user1111 wrote:
did this over in Park Slope, but is Jersey City ready for $23 fried chicken? We shall see.

ItalianGuy525 wrote:
Thanks for that info - One week and we see that stuff is "flying of the lists to pending" Any ideas of a good realtor that knows in/outs of JCITY? That is a good fit? Thanks again JCLIST friends.

VA2015 wrote:
I don't understand how there was not a single flyer or notice in advance of them towing cars parked on Columbus Drive for snow removal. I came home to find that all the snow mounds are removed from my street (good) but that is because they towed my car (and others) out of the way to do so (NOT GOOD).

I had seen a list of streets where they were doing this posted here last week but it didn't include Columbus. News articles indicated that Columbus was slated for a second wave of towings/snow removal as of last week (see here http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?sec ... cal/new_jersey&id=9437150). So why couldn't some flyers been put on windshields/in resident's mailboxes if there was a 5 day delay in the plan.

Now I have to go get my car from a lot on Montgomery and Jorden which is highly inconvenient.

Jersey City, you are wearing on me.

Yvonne wrote:
First who said I produced 2 videos on Candice? Second, you said I am clueless ? well, as first President of the Van Vorst Park Association, I got Green Acre Funding in early 1970s to redo the park. I also started the ?Meet Ball? which continued for many years. Finally, I helped the former Mayor of Secaucus sued JC over abatements. An agreement was reached in which abatements, except affordable, pay an extra 10% to the county. But politics being what it is in JC, it was reduced to 5%. So the County of Hudson has an extra 5% that it didn?t have before. Now tell me Joshua, what have you accomplished?

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
This is no surprise.

Look at this Forbes article. #1 State people are leaving is NJ once again in 2013.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoud ... ople-are-fleeing-in-2013/

The number 1 reason? Out of control spending and INSANE property taxes that have spiraled out of control.

Back in July, I went before City Council when Team Fulop gave us a 7.9% tax increase. Spoke out about tax increases, with a very padded new final budget, with lots of patronage jobs. With ZERO cuts in spending. http://youtu.be/E4WSIdA4B-M

For 2014, Jersey City's main priority has to be getting tax relief to the citizens of Jersey City. Instead, The Fulop Administration is STILL giving out tax abatements to wealthy developers. 35 years for JSQ development and now another one for DOWNTOWN coming up for the Majestic 2 in the heart of downtown. Even 10 years is too much.

And Fulop canceled the reval, so folks living in million dollar brownstones, are paying taxes like its 1980's versus their fair share. And if you are a new owner say the past decade, you are getting screwed.

So of course people are fleeing. No one wants to fix the problem.

Remember this in 2017 folks.

Fletch

maybeMoving wrote:
My wife and I went back last week after we were disappointed by our first trip there on opening week. We figured any issues would be worked out now two months later and we would see what their "real" product is.

Well, same deal as before. I had the special burger of the night and once again the meat was flavorless. Like it wasn't even salted. The toppings helped but as a place that specializes in burgers they HAVE to get that right. I agree with others that it seems like a preformed patty.

My wife had the lamb burger and it was downright awful. The patty was grey it was so over cooked and again there was no seasoning. You have to TRY to make lamb flavorless. I don't get it.

I will say the fries and service were excellent this time.

That's probably the last time we'll be there and it's unfortunate since the location and atmosphere is great. They probably don't need our support anyways since it's always packed. Would've been nice to have another regular spot in the neighborhood, though.

CapnJon wrote:
I don't get why people are bashing him for this? He was a lawyer for years, then a judge for years, then an elected official... he seems pretty qualified to me. And really, that kind of money for a lawyer is a pretty good deal.... is he not allowed to get a job now that he doesn't hold office?

Asking seriously, not trolling....

Yvonne wrote:
I am tired of hearing we need abatements for developments.

hero69 wrote:
I went, I ate, I enjoyed!

Yvonne wrote:
Apparently, the mayor is using my words to fight the Port Authority. Funny, he is giving an abatement in Journal Square. The Port Authority only has to present the list of abatements that JC has given in the past 20 years to argue their case.

Yvonne wrote:
I have made this statement previously, many of folks who live in subsidized housing are not American citizens. They use the services such as schools which are totally exempted from taxation. In the meanwhile, the taxpaying public who are citizens and property owners lose their homes every year in tax lien sales.

RickSp wrote:
Every aspect of the development process was flawed and the proposed development doesn't follow the approved plan. We have a case.

Given that the Fulop administration is effectively offering nothing of substance, the only choices may be to sue or to surrender. In the former, we could win or lose. In the later losing is absolutely guaranteed.

If we don't fight this parasitic development, we could be seeing it all over JC. And yes, the Fulop administration is promising to improve the development process. At this point, however, I see no reason to have confidence in any of their promises.

pattyb wrote:
I have had the beast actually! we must have different taste buds ;)

JCishome wrote:
I know there;s an unwritten rule about never saying anything positive on JCList, but the new passageway is absolutely stunning. Even my most jaded co-workers were blown away by it. The transportation hub is ridiculously overdue and criminally overpriced, but it's clearly going to be beautiful.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
@monroe: no I am not saying biggot or homophobe. I am just saying unaware (or ignorant if you prefer). This forum is about reality check. Some people here are rehashing their high school stereotypes as in defending their social status there - sounds familiar? Well they are being called onto that with actual comparison points. They are also being called upon their hypocritical religious revolving cloath by the US Constitution. Hopefully they will end up realizing that people have similar expectations in life which translate into similar behavior, something a 4 years old would have no issue picking up. Well, that's what the supreme court here found out today. In the end there is no real rational to deny equal treatment to gay couples. If Yvonne wants to offer gratis religiously sanctionned weeding cakes to couples of her choosing she can, the moment she sells them she can not discriminate.

You made her point entirely. Do you think that the Catholic Church, for example, should be forced to perform gay marriages? Or a Catholic hospital perform abortions? Why are Islamic families banned from practicing their religion here, ie multiple spouse marriages? Will the pro gay marriage people support that, because now marriage is opened up from one man/one woman to men/men or women/women? What about their rights? Will we see a return to traditional LDS plural marriages?

My point has been to allow all to have civil unions for Federal and State realities, and marriages to be religious, regardless of sex, religion, and number of partners. Isn't that a win/win? It seems the gay lobby wants to enforce a 'make straight and gay 'marriage' equivalent, and shut the barn door behind us' issue. It's an intellectually dishonest argument.

Wow, you got stones to use the phrase " intellectually dishonest argument"! I can't figure out in your argument who is harmed if gays can be called "married" rather than "unionized" if all civil protections are granted? As for Yvonne's theoretical bakery, it's not a religious institution, and therefore falls under civil law. Would you seriously defend a baker who wouldn't sell to an interracial couple? It's no different. No one favors forcing priests to marry gays any more than forcing them to marry non-catholics. What do you really care then if religious institutions that don't hate gays marry them? How are you harmed? As far as I can tell, in the name of your freedom of religion you want to deny others theirs.

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
In God We Trust
One Nation, Under God

Time for a brief history lesson. Neither of those phrases existed in either the pledge of allegiance or on any of our money or anything until the 50s, when McCarthy's fearmongering bullied Congress into adopting it to prove they weren't Godless communists.

OK, thanks for the history lesson-but the fact remains that our Founding Fathers worked from a Christian basis, with God as their moral compass. Marriage meant what it meant, and making it 'marriage' wasn't on their compass, not for same sex couples or polygamous families or any other 'grouping' that will now be 'allowed'.

Our founding fathers also enslaved people, so you know, they weren't infallible.

thejerseycitylife wrote:
Friday was a Friends and Family soft opening. We are going over tonite for a few and will see if we can grab a menu. The only thing I know for certain is that local entrepreneur 'Jersey City Veggie Burgers' has a black bean patty on the menu called the Garden State.

@jcvegburg

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
Regarding the "slippery slope" argument: marriage between people of opposite sex is not leading to polygamy, so why is marriage between people of the same sex supposed to lead to this? Stability promotes monogamy regardless of sexual orientation. There is a simple reason actually why people are not to keen of polygamous arrangement: jealousy!

Regarding your "let's get the right and benefits" linked to civil union, and religion linked to marriage. Churches don't own the word marriage, plenty of people get married at city hall. The word marriage is the only recognized across cultures and countries, your proposal has been considered before and is impracticable.

Catholic churches will not be not forced to perform gay marriage ritual. Catholic hospitals that offer services and also benefit from State aid will not be able to discriminate against the people they take in, and they will still be able to decide if they want to provide abortion service or not. If they do, they have to offer it to everyone. There is nothing "gay" or "slippery" about this. I think you projected quite a bit incorrectly on my previous message.

Nonsense, and you know it. Why do the 'progressives' fight for at will abortion for 13 year olds without parental control because they fear the 'slippery slope' against abortion 'rights', but ignore the desires of those with religious beliefs from defending against the same 'slippery slope', such as those who support traditional marriage from refusing to host gay marriages, for example, at their catering halls? Having it both ways is intellectually dishonest, of course.