next-stage financing of a billion-dollar project. The unproven speculation is that if investors believed/were led to believe that the lane closings could be permanent, the value of the property would plummet and investors would pull out, creating new opportunities for Christie and/or his cronies.
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ss..._billion_development_project_in_fort_lee.html
http://www.msnbc.com/steve-kornacki/the-bridgegate-theory-you-havent-heard
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ll-be-examined-in-lawmakers-bridge-probe.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom