JERSEY CITY LIST - Message Forum

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts (Iwitness)

Bottom

« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 »

Iwitness

Re: Van Vorst Park Dog Run

#121

Home away from home

Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
The real question is, is that really a dog-run? It's like 50 square feet. It's a dog-standaround really.

It's better than nothing. I'd go as far as to say it's the biggest public dog run in Downtown Jersey City.

Although it really is a shame that it was split between large and small breeds, considering that I've seen the small breed half used maybe twice in my life. What a waste.

Mr. Parkechov, tear down this fence!

Posted on: 2009/8/10 21:47

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: SLY PATH COP CANS WOLFPACK OF 'MUGGERS' - Port Authority cop corralled a crew of gang-bangers

#122

Home away from home

Quote:

NewHeights wrote:

Philidelphia and Miami are two east coast cities that allow the right to carry. do you feel less safe when you visit these cities?

Absolutely yes.

And thanks for citing your sources for all these figures you're throwing out.

Posted on: 2009/8/10 18:38

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: An Open Letter to You, My PATH Nemesis

#123

Home away from home

Quote:

elvis wrote:
Quote:
OH no. oh no. Do not even go there.

Finally a sane person shows up. I almost did a double take, like I read his post wrong. If anything, Iwitness is closer to the truth. I was just pointing out the opportunities are out there. Yes, the ladies haven't gotten full equality just yet, but we are making strides. To imply they have it better because of alimony and maternity leave is off-the-mark.

Iwitness, I see your point and its valid, but you have to admit, 50 years ago, women had it much worse.

They sure did. I'll still give up my seat and hold the doors open, though. Because they still go through shit I will never have to, including but not limited to childbirth.

Posted on: 2009/8/7 15:49

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Tenants could be on street -- \"hardship\" increases possible if owner not getting \"fair return\"

#124

Home away from home

Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
The way I see it:

1. Bernie has either been ignorant or arrogant to believe that he was going to live out his life in that apartment. Probably a bit of both. I highly doubt this is the first time his residence in that building has been challenged.

Challenged how? Who is "challenging" his residency?

Quote:

2. If I fell on tough times and was ousted from my home no one would care, but that's ok. I have a backup plan - I don't want any ones welfare or sympathy. Sometimes things don't go as planned and we have to adjust - hopefully coming out stronger and better. Of course.... this doesn't apply to Bernie now or 20 years ago.

I hate that we suddenly blame the faceless landlord instead of questioning the responsibility of the cute old guy. As usual, this is one side of the story and everyone runs with their bleeding hearts. I am as liberal as they get... but I don't ignore personal responsibility.

What personal irresponsibility is Bernie exhibiting? That he relied on the well-settled laws of the community in which he has lived for decades to offer the protections they are designed to afford tenants?

But the faceless landlord, who is actually named Joseph Ehrman, and had a chance to give his side of the story but declined to comment from his home in Lakewood, should get to shirk responsibility for accepting (and writing off) the loss of his poor investment?

Posted on: 2009/8/4 14:57

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: JC Gets Money $4.6 Mil to Repave Newark Ave Between Coles & Tonnelle! (Also Sip; Kennedy to Berg

#125

Home away from home

Quote:

alanwright wrote:
Quote:

Iwitness wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
City Plans Highway Through Downtown
Residents hoping for a freshly pave Columbus Drive may be dismayed to learn they will soon be losing a valuable parking as the city prepares to expand the roadway into a five lane highway. The city intends to realign Columbus Drive with six lanes of traffic; during rush hour, parking would be prohibited on one side of the street to create three lanes of traffic in one direction, and two in the opposite direction.
more...

Any citations to a legitimate news source forthcoming?

FOR WHAT?

1. This article is based on conversations with city planners.

2. Blogs are legitimate news sources, as is independent, web-based media such as The Jersey City Independent.

3. Local "traditional" media, such a newspapers, have often shown their business model to be broken... and unwilling/ unable to cover more than sports and petty crime.

Really? Because the "article" never mentions that it is "based on conversations with city planners." It doesn't mention that it's "based on" any source whatsoever, for that matter, save for a well buried "according to Fulop" in the third-to-last paragraph. Journalism 101.

And how do you know it is based on conversations with city planners? Did you write it?

I have no problem with blogs that do their homework and actually report. The blanket statement "blogs are legitimate news sources" doth overstate the case. If a blog wants to be taken seriously, it should act like a grown up and provide some legitimate attributions. Plenty of them do, and it is those that are "legitimate news sources." The act of buying server space and a godaddy url does not legitimize a blog.

It's an insult to the hardworking guys and gals at the Jersey City Independent to mention them in the same breath as the "article" linked above.

Posted on: 2009/8/3 19:59

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: JC Gets Money $4.6 Mil to Repave Newark Ave Between Coles & Tonnelle! (Also Sip; Kennedy to Bergen)

#126

Home away from home

Quote:

Bogart wrote:
There seems to be a pattern of favoring motorists passing through town over residents and people coming here to shop. Why?

Who benefits from this?

I'm not so sure that it's either/or. Most if not all of the residential high-rises on or near the waterfront come with on-site parking that, if not included, is at least an option for residents.

I think the presumption that all who live in Downtown Jersey City commute to work in NYC via PATH, and therefore don't benefit from easier access to the Turnpike, is a misconception.

I know a few couples who chose downtown because one spouse works in manhattan and the other works in Northern NJ. This would seem to benefit them if it makes access to/from the Turnpike easier.

The loss of street parking, by the theory of some, might frustrate enough casual car owners downtown into ditching the car altogether. I think even downtown JC is years away from being the street-parking cluster-eff that hoboken is, and somehow, hoboken's real estate seems to survive.

Posted on: 2009/8/3 19:53

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: JC Gets Money $4.6 Mil to Repave Newark Ave Between Coles & Tonnelle! (Also Sip; Kennedy to Bergen)

#127

Home away from home

Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
City Plans Highway Through Downtown
Residents hoping for a freshly pave Columbus Drive may be dismayed to learn they will soon be losing a valuable parking as the city prepares to expand the roadway into a five lane highway. The city intends to realign Columbus Drive with six lanes of traffic; during rush hour, parking would be prohibited on one side of the street to create three lanes of traffic in one direction, and two in the opposite direction.
more...

Any citations to a legitimate news source forthcoming?

Posted on: 2009/8/3 19:33

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: What Happened to the Trash Cans?

#128

Home away from home

Quote:

Bogart wrote:
This is a microcosm of what's wrong with JC. There's a problem with illegal dumping and rather than dealing with the problem in a way that means more work for the city employees (enforcing the law or investigating and pursuing violations) they remove services from everyone in a fit of pique and further decrease the quality of life for all. Shameful.

Bogart and I haven't exactly hit it off here on JCList, but I gotta give credit where it's due. Thanks for succinctly summing up exactly how I feel on the subject.

Posted on: 2009/8/3 19:17

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: As 2010 Census nears, Jersey City eyes top spot in state

#129

Home away from home

Quote:

Xerxes wrote:
I think it is a given that Jersey City is the largest in the state. THe census will confirm that.

Good to see that your understanding of shifting demographics is rivaled only by your penchant for urban planning.

I think it is a given that, once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:54

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"

#130

Home away from home

Quote:

GnomeGeneral wrote:
Quote:

Iwitness wrote:

The landlord is now looking to have the City give him something he didn't pay for. That's not Capitalism, it's welfare.

So its cool when a large portion of able individuals collect welfare, but not the landlords who earned their ownership of these homes? (Senior citizens excluded) Lets see, who drives the economy more and pays more taxes? I doubt that its the welfare collectors. What's cute is that you just resist responding to my posts after I wished you a nice life. Man, I must really get under your skin.

LOL. It's all good, sweetie. Unlike what seems to be a growing movement of disgruntled posters on here calling for your ouster, I actually welcome your posts, because your daily bile spews remind me of how miserable you are here in Jersey City. And that makes me smile.

Back on topic: so which is it? That you think Capitalism endorses the right to get a better deal than you bargained for, or that you think all welfare (social, corporate, etc) is wrong? If it's the latter, then you oppose the actions of this landlord, right? Or is it a "well poor people get welfare, so everybody should," have-it-both-ways, winking argument?

Or are you just typing without anything real to say, except for a desire to outrage people?

Oh, and the gentleman at the heart of the article is 73 years old. R.I.F.

Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:22

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"

#131

Home away from home

Quote:

GnomeGeneral wrote:
Quote:

teacher wrote:
Maybe you can rent-out a place with this guy and his vases.
Socialism for all! go Obama!

JClist doesn't like capitalism, take your views to the suburbs. City life is reserved for Obama voters only.

It's cute when sensationalist know-nothings toss around terms they don't understand in their quest to sound edgy.

Essential to capitalism is the principle that you get what you pay for, and the bargain prevails. What the landlord who bought this building paid for was a building subject to rent control laws. Factored into this transaction was a price adjustment reflecting the restrictions.

The landlord is now looking to have the City give him something he didn't pay for. That's not Capitalism, it's welfare.

Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:01

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#132

Home away from home

Quote:

stani wrote:
Quote:

Iwitness wrote:

2) There is zero difference in the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" - it is a right guaranteed by our Federal and State Constitutions.

As someone pointed out previously, innocent until proven guilty is not a standard that applies to public opinion, public credibility, ethics, etc. Most of these have to do with the appearance of propriety, fairness, etc. It's a lot looser standard. And that's the issue that's being debated here. We're not in courtroom and we're not a jury. It's just about opinions.

Actually, public opinion operates on no specific standard whatsoever. How convenient it'd be if it did. I didn't choose to frame this discussion in terms of the presumption of innocence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I was just playing the hand I was dealt.

Posted on: 2009/7/30 21:37

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#133

Home away from home

Quote:

Bogart wrote:
Sorry, but your harping on minor procedural issues, claiming they are the heart of the matter, and never addressing my point: Why are the city employees being suspended without pay while Vega stays in office on the grounds that he's innocent until proven guilty? It is nothing but hypocrisy. I'm confident it will soon be resolved in the only way that makes sense: Vega will resign.

The "machine" didn't indict Vega, federal prosecutors did. His ultimate resignation will not threaten the independence of other Council members like Fulop unless you are suggesting that federal prosecutors are controlled by the machine which is absurd under the circumstances.

Your latest attempt to characterize my comments are no more accurate than the first few: I am not "throwing around outrage" any more than I'm writing "vitriol" or pursuing an "agenda." I am asking a pretty simple question and you're throwing up a lot of smoke to obscure it. Why?

Nope. No smoke. Not even a mirror. I'm not the only one who has explained how this works, and if you want to keep talking around it, knock yourself out.

We agree that Vega should resign. You think his not resigning is somehow the Council's fault or Healy's fault. I think his not resigning is squarely and entirely his fault, and the more others are blamed for Vega's choice in this matter, the less accountable he is for his actions.

I, too, would like to have seen the Council have voted for Fulop's gesture calling on him to resign (and think Viola might have if she were present), but I did not expect it to happen. Nor did I expect Healy to call for his resignation. But I don't consider it hypocrisy on anyone's part other than Vega's, that Vega hasn't resigned.

Others in this thread have stated better than I could, DanL notably, and the JCIndependent's editorial did a good job, too, that Vega's position as an elected official is based on the public trust. That trust is shattered.

Btw, I honestly have no idea where you got the second paragraph of your last post. That isn't at all what I was saying. I was trying to illustrate why it's a good, but not always convenient, thing that the Mayor and other council members can't simply force another elected official out of office, using Fulop as an example in a hypothetical situation. Give it another read.

Let's hope the "teachable moment" going on at the White House today is more fruitful than this one, because I really don't think you have understood a word I've written, whether deliberately or unintentionally.

Posted on: 2009/7/30 21:34

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#134

Home away from home

Holding your hand through this conversation is growing tedious, but I'll bite:

1.) The critical inaccuracy I referenced was your statement in post #578, and again restated in your previous post, that the Council suspended the city workers yet did not suspend Vega, and are therefore hypocrites. When corrected on that fallacy, you shrugged it off as "what's the difference?"

And again, in your prior post, you talk about Healy "voting not to ask Vega to resign" and assert that the Council suspended the city employees. Healy doesn't "vote" with the council, he's the Mayor.

Structure of government doesn't seem to be important to you, and I don't think a back-and-forth on JCList is going to impress upon you the various nuances involved in separation of powers and elected office. That you can't be bothered to figure it out doesn't make it unimportant or mere semantics.

2) There is zero difference in the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" - it is a right guaranteed by our Federal and State Constitutions. The difference in at will and appointed city employees being fired or suspended has everything to do with their not being elected/hired directly by the people. Their boss has the discretion to suspend them, as they are not directly accountable to the people, but to him.

The same is not true for elected officials, and for good reason. If elected officials were subject to suspension or termination the same way city employees are, the machine would have found a (bogus) reason to bounce Fulop long ago. The same doctrine that keeps Fulop's position on the Council secure is the same one protecting Vega. Whether you like it or not.

I appreciated Fulop's resolution calling for Vega to resign, but as stated before, it was a non-binding resolution. Of course we knew the way the vote would go. They could have all voted with Fulop and Vega would still get to choose whether or not to step down.

3) Since you're so fond of giving advice, here's some for you: learn to appreciate the way government works a little better before you start throwing around your outrage, or at least have a little more humility when people point out when you get your information wrong.

Oh, and when cherry-picking quotes from me, try to get it right. Because what you're claiming I said adds up to vitriol isn't actually what I said.

R.I.F.

Quote:

Bogart wrote:
Quote:

Iwitness wrote:

I'll get on that, right after you get out of the habit of shrugging off critical inaccuracies as "what's the diff?". Along with that tendency to feign objectivity when you're just as agenda-driven as the rest of JCList.

There is no "critical innacuracy." I am questioning the Council's hypocrisy. It is the same people who decided to suspend the city employees and voted not to ask Vega to resign. Even if the decisions about the city employees were made exclusively by Healy, he voted against asking Vega to resign.

The fact that Vega is an elected official means they can't suspend him, but it does not they can't vote to encourage him to resign. They had that option any only Fulop voted for it.

I am curious to hear the basis for the different standards of presumed innocence for elected and appointed officials. You say it a "critical" difference so "well-settled" that my failure to appreciate it amounts to "vitriol disguised as analysis." Yet several elected officials indicted along with Vega have now resigned including the Mayors of Secaucus and Hoboken.

Oh--and what exactly is my "agenda?"

Posted on: 2009/7/30 21:08

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#135

Home away from home

Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
No - you aren't wrong. That non-binding vote is the closest thing to a "mechanism" the council has. That's why I mentioned it. Mr. Vega had even graciously said he would "accept the decision of the council." Not much risk there when you know the answer going in.

Not only that, but when you actually cast a vote about yourself. Unbelievable.

Posted on: 2009/7/30 17:18

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#136

Home away from home

I thought Fulop's ordinance was a non-binding "no confidence" vote. Which, even had it passed, could have gone entirely unheeded by Vega. I could be wrong though. (There's a sentence you don't hear much 'round here.)

Posted on: 2009/7/30 17:10

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#137

Home away from home

Quote:

Bogart wrote:
How is saying there is a double standard between the way the appointed officials are removed from office upon indictment while Vega is allowed to continue in office because he's innocent until proven guilty "vitriol" and not "analysis?"

So you don't think there should be a different standard for how to remove those elected by the people to serve a specific term and those hired at will or appointed? We'll agree to disagree on that one, but it's pretty well-settled in representative democracies with separate branches of government.

Quote:

You have got to get out of the habit of attacking the character and morality of people who disagree with you.

I'll get on that, right after you get out of the habit of shrugging off critical inaccuracies as "what's the diff?". Along with that tendency to feign objectivity when you're just as agenda-driven as the rest of JCList.

Posted on: 2009/7/30 16:41

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#138

Home away from home

Quote:

Bogart wrote:
Is there really a difference? Did the Mayor ask Vega to resign?

Um, yeah, there's really a difference. Silly facts, always getting in the way of vitriol-disguised-as-analysis.

Posted on: 2009/7/30 16:20

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#139

Home away from home

Quote:

Bogart wrote:
Obviously, But the Council voted not to ask for his resignation on the grounds that he is innocent until proved guilty while suspending his co-defendants. Hypocrisy.

Did the Council suspend the other city employees, or did the mayor?

Posted on: 2009/7/30 16:16

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Several local politicians arrested on corruption charges

#140

Home away from home

Quote:

elvis wrote:
The headline reads:

Vega is elected official, so his checks continue...

Exactly. The mayor doesn't have the authority to suspend Vega, even if he were inclined to (which he clearly isn't).

Different standards should apply to those elected by the people and those hired at will or appointed by the mayor and under his supervision. Regardless of whether it leads to the desirable outcome in every instance, that's how representative government works.

Not sure if there's a mechanism in place for the Council to remove one of its own (not that they would in this case).

Posted on: 2009/7/30 16:14

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: RALLY/PROTEST WEDNESDAY, 29TH CITY HALL AT 9:00AM

#141

Home away from home

Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
I do not have the list of the indicted handy, but there were other city employees too... one on the Manzo ticket, an at- large candidate (woman) was a city employee in the payroll department... at least that is what I remember from the criminal profiles in the JJ. Can anyone confirm that... all the indicted city employees should be suspended / then fired, especially if they are in a treasury function.

IIRC, Serrano is an employee of the JC Board of Education. Though related to the City obviously, I do not think it makes her a "city employee" for purposes of whether the Mayor/Council has the discretion to alter her employment. Though I'm not 100% sure how that all works.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 22:23

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Jack Shaw found dead!

#142

Home away from home

Quote:

Bogart wrote:
Quote:

JCSHEP wrote:

I personally know someone very much affected by his death. Therefore I am concerned over this thread which will surely make their grief much worse if they view it.

Not to worry. How many people mourning the death of a loved one recently indicted for public corruption would be searching the internet to find out what strangers think about it?

It's already one of the lead stories in all local news and it's getting significant national media coverage. You'd be amazed at how many loved ones going through their shock and grief will click or even be referred by others to things being said about that person.

If it's even one or two that find their way here to read what's been said, that makes it okay to suspend all empathy?

The story isn't going away any time soon. There's plenty of time. Why must a death be discussed so callously less than 24 hours after? Please explain to me the urgency.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 18:45

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Jack Shaw found dead!

#143

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:

But I notice that tqwert2 has no qualms about grave dancing.

No, that's not me.

Yay for moral relativism! Nicely done.

Quote:

Bogart wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't see any "gleeful" posts about this man's death. What I do see is a suggestion that his death means we can no longer talk about the corruption charges against him, but instead should be kind for the sake of the feelings of his friends and family. There is a place for such kindness, but this is not it.

There's nobody saying a gag order should be placed on openly discussing the charges against anyone involved in the corruption case broken by the FBI last Thursday. But is it too much to ask for people to recognize that there are people out there who knew the deceased, friends and family who in one week were hit not only by the man's arrest but then his sudden death?

There's a time and a place. Would it kill you to wait maybe a day or two, for his body to at least get cold? What do you accomplish by treating the guy as a convicted criminal the morning after his body is found by his girlfriend in their apartment?

There are dozens of other politicians wrapped up in this for you to convict by proxy, maybe grow an empathy gene and take it easy for a couple of days on the dead guy.

And, shocking though this may be, I never even knew who the guy was before last Thursday, and certainly never met the man.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 17:59

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Jack Shaw found dead!

#144

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
If pretending to care when a stranger dies is moral, then I am immoral. But I think you are confusing indifference and stoicism for cruelty. Or maybe you are trying to say that I am glad the man is dead, which I am not. Whatever.

I still think my morals would stack up against anyone's though if you want to run a contest or something.

And what you continue to dodge is that your supposed "indifference" has inspired you to speak out. Repeatedly. That's not actual indifference, no matter what you choose to call it.

Nobody's asking you to "pretend to care." Just to exercise some self-control.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 17:37

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Jack Shaw found dead!

#145

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Quote:

Iwitness wrote:
Moral relativism is exactly what this City needs more of.

Hilarious! You mean like he who is without sin should cast the first stone?

More like "CrazyChester is exhibiting morally bankrupt behavior, but since the majority views his moral bankruptcy as less egregious than Jack Shaw's alleged morally bankrupt behavior, that makes what CC is doing okay."

Posted on: 2009/7/29 17:20

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Jack Shaw found dead!

#146

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:

Why do people pretend to care so much when people who they never met die? Its like the weirdos at Michael Jackson's funeral. Does it make you feel like a part of the story?

Again, pardon my honesty.

Does pretending not to care so much make you feel like less a part of the story?

"Honesty" references truth. Save for the fact that Shaw was indicted and not convicted, there's no "truth" to be found in your gleeful posts about his death, simply conclusions you've drawn. Which you feel are so important that they must be shared. But I forgot, you don't care, so very much.

If you offered honesty, I'd consider pardoning it. But what you're actually crapping out all over this thread is schadenfreude, and you're not honest enough to admit that.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 17:18

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Jack Shaw found dead!

#147

Home away from home

Moral relativism is exactly what this City needs more of.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 16:47

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Jack Shaw found dead!

#148

Home away from home

Yes, you "just don't care" so much that you continue to post about it, and continue to posit as fact your speculations about somebody who just died, and who is being mourned by friends and family.

Congratulations on being so classy.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 16:26

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: Jack Shaw found dead!

#149

Home away from home

Quote:

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Jack Shaw worked for Richard Daley, Robert Janiszewski, and Jerramiah Healy. And now we have the likes of Ray Lesniak, Bill Gaughan, Willie Flood, and Gerald McCann singing his praises. What a crew of peers. I don't care how much of a sweetheart some of you folks think he was, he was nothing but a common bagman. And whose fault is it that he won't get a day in court? He probably didn't want one.

One thing Jack Shaw apparently never did: publicly dance on the grave of somebody he never met, from behind the anonymity of a screen name.

It's sad seeing people using their legitimate outrage at the corruption of our politics to justify really classless, loathesome behavior. It undermines the cause.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 16:01

Topic | Forum

Iwitness

Re: The Beacon

#150

Home away from home

I don't understand why it's so important for people to bash the Beacon, to the point where they go out of their way to do so.

It's a fact that, on foot, the Beacon is no further from JSQ than West Hamilton Place is from Newport or Grove Street PATH stations. Let alone how far all but the southeastern-most parts of Hoboken are from the PATH.

Granted, West Hamilton Place brownstones don't come with a shuttle. And, granted, the walk to/from the PATH from West Hamilton Place is arguably an aesthetically "nicer" and "safer" walk than from the Beacon to JSQ. That's a wash to me.

If what you mean when you say the Beacon is too far from the PATH is that the neighborhood through which you walk is inferior than other downtown locations of comparable distance, then by all means just say that. But don't pretend it's any further from the PATH than the walk from Simple or White Star is.

It's kinda fascinating how angry people get at the Beacon and its residents.

Posted on: 2009/7/29 15:56

Topic | Forum

Top

« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 »