Re: Property Taxes will increase as Jersey City introduces $507 Million budget
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Everyone probably agrees with this statement - at least in theory. But the minute tough decisions start being made, people are going to be up in arms because of how it affects "them". Has anyone ever stopped to wonder if our officials keep getting elected again and again because they actually do give the people what they want? On every level, most people will complain about government as a whole, but when asked about their own representatives, they will tell you theirs is different than all the rest. I venture to guess that each of our respective council members is very calculating about making sure that his or her personal constituents are getting just enough to keep them satisfied; or at least not dissatisfied enough to avoid a "throw the bums out" attitude. For example, ever really wondered why there hasn't been a revaluation in over 20 years? The last time it happened, the citizenry had a tizzy. Just ask some of the old timers. They are still pissed about the last revaluation. So why not just continue to push the burden off to the "rich" people moving into downtown? The newbies still don't consider Jersey City as home; it's just where they sleep. And because of this, they don't come out to vote. And when it all comes down to it, it's all about those who actually come out to the polls. We can scream and shout, bitch and moan, and show up to council meetings and call them every name in the book all we want. What do they care? What we don't do in numbers, is vote. So as long as the same minority, who are likely getting something out of the current system, are the only people that come out to vote, then don't look for anything to change. I'm not suggesting that people refrain from speaking up; at council meeting, at rallies or whatever. I just think time might be better spent rallying our neighbors to care enough to pay attention and eventually get out there and vote - in numbers. We have to convince people that this is their home. Yes many of us may work and play a great deal in NYC, but we still "live" here. And if we want better quality of life where we have our residence, then we need to pay attention and get out the vote. Venting at council meetings is not really harnessing the energy our frustration creates. I think working to get out the vote, however, is.
Posted on: 2010/1/19 14:01
|
|||
|
Re: Advocates want to Connect/Incorporate the PATH with 4 or 6 train
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
From what information I gathered, the width of the new PATH cars is 9' 2 3/4", the IRT (Numbered Lines and Grand Central Shuttles) cars are 8' 9" and the BMT/IND (Lettered Lines) are approximately 10'.
This seems like it could be an issue. And why the need to actually connect the lines when an integrated fare would be a much simpler solution? Metrocards can remember transfers from buses to trains, so it could be programmed for free transfers between the PATH and the Subway system. This seems much more cost effective to me.
Posted on: 2009/12/10 20:58
|
|||
|
Re: Newark Avenue StreetScape
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
My guess is that the jackhammering is part of repaving Newark Ave. The city has taken to paving streets overnight as it is less disruptive to traffic.
Yes it's noisy and annoying, but they do the exact same thing in Manhattan. We often say we want JC to act more like the city;well be careful what you ask for. As for construction time rules - those who make the rules often break them. Is that fair or even legal; probably not, but whatcha going to do?
Posted on: 2009/9/15 14:38
|
|||
|
Re: Five Guys in JC
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I know it's off topic, but I so wish Muscle Maker was going to be a Chipotle instead.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 0:38
|
|||
|
Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Hmmmm...very first post "defending" Vega. But here's an answer to your question anyway. New Jersey, (especially Hudson County and Jersey City) have been saturated in the culture of corruption for such a long time that the politicians became desensitized and thought that this is how it works and that they simply wouldn't get caught; mostly because they thought no one really cared or was really looking into it. It's gone on this long, why should it change now? At least that's how I assume they looked at it. This should not really be a shock to anyone here. The old timers in this city are simply used to the backroom dealing and just sort of live with it. Some might even see it as quaint. The problem for the politicians is that they got greedy and started to see bigger opportunities in front of them. The more development that came into the city, the more opportunities there were for making more money. But these new developments are bringing in a different demographic. Those who are paying the outrageous (albeit abated) property taxes actually expect something for their money. Alas, many of these people haven't made the jump to seeing Jersey City as their home; it's just the place they sleep. And our election officials have been counting on this. But this isn't the case for everyone who has moved over here and more and more people are paying attention. And those who are paying attention have likely begun to make enough noise that those at higher levels (ie, the FBI) started paying closer attention. The irony in all of this is that the people who are now being brought down unknowingly created the very atmosphere that facilitated it. Talk about falling on ones own petard.
Posted on: 2009/7/24 15:29
|
|||
|
Re: Michael Anthony\'s at Newport Marina
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
So my partner and I went decided to check out this place for a light dinner last night. We went there at about 8 pm and sat at the bar outside. It was an absolutely beautiful night and the view was spectacular. The front open air portion of this place is really quite a selling point.
The first thing my partner asked as we sat down was, "Do you have a cocktail list?" The bartender responded that they had only been open 7 days and were still working things out. Hmmmmm, excuses from the get go? So I asked the bartender what types of white wine they served by the glass and they had two; Chardonnay and Pinot Grigio. So I said, "No Reisling" and he instructed me I could get a bottle of it. I realize he didn't mention Reisling when I first asked, but I thought I would at least try. Plus, asking for something different gives them the message that they need to expand what they serve by the glass. Since they didn't have the wine I wanted by the glass, I ordered a different drink (which was heavier on the pour than I like, but that's another story altogether as I find this is often the case with many bartenders). So we look at the menu and decide on an appetizer and a pasta to share. For the appetizer, we ordered three cheeses (Aged Ricotta, Taleggio and Gruyere - $7). It was delivered to us without any bread, crackers or crustini. Now I will admit that the menu didn't promise this, but every restaurant I've ordered a cheese plate from comes with a small bit of some type of bread. And on top of it, the only cheese that I really enjoyed was the Gruyere. I will, however, say that I don't completely blame them for this. I realize that I very likely got served exactly what I ordered, and I simply didn't care for it that much. At just about the time we were finishing our cheese plate, the bartender sat down a "basket" of bread in front of us. Great timing. The bread came with canned plum tomatos that had been dumped on a small plate. Really? By this time we had ordered our second round of drinks. My partner switched from a cocktail from his first round and got a glass of the Pinot Grigio. I will admit that Pinot Grigio is not always my favorite wine in the world, but when I took a sip of it, I really disliked it. I thought it had almost a vinegary aftertaste. He didn't mind it so much, but I thought it was crap wine. So there we sat, and sat and sat. Remember, we had ordered a pasta dish as well (Gnocchi Bava (Home Made) - Four Cheese Fondue - $11). After a while, we both commented that it seemed like we probably weren't going to get our order. Pretty soon, two of the bartenders and a person I assume was a manager started to have a whispering conversation about orders that had come out and the bartender that served us pointed at us. When that conversation ended, he came over to apologize and said our order had been taken to the wrong place. We had been there at least an hour by this time and really no longer wanted the pasta; so we told him to simply cancel the order. By this time he was very apologetic and told us because of our inconvenience, our last round of drinks were on the house. Okay, they are new and getting their crap together, I can empathize and live with a free drink. At this point, however, he takes away the glass I had sitting in front of me, which was down to the bottom, but which I was still nursing, and in a few minutes comes back with another drink. Now here's the thing, I had no intention of ordering another drink; nor did my partner. When he was about finished with his glass of wine, the bartender asked if he wanted another and he said no. The bartender asked again reminding him that it is on the house. My partner said no. So we get the bill and although we didn't have to pay for the pasta we never got, we paid for 4 drinks. Evidently the free drinks were only if we took another one. Since I accepted the third drink without portest, I can't complain. My partner, however, just got screwed. And honestly, I left almost the entire third drink on the bar as I really didn't want it anyway. I realize newly open restaurants have issues they need to get ironed out. I also realize that the owners are trying to maximize their profits. But, forcing us to have another drink and pretending like they were giving us something in return for their screw ups was disingenuous. That one shot of vanilla vodka and ginger ale that they served me in a double old fashioned costs them nearly nothing, yet they made sure they charged us for our full two rounds marked up at what I'm sure is 100% or more. I can't think this is a really good way to build customer loyalty. I admit, I will probably go back at some point, but not likely anytime in the near future (unless it's just for drinks). We will go back because of that beautiful view, but that's only going to get them so far. I wish them luck, but I think they are going to have to make some changes quickly, or luck isn't going to be enough I fear.
Posted on: 2009/7/20 12:55
|
|||
|
Re: VERIZON FIOS
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Thanks for the help.
They just started broadcasting in HD a couple of weeks ago, so I"m sure it will take time for carriers to pick it up.
Posted on: 2009/7/5 17:22
|
|||
|
Re: VERIZON FIOS
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I have a question for anyone who has switched from Comcast to Fios. Do you get MSNBC?
Thanks in advance for anyone who can help.
Posted on: 2009/7/4 20:07
|
|||
|
Re: ????Info on obtaining R1 driveway variance???
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Really? You think that once he or she moves that car that this spot is going to sit empty? Have you lived here very long? The main problem with allowing curb cuts, and thus private driveways, is that this area is now the domain of the property owner and no one else gets access to it. It's true that once parked, the car is on private property. So if you can get your car from the street to your property without taking away a portion of public property, then by all means do so. But to think that you have a right to take away public access simply because you own what's on the other side of it is arrogant. It would be like a condo owner expanding his or her unit out into the hallway simply because they want a bigger place. And believe me, I often think this city is nothing but a huge pit of corruption and crime (petty and not so petty), but I also think that a huge part of this is because way too many people are always looking out only for ourselves. The politicians are looking out for themselves and their friends and families, the developers are looking at their own best interest, stupid kids who commit petty crimes are only thinking of "what's fun" when they are doing so, etc. Even those who commit much more serious crimes are doing so because they think this is their best option in getting what they want out of life. Curb cuts are just another example of this. Hey, as long as I get my parking space that no one else can park in and I don't have to worry about finding a spot with all the other people, what do I care?
Posted on: 2009/6/26 14:41
|
|||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Update
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
My guess is that they are installing a rain collection tank that will either allow them to "reclaim" the rain water and be used for irrigation or to slow down the rate that runoff from rain storms gets released into the the city sewer system. I would lean towards the later as the city needs to find ways from keeping the sewers from becoming overwhelmed so quickly. The less water rushing into the system every time it rains, the less basement flooding (at least in theory).
Posted on: 2009/5/21 11:47
|
|||
|
Re: New Path Trains
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It may not be the same train each time however. They are testing cars so they could be rotating trains or even mixing and matching new cars. They did the same thing when they rolled out the new cars on the NYC Subway.
Posted on: 2009/5/20 12:41
|
|||
|
Re: Healy was a runaway winner in every ward -- More than double amount of nearest challenger
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I have to say, I think Healy is a poor excuse as the mayor of JC and I certainly did not vote for him.
And not to hijack this thread, but I cannot believe there is not more outrage over the re-election of the three At Large Council seats. I'm not a great fan of Mariano Vega, but I kind of expected him to win. I outright dislike Brennan, and my feeling about him getting re-elected is really sadness more than anything else. But Willie Flood? REALLY?!? My head wants to explode on this one. Who voted for this woman? I mean, if you weren't paying attention, you could have possibly not known of Mayor Healy's antics over the years. There are many people that don't read newspapers. But Willie Flood made it on the TV (twice). It was some pretty big news at the time, and yet she gets re-elected. I don't understand it. And it makes living in JC very distasteful to me.
Posted on: 2009/5/19 13:03
|
|||
|
Re: Letters to the Editor: City must not re-elect mayor
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Folks, Healy has to get more than 50% of the vote from the May 12th election to win outright. If he receives less than 50% of the vote, he and the next highest vote getter will have a runoff election some time in June.
So voting for anyone but Healy could help keep him from getting the 50% he needs to win. Then it's just a matter of who gets the second highest number of votes. Since we have the 50+ rule, I really wish we could go to the instant runoff style of election. In that scenario, one votes for his/her first choice and then votes for a second choice if the first has not chance of winning. So in my case, I could vote for Levin and cast my second choice as Manzo. That way, once it was clear that Levin did not get enough votes to be in the runoff election, my vote would automatically go for Manzo. Healy vs Manzo in a June runoff is what I likely see happening. It would sure save a lot of time and money if we didn't have to have another election.
Posted on: 2009/5/11 13:49
|
|||
|
Re: My choice for Mayor and Council on May 12, 2009...
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Dan Levin for Mayor (Manzo if it comes down to a runoff between him and Healy)
Steven Fulop for Ward E Andrew Hubsch for At Large Emilio DeLia for At Large Still undecided on third At Large
Posted on: 2009/5/11 3:16
|
|||
|
Re: 'World class' waterfront park planned for Paulus Hook
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
The Waterfront Parks Conservancy is the group responsible for this. They are a group of local residents who form a group specifically for five plots of park land along the waterfront in Paulus Hook.
First, let me start by saying that I hope their vision comes to fruition, but I have my doubts. The five parcels of land that they are interested in developing into a cohesive park are all owned by different entities. The State of New Jersey owns some, Jersey City owns some, Liberty State Park owns some and the Colgate Property Owners Association owns some. As a matter of fact, the portion owned by the Colgate Property Owners Association doesn't even seem to be part of the renditions they have posted online. That park is being renovated in the coming months and I don't think the Association has any interest in giving up any control they have over this property. I also believe that they have no buy in, let alone any commitments, from any of the other remaining property owners. My best guess is that the City might be the lone party with some interest because they are often looking for ways to not have to cough up any money. But the other owners of these parcels of land probably aren't going to be so quick to turn over control to an outside group. Again, I hope that I am wrong, but I have my doubts. Finally, having been part of the gestation of this group, and knowing some of the shenanigans that went on during that time, I have some serious doubts that the organization is put together well enough to be able to cut through all of the red tape to get this done. One member in particular (who has a great deal of power in the organization) doesn't do very well when things don't go his way. He tends to throw fits and storm out of meetings. I can only imagine what is going to happen when this moves from a planning concept with lovely designs on paper to actual dealings with all of the governmental agencies and the other owners of this land. About the second or third time one or more of these entities pushes back, the afore mentioned person will probably become apoplectic and his head is likely to explode. I know I sound cynical, but I lived it. So let's hope a miracle happens and that they actually surprise me and accomplish their goal. It would be good for my neighborhood of Paulus Hook and Jersey City as a whole.
Posted on: 2009/4/23 13:25
|
|||
|
Re: Liberty Towers Gourmet
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I went and got a salad from there for lunch today. It's like a mini grocery store.
As someone who lives just a couple blocks away, I can say I'm pretty excited about it. Although I wouldn't do my grocery shopping there, it will be a great resource for when I've run out of something or forgot to pick it up when I've gone to A&P. And I don't have to drive!
Posted on: 2009/4/8 19:29
|
|||
|
Re: Vote drops ed budget in state's hands - JC Board of Ed fails to pass a budget for the 2009-10 ye
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I think there is a bit of a disconnect here between what is perceived and what is reality. First and foremost, there are abatements, and then there are PILOTs. Abatements are a 25% decrease in regular property taxes, over a 5 year period, given to those who make significant improvement to their properties. It is a way for municipalities to encourage residents to improve their property. These are also given to small developments that are either new or rehabilitations of older properties. Simply put, it is the same tax formula used for everyone else; minus 25%. So if your property is already abated and the taxes in the city rise 40%, then your taxes rise by 40%. Yes, you still pay 25% less than the fully assessed value, but you do not escape any increases.
PILOTs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) are a whole other animal. These are deals (where as taxes are kept at a steady level over a long term) struck with large developers as incentives to get them to build in less than desirable areas. But that is not how they are used in Jersey City. Since city government is essentially one great big patronage machine, our elected officials continually have to find new ways to keep the Ponzi scheme that is our local government afloat. And it is a Ponzi scheme because it can?t sustain itself. When the city continues to bloat its payroll with relatives of elected officials and continue such practices as handing out promotions like they are candy (which adds vast sums of money that the city has to pay towards pension funds), they have to find ways of increasing revenue to keep the whole system from collapsing upon itself. PILOTs have been that answer in the last few years. The city has offered developers PILOTs on all large scale projects whether they meet the intention of the law or not. It is not illegal what the city is doing, but it is not how the program was intended. Since, the city gets 95% of all moneys collected via PILOTs (5% goes to the county and none to the schools), they have chosen this route to pay for the ever increasing annual budget deficits. T-bird seems, at least to me, be suggesting that the tax payers are divided into two camps. First there are those with abatements who pay a lot of money that goes directly to the city. In this the city makes out fairly well and the taxpayer is assured of a fairly even tax bill over the long haul. The city loves it, of course, because they get the lion?s share of the revenue and the taxpayer can live with the relatively large bill because he or she knows what it?s going to be upfront and that it will stay that way. The second scenario, as I?m understanding it from his or her posts, is that those without abatements are sort of freeloaders who pay lesser taxes on property that has elevated immensely in value over the last few years. I?m gathering that there is some resentment over the fact that Jersey City hasn?t had a revaluation in 20+ years and that there is a feeling that he or she is unfairly burdened by a relatively large tax bill. Yvonne, on the other hand, seems to be lumping all abatements together; deeming them all evil. It is not that simple however. Paying property taxes not only supports the city, it also supports the county and the schools. Those with abatements are paying a portion of all three entities. Those with PILOTs, however, are not. In addition, those with abatements don?t get them without making significant improvement to their property; thus raising the assessed value and causing the taxes to go up. These are not people who have lived here twenty years and are paying minimal taxes on property that has skyrocketed in value simply because of its location. Yes there are plenty of people in Jersey City who fall in the later category, but not all. This is an issue that would be solved by a revaluation (which I?m actually all for). I completely understand feeling some resentment about paying higher taxes than people who own property that is worth far more than mine. I live in a wood frame building that was built in the 1880s. In 2002, the property consisted of 10 rental units and the annual tax bill was just over $12,000. In 2003, the building was converted into 9 condo units and thus the city was allowed by law to reassess each unit individually. We purchased a 1000 sq ft unit in 2003 and our property tax bill that year was right around $8,000. Mind you, nothing significantly changed on the property, it just now fell under new tax laws. As I stated, in 2003 the tax bill for the entire building was just over $12,000 and in 2003 the tax bill for all the units combined was just over $53,000 and nothing changed but the way that the building could be assessed by the city. I know people who own an entire brick row house that pay around $2,000 per year. If they were to sell that property today, they would likely make a profit that I would never see, but they are still evaluated on rates set 20 some odd years ago. But the amount I pay, no matter how inequitable I think it is, has nothing to do with how that money is distributed. Abated properties and those without abatements are supporting the city, the county and the schools. Those with PILOTs are not. So when the State looks at Jersey City and determines that property values and income levels have risen greatly, and they are still footing over 80% of the cost Jersey City schools, they are rightfully going to begin to question why? And once they realize there really is no good reason (the city giving out PILOTs is not a legitimate reason as that?s not the States problem), they are going to alter their formulas. And that?s what is beginning to happen now. So yes, T-bird, all of those units with PILOTs are becoming a burden to the rest of Jersey City residents. As the State continues to expect Jersey City residents to take on more of the burden of paying for its school system, it?s going to be all of us without PILOTs who take up the slack. And it?s not just going to be people who?ve live here forever and have ridiculously low taxes compared to the value of their property. So on one hand you are correct in that those with PILOTs pump a great amount of money into the City of Jersey City. But you are also bringing up the property values, which is good on one hand, but could kill growth because it could cause everyone else without a PILOT to no longer be able to afford living here (including someone like me who currently lives relatively comfortably). And this is where Yvonne is correct. She is simply pointing out that the City?s use of PILOTs, to continue to fill budget holes, is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It?s slight of hand maneuvers that are not based in reality, nor is it sustainable (and yes I know I mixed my metaphors). Yes the budget for the school system is horrific, but it is just a symptom of the culture that pervades Jersey City and even Hudson County as a whole. You can?t look at them piecemeal; they are all intertwined. So sure, those with PILOTs are paying a lot in taxes, but the way that system is set up is not helping the overall situation. It has been simply keeping City officials from dealing with reality; until now. Paying for Jersey City schools is all of our collective responsibility whether we have children in those schools or not. Fortunately my building has never been on fire, but I still pay for the cost of running Fire Department. It?s paying now for something I might need in the future. And the same is true for education. Failure to properly educate young people today has consequences for everyone, not just parents. We cannot cordon ourselves off from those the poor and uneducated effectively enough to assure we are secure. It doesn?t work that way no matter how much we wish we could. We, as a society, have to let go of the ?if only? mentality. We don?t get to live life based on how we think it should be, we have to live it based on how it is. It is the only way we are ever going to effectively change those aspects that don?t work. Expecting people to suddenly behave in ways that they don?t know how, simply because we say that they are supposed to, doesn?t work. Just because I am aware that there are other ways of living doesn?t make that my reality. I hear Spanish spoken around me all of the time, but that doesn?t mean I know how to speak it myself. I wasn?t raised in a Spanish speaking household nor immersed in a Spanish speaking culture. Therefore the only way for me to learn Spanish is to go to a place where that is all they speak, or have someone teach me. We have bad schools, because we think it?s not our problem. ?They?re not my children; it?s the parents? responsibility.? But a lot of these parents were never taught responsibility themselves, so they can?t pass on what they don?t possess themselves. You can?t pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you don?t even know you own boots. If we as citizens don?t like the way things work, then we have to accept things as they are and then get involved in fixing it. Nothing will ever change by simply pointing out how things aren?t going the way they should and railing against it. It doesn?t matter if things are going the way we want them to or not. We have to deal with it as it is and work from that basis to change it. And that is going to require us all to look at the whole and change the paradigm. Bitch about it all you want, but until we all get involved, on all levels (including seeing ourselves as partially responsible for altering the lives of children that are not our own), then nothing will change. Do what you?ve always done; get what you?ve always got.
Posted on: 2009/4/8 16:48
|
|||
|
Nominations For 2 Top Science Posts Halted by N.J. Senator in Unrelated Fight
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
As stated in the article below from the Washington Post, Senator Robert Menendez has placed a hold on the nominations of two science advisors for on climate change and other environmental issues for completely unrelated reasons.
Evidently, Senator Menendez is using this situation as ?as leverage to get Senate leaders? attention for a matter related to Cuba.? If there is anyone else on this board who thinks that climate change and the environment are issues where playing politics isn't such a good idea, please contact Senator Menendez's office. The contact numbers are as follows: 317 Senate Hart Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202.224.4744 202.228.2197 fax One Gateway Center, Suite 1100 Newark, New Jersey 07102 973.645.3030 973.645.0502 fax 208 White Horse Pike, Suite 18 Barrington, New Jersey 08007 856.757.5353 856.546.1526 fax *********************************************** Nominations on Hold For 2 Top Science Posts Votes on Physicist and Marine Biologist Halted by N.J. Senator in Unrelated Fight The delayed votes on John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco have alarmed scientific experts who strongly back the two academics. (Keith Srakocic - AP) By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 3, 2009; Page A03 The nominations of two of President Obama's top science advisers have stalled in the Senate, according to several sources, posing a challenge to the administration as it seeks to frame new policies on climate change and other environmental issues. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has placed a ?hold? that blocks votes on confirming Harvard University physicist John Holdren, who is in line to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, Obama's nominee to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. According to sources who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the matter, Menendez is using the holds as leverage to get Senate leaders' attention for a matter related to Cuba rather than questioning the nominees' credentials. Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said of Menendez's objections, "We will work to try to address any concerns that he may have." The delay -- which could end quickly if Menendez dropped his objection or Senate leaders pushed for a floor vote that would require 60 votes to pass -- has alarmed environmentalists and scientific experts who strongly back Holdren and Lubchenco. "Climate change damages our oceans more every day we fail to act," said Michael Hirshfield, chief scientist for the advocacy group Oceana. "We need these two supremely qualified individuals on the job yesterday." Stanford University professor Stephen H. Schneider said it was critical that Holdren take office as soon as possible, because "I know no others who bring the triple-play capability of John on security, energy and environment." Menendez spokesman Afshin Mohamadi declined to comment on the matter, writing in an e-mail, "It is our office's policy not to speculate or comment on anonymous holds or rumors of anonymous holds, across the board." The delay comes as a slew of international officials are coming to Washington this week to meet with administration officials and members of Congress about addressing global warming. The lineup of foreign dignitaries includes Edward Miliband, Britain's secretary of state for energy and climate change; Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's minister for climate and energy; Jim Prentice, Canada's environment minister; Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, who is managing negotiations for a new treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions; and former British prime minister Tony Blair. Holdren and Lubchenco had a relatively friendly hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on Feb. 12, and an administration official said yesterday that he anticipated the nominations would make it to a floor vote. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) challenged several dire environmental predictions Holdren made a few decades ago, but the senator did not block the Senate panel from endorsing his nomination last month. Spokesman Jamie Smith said committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) is urging swift confirmation of Holdren and Lubchenco because "there is much work to be done and no time to waste."
Posted on: 2009/3/3 15:21
|
|||
|
Re: New Jersey is encouraging people to vote by mail this election
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
You can go to the County Clerk's office and fill out an application there and get an absentee ballot on the spot.
Then you can fill your ballot out and walk it over to the Board of Elections' office at 595 Newark Ave. It's basically right next door to the Court House where the County Clerk's office is located. I did this for the primaries because I was going to be out of town. It was pretty painless and it took maybe half an hour. And...I know that my ballot was actually received.
Posted on: 2008/10/27 12:48
|
|||
|
Re: 2008 Street paving - Councilman Steven Fulop
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
If I recall correctly, when Grand Street was paved a couple of years ago, it, like Christopher Columbus, was paid for with grant money; it was not part of the normal paving program. At the time, Macco had just started construction on Liberty Harbor and had taken up the far right lane of Grand. This is why Grove to Jersey was never paved.
This subject was broached both at the Downtown Construction Committee meetings as well as the HPHA. We were specifically told by a city employee who works in this area (I will gladly tell you in private who this was, but I won't name him or her here because he or she is not at fault) that the decision was made to skip these two blocks because it would be too much for Macco to remove all of his barriers and that the brand new paving would be in jeopardy from all of the construction work. We were, however, promised that these two blocks of Grand would be paved as soon as the major construction was completed on Liberty Harbor. Additionally, we were assured that it would certainly happen because it was already paid for. Also, within the last year, the intersection at Grand and Grove was completely dug up for what I believe was utility connections for Gull's Cove. This was done just after Marin was repaved. And Marin, I believe, was paved with State money as well. Of course, the city didn't make the contractors repair the street using the city's stated standards and the patch job they did was sub par. So a newly paved street is now back to the condition it was before it was repaved (at least at Grand and Marin). This mess could also be fixed at the same time, killing two birds with one stone. Please follow up on this. We should not have to wait for the next round of paving to get the last unpaved section of Grand done. If the city got a grant and the job was never completed, then they need to make sure that it gets done.
Posted on: 2008/6/27 12:12
|
|||
|
Re: Councilman Steven Fulop - Jersey City Summer 2008 Update
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Steve,
At the last HPHA meeting, the Summer 2008 Street Paving list was made available. I am happy to see that Grand, between Jersey and Marin will finally get paved. I do, though, wonder why Christopher Columbus is not on the list. Columbus was touted by the city as the main artery to get traffic from the Turnpike to the waterfront. It is in such bad shape, however, that I think that people likely avoid it as much as possible. I know when we exit the turn pike, we get off of Columbus as soon as possible simply due to the condition of the roadway. If people are indeed avoiding Columbus, that means they are driving on the smaller surface roads and into the residential neighborhoods. I cannot believe that this is faster, but it sure is less stress on a vehicle. Any chance Columbus will be done sooner than later?
Posted on: 2008/6/19 12:55
|
|||
|
Re: Morris Canal basin development?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Although I have no idea what is specifically planned for this site, I am fairly certain that it is part of the Liberty Harbor North project.
If I am correct in that, then the entire Morris Canal waterfront is slated for highrises. Google Liberty Harbor North and you can find renderings and master plans online. Like these: http://www.dpz.com/project.aspx?Proje ... Name=Liberty+Harbor+North http://www.jcedc.org/new/libertyharbornorthresidential.html
Posted on: 2008/4/30 13:59
|
|||
|
Re: Favorite NYC Italian Restaurant?
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
We were recently introduced to Volare on West 4th Street just east of 6th Ave. It's a little hole in the wall joint that has some of the best Italian food I've ever had.
They have many things on the menu, but if you don't find anything you like, they'll make what you request. I wish I would have known about this place for the last 17 years or so I've lived in the NYC area.
Posted on: 2008/4/3 15:43
|
|||
|
Voter Registration Initiative
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Here is some information I wanted to pass along:
The Historic Paulus Hook Association, in conjunction with the Downtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations is launching a voter registration initiative called JCVote.org. This initiative is being launched because Ward E has among the fewest registered voters of all districts in the city. Why does this matter? Politicians are able to look at voting trends broken down as low as a block by block level. Logically, they, in turn, focus their resources and energies in those areas that vote. Voters are who keep them in office and thusly they are the ones who need to be kept the happiest. Essentially we should count on the fact that our elected officials won?t listen to us as closely if we fail to vote. And since our voting numbers are low, we shouldn't be surprised that our priorities are not necessarily the City Council or the Mayor's priorities. JCVote.org was created to change that trend. If you wish to participate in voter registration, check out www.jcvote.org/volunteer.
Posted on: 2007/9/11 20:54
|
|||
|
Re: Transportation Study
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Since I believe the main goal of this study is create the most efficient way to get large numbers of vehicles to the waterfront, I believe Option 2 is the one we want.
Option 3 dumps the traffic into Bergen-Lafayette. Dumping traffic into the middle of a growing residential neighborhood just doesn't seem logical. Option 4 takes people much further north than many of them need to go. Washington Street in Newport is already a mess. I cannot imagine adding more traffic to it. This leaves us with Options 1 and 2. Both would get the traffic to roughly the same area, but one would have much less of a negative impact than the other. Option 2 gets people to Columbus Blvd which is large enough to handle greater volumes of traffic. Christopher Columbus Drive is a 6 lane road, and along with Greene Street, which was specifically redesigned and widened to handle volumes of traffic to the waterfront, would be a better artery coming off of the Christopher Columbus exit of the Turnpike (redesigning the exit, so that it goes over the street traffic on Centre between Grand and Montgomery, and exits onto CC Drive). Option 1 (a bridge over the Morris Canal on Jersey Ave) would dump traffic on streets that do not have the capacity to handle large volumes of traffic (as does Columbus). Because of the narrower streets and the larger number of traffic lights, traffic is far more likely to get snarled, thus causing back ups. This goes against the goal of efficiency that this study looks to create. Option 2 is child friendly. If the city chooses Option 1 it would affect 2500+ school children - many of whom already suffer from asthma, walking to and from school during rush hour. Schools include PS 3/MS4, Learning Community Charter School, the Boys and Girls Club, OLC, St. Peter's Prep, PS 16, Kenmare High School at the York Street Project. These are not just our own children, but children from every walk of life from every section of Jersey City. Option 2 takes safety into account. Option 1 would bring large volumes of traffic past the Jersey City Medical Center: Increased traffic would impact ambulances and other medical center traffic. Option 1 would also direct traffic past a busy Fire House (Engine Company 2): Increased traffic passing the firehouse on Grand at Van Vorst complicates traffic patterns when the fire engine exits and reenters the station. Option 2 is the clearer option for all drivers. Grand Street is not a truck route and having traffic exit onto and/or cross Grand Street would only likely confuse truckers and cause undue stress on historic buildings in Van Vorst as these trucks would have to pass through this neighborhood to reach Columbus (the designated truck route). Option 2 is the most cost efficient. Although I recognize that in financial terms, Option 2 costs slightly more money upfront, the cost of quality of life and safety must be factored in. Additionally, the long term negative affect on streets that were not designed to handle large volumes of traffic (as well as potential property damage to historic structures) could end up costing far more in the long run. I believe that choosing Option 1 because it appears to be more cost effective up front is short term thinking that will have much longer term financial affects that haven't even been considered.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 12:04
|
|||
|
Re: Montgomery Greene Condo Bldg
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Considering that they can't seem to get it finished added to the crappy curtain wall panels that stand in for walls, I'd keep praying that they pass the date when you could legally back out of your contract.
Seriously, the brick is actually tiles and the walls are essentially paper thin with little insulation. I'm not sure I'd feel to great about the integrity of the stucture and I sure wouldn't want to pay the heat and a/c bills. People love to comment on the crap new construction in this city. This building takes the cake as best as I can tell. Other than that, I have no idea when people will begin moving in. Every milestone date that they give at the construction committee meetings is basically never kept. They're time frame seems to be "when ever we feel like it."
Posted on: 2007/1/30 16:58
|
|||
|
Re: Fulop: Vega and Lipski rake in developer $$$
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I believe Steve has voted for some abatements. The two that come to my mind are The Beacon and The American Can Company project. I believe that both of these projects received 30 year deals (with The Beacon receiving multiple PILOTs). The difference between those Steve supported and those he voted against is wholly based on whether the area of the city where a particular project is being build needs incentives to attract developers or not. The "Gold Coast", as it is referred to by many throughout the area, no longer qualifies as an area in need of incentives. Giving handouts (in the form of PILOTs) to developers to build in areas where they would likely build anyway is simply corporate welfare at best and a system of quid quo pro in the worst case scenario. And as much as the "pro-business" class loves to rail against social welfare, I would think that they would also rail against corporate welfare (at least in theory). Aren't the market forces supposed to hash all of this out? Isn't giving incentives to business in areas where no incentives are needed in a way not letting the market dictate things? Social conservatives love to point out that the "welfare state" keeps individuals from taking responsibility for their own lives and keeps them stuck in patterns where they are always expecting a hand out. But can't the same thing be said for continually handing out money to businesses? Aren't we in a sense saying we believe in the free market system all the while we are artificially propping it up? The suggestion that ending the practice of giving PILOTs to properties along the waterfront is going to halt future development is laughable. These large developers aren't building to do Jersey City any favors. They come, and continue to come, because they see a lucrative market for their product. Most of them chose JC and make plans and then ask for the PILOTs later. They simply ask because they know that our city government just can?t say no (not only to PILOTs, but to a whole host of other things). We've reached critical mass on development on or near the waterfront. We have to stop acting as if these people will simply pick up their toys and leave if we stand up for ourselves. We've gone from encouraging development in this city to simply being doormats. And when and if we wish to stop being doormats, it's going to be up to us to put a stop to it, because those who are walking all over us aren't going to change on their own.
Posted on: 2007/1/24 20:42
|
|||
|
Re: Jersey City developers defy housing slowdown - A dozen rental and condo projects under way downt
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
The housing slow down is referring to sales, not necessarily rentals. There aren't less people who need places to live, there are simply less prospective home owners.
I suspect that some of the buildings that might have been conceived as condos will flip to rentals before it is all over. Believe me, I worked for a fairly large real estate developer in NYC a few years ago. Once the demand for more rentals (versus condos) rises in the city, so will the rents themselves. It will still be cheaper to rent a place over here.
Posted on: 2006/11/9 20:35
|
|||
|
Re: New face of public housing - 72 homes in the Lafayette section of Jersey City
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
|
I wrote the following in another thread, but I'm posting it here again because it applies to the subject at hand.
First of all I know it's long. sometimes, though, things cannot be reduced so that they are easy, quick and sound bite ready. If every problem was as simple as some people make them out to be, then we likely would have solved them long before now. Secondly, I've tweaked the old post so it makes more sense in the context of this thread. I just wanted to be upfront about that. Quote:
Posted on: 2006/7/28 13:28
|
|||
|