Monroe wrote:
The company NJ used for the NJ shore ads is supported by both NJ Democrats and Republicans. No political favors being paid there.

7 murders in Newark in the last 7 days.

Booker needs to spend less time hiding in the closet and more time making Newark a better city. And his giving stock options to a barely teenaged son of the head of CNN was a disgusting attempt to buy good press coverage.

Monroe wrote:
Another homicide in Newark, 8 in 7 days. Yup, Booker is being very presidential.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I've been away, so excuse my lack of commentary here. I love the last few posts, pointing out exactly what's going wrong in Newark. And quite frankly, the bad news far outweighs any of these insignificant accomplishments pointed out by Pebble.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
8 murders in 7 days, signs of a city making progress. It's tough to make a dent in this when you have an absentee mayor.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Pebble, you say Booker is "ambitious" and can't see why I find a problem with this. Are you just being silly now or was that a serious comment? To use your example, if a company promoted someone with an abysmal/non-existent track record as quickly as they have with Booker (some would say, like Barry Obama), many people in the company would be pissed and question it.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
You also keep citing all this private money flowing in. It keeps flowing into downtown, which already has big businesses and create jobs for highly qualified people not from Newark. That's not much of a solution here. Maybe some of the spending on education will payoff, maybe...

nyrgravey9 wrote:
At the end of the day, his banner ads piss me off to no end, and point out exactly what's wrong with his message.

They read: "Fix the criminal justice system". As we said earlier, he is placing blame for recidivism squarely on the prisons, rather than the parents, relatives, schools, friends, communities, drug dealers and other folks in the mix BEFORE the person goes to prison.

That type of victim mentality is bullshit, and THATs the person we're sending to the Senate? Good luck with that.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
The least we can do is be honest and say he is going to the Senate to be a rubber stamp for Obama. We can try and be honest and admit that the unaccomplished, "well spoken black male" archetype is the PC vote to cast these days (and don't even try the racist card with me. It's wrong to vote for OR against someone just because of their race).

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I have yet to read about acknowledge any real, substantive accomplishments from this guy, hence why is called an empty suit.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Interesting article about CB

http://www.nationalreview.com/article ... ary-friend-eliana-johnson

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Pebble,

Quote:

If residents were so unhappy with him, why was he re-elected?

With the exception of an established person like Sharpe James, Bookers' opponents have been walkovers, that's why he got reelected. Ever watch the a tennis grand slam? Ever see when an average/decent player goes far with an easy schedule until the finals? That's how I view Cory's rise to fame. He'll also win the Senate seat, why? Because Lonegan is off his rocker and the Democrats can't put forth a better candidate. The primary race had abysmal turnout, and with his face on every talk show and news program, of course people will vote for him...it's the only name they know?!

Like I said before the Senate race is a choice between two losers, with NJ being the ultimate loser here.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

The number 1 improvement would be that he removed a criminal from office. Sharpe James stole money from the city and was a complete POS.

Sharpe may be a proven criminal, but Booker isn't too far behind. The controversy with his Waywire start up shouldn't be ignored:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/09/why-vo ... bookers-start-up-problem/

This sums it up nicely:
"A series of New York Times stories have described Booker?s unorthodox role in a Internet start-up company called Waywire that included a 15-year-old board member, massive losses that resulted in layoffs and a business strategy that seemed to do little but enrich the former mayor. The effort seems at best to show the mayor with questionable judgement and at worst would suggest campaign finance laws should be rewritten in the future to stop other politicians from doing what Booker did."

And then there's this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06 ... ker-senate_n_3459611.html

"Booker's mere entry into this race meant backpedaling on his publicly stated intent to finish his second term as mayor of New Jersey's largest city, which expires next June. Asked about the turnabout during his campaign kickoff at a downtown dot-com, Booker acknowledged that his campaign plans had been upended."

Every stepping stone on his quest for the White House is just that, something to be stepped on.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

Where are these ?report after report? from Newark residents saying they are unhappy?

Here are some:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/p ... ore-style-than-substance/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/nyr ... ted=1&ref=corybooker&_r=0

The names "Story Looker" and "Mayor Hollywood" are my favorites.

I don't have the rest because I am at work. But there are plenty more out there.

This troubled city, with its deep, systemic problems, was always an unlikely political springboard. And few people deny Mr. Booker?s accomplishments, particularly compared with those of his predecessor, Sharpe James, who went to federal prison for corruption. Mr. Booker has reduced the city?s structural deficit. Downtown has had a building boom, including the city?s first two hotels, and the city?s first new supermarket in decades has opened in the Central Ward.

?They were attracted by the public persona of Booker, the clean-government attitude that he projects throughout the country,? said Frank Giantomasi, a development lawyer whose firm moved here from the suburbs in the hope of helping the city?s rebirth. ?I think he?s done a fabulous job of telling people what Newark can be and what Newark is right now.?

nyrgravey9 wrote:
The guy is an EMPTY SUIT.

Hell, his walleyed face is plastered all over THIS site whenever you post, and you wonder how this horrible guy can get elected?

Please tell me you're joking Pebble...

nyrgravey9 wrote:
20% is high?? That's not exactly an earth shattering number there. But that's just my opinion.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I think he's bereft of better ideas for more substantial issues. But again, that's just my opinion.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
With regards to Booker making Newark better, can anyone anywhere site actual things he's done to qualify or quantify this statement?

I've yet to hear anything on the matter. On the contrary, I've read report after report from Newark residents saying either that nothing has changed, or in some parts, it's worse.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
And again, he's leaving before he's even really started to make any changes. It's sad and pathetic that voters in NJ are such fools for his clever PR and marketing.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
(make a note, Lonegan is NO substitute...this is just an election between who is the LEAST awful candidate, and it's a close one in that regard - which brings me back to my earlier statement. We get what we deserve).

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I can read perfectly fine my friend.

Let's break down my interpretation:
Quote:

Booker says the current criminal justice system is like a revolving door that just keeps pulling people in, increasing recidivism and heightening the crime rate.

That line right there is a direct implication that the prison system is at fault.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
What's even more ludicrous is this one:

Quote:

"In New Jersey, blacks make up 14 percent of the state's population but make up over 60 percent of our state's prisons," he added. "There is something fundamentally wrong with those numbers."

He's right, and he is part of the problem. As a mayor of city that contributes highly to this statistic...don't you think maybe he should stay on board and finish what he started?

Let's just hope Fulop isn't as completely full of sh!t as this clown.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Rorschach wrote:
It's all about allocating his time where it will do the most good politically. It's clear Christie the Hutt will be reelected alas.

Or maybe he doesn't have the courage to involved with any that doesn't assure a positive outcome in his favor?

Dahood wrote:
Thank God, Barbara "union lover/tax hiker" Buono will not be the governor of this state!

nyrgravey9 wrote:
So wait a second, let me get this straight Mr. Soon-to-be-Senator, the jails are the reason so many black people are in jail?

What a f'n piker, and most of you on here will be voting for this empty-suit fraud.

We, as a people, get what we deserve, and our politicians our a reflection of us. That said, it's clear the people of NJ deserve garbage.

OneSkirt wrote:
No offense, but how can getting priced out of a neighborhood be a positive and the key sign that an area has come around, as you say? A lot of great middle income people got priced out of dtjc in the past few years. I lived there since 1995 & hated to leave last summer for another area due to the extreme over pricing. I find a lot of the development in dtjc to be out of control and not smart urban planning in terms of the exponential added density. I also find the diversity fading a bit too much for my taste.

verlp wrote:
Hi,

We are considering a move to this area. Would love feedback from those who know the area in terms of safety and in terms of neighborhood/community feel.

Have read about Whitlock Cordage and Berry Lane Park.

Currently live downtown close to Hoboken border.

Thanks.

Monroe wrote:
Pebble, Christie proposed and Sweeney and the Democratic Legislature agreed on pension reform AND tenure reform, both topics which had been hot topics for members of both parties for decades. In both cases, neither side got exactly what they wanted-which is how bipartisan deals get struck. Having the Democrats realize that reform needed to be achieved to keep the system from collapsing was a huge accomplishment for both sides. I'm sure Sweeney had to hold his nose to sign off on legislation that would go against public sector unions and the NJEA, but in the end even the NJEA signed off on the somewhat watered down tenure reform.

Monroe wrote:
Tax relief for towns? 2% cap, with allowances if the voters want to exceed it. The recent merging of the Princetons, long advocated by Christie, will be a leading example to similar municipalities (of which NJ may lead the country per capita-a huge waste of money. Do we need Chatham Township AND Chatham Borough, for example?) Shared services is the way to go to save taxpayer money. Can't remember previous Governors of either party pushing for this.

Monroe wrote:
The argument that slanted journalism is baseless is so ridiculous I won't even argue. Do you not watch the evening news, lol?

Monroe wrote:
As far as Christie's choice of PR firm, did you miss the part that the Star Ledger said it's a favorite of BOTH parties? Oopsie!

Monroe wrote:
I'll lay off the Barbara Botox cracks, though!

Monroe wrote:
Christie has reached across the aisle to achieve bipartisan agreements on tenure reform, pension reform, tax relief for municipalities, etc etc.

Monroe wrote:
If only we had a national leader who did the same.

As for newspapers, the continued looney left slant of many (with the NYTimes in the forefront) has driven away those in the center and the right. Ergo, revenue loss. I guess the people they pander towards can't/won't pay for the poor content.

How's the Wall St. Journal doing?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Prostituting himself for personal ego and publicity at our cost.

We've had the Kardashians, now lets have the Chistie's ... so much for an upgrade to public transport needs across the Hudson!

Monroe wrote:
Republicans war on women? Have you seen the way we have Spitzer and Weiner showing their utter disrespect for women? And the mayor of San Diego? Al Sharpton? John Edwards?

Where is Hilary Clinton calling out the mayoral candidates in her New York?

Give us a break, please.

Rorschach wrote:
Quote:

HeightsBrat wrote:
It is a little unfair to say that all Republicans share the out of touch sexist attitude of Arango. This is a lowlife that was screwing around with someone from the office while still married.

+1

Everyone in the City, County and State know what a sleaze this guy is. How he continues to hold positions of authority is mind boggling. But of course, this is Jersey City/Hudson County.

Monroe wrote:
Barbara Buono's running mate-before she talks about helping people vote-she should start to vote herself. Do we really want a person one heartbeat away from being CEO of our state who's been a toady for Acorn and the SEIU looney lefties? Look where decades of Democrats caving to union demands has gotten our state-do we want someone who's been partially (the running mate) or totally (Corzine's right hand budget gal) responsible in Drumthwacket?

The fact so many Democrat officials are supporting Christie's ticket tells it all.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

However, he better start rounding people up and getting more feet on the ground to stamp this out.

Did you miss the other thread about 20% of the police force being out??? Good luck getting "more feet on the ground" when a fifth of the cops are down in the Shore enjoying the Summer weather.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
That is what I was leading to Pebble; You hit the nail on the head.

So my question is that if the average Joe (you and I) on the street is aware of this, why does Police command allow officers off at this time, don't have more cops on the street and increase foot patrols in those known hotspots.

Once again, Comey and the district commanders were all inept and I hope the new Safety Director looks at importing new commanders from anywhere but the current pool of senior JCPD officers.

JCNewJersey wrote:
This person was shot dead across from my home. Now it is getting personal and I feel sick to my stomach. You would too.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
7 murders in the past 5 weeks and prior to this, 6 murders in 5 months - It would be interesting to know why June and July is so violent and if there is a pattern in history with similar statistics? Is it seasonal with marijuana crops or other drug manufacture that causes gang and drug related murders?

GrovePath wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-c ... gaisnt-jersey-city-2013-7

user1111 wrote:
Michaelangelo Conte/The Jersey Journal

A 21-year-old Brooklyn man was gunned down early this morning in a hail of bullets in front of numerous people on a Greenville street in Jersey City, officials said.

"When the cops rolled him over, he had two big holes on his right side and two holes in his upper left chest," said a 50-year-old resident of Dwight Street who lives feet from where Anthony Smith Jr. was shot near Ocean Avenue at about 12:15 a.m. "There were at least 50 kids out here for a party. I heard the shots and by the time I ran down, he was already gone."

Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Gene Rubino said Smith was attending a party on Dwight Street when he was approached by a man who opened fire on him. The man chased Smith down the street, and continued firing until Smith collapsed, Rubino said.

No motive has been given for the shooting.

Smith was rushed to the Jersey City Medical Center with multiple gunshot wounds to his back, arms, and legs, Rubino said. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

A 75-year-old resident's car was damaged by a bullet. He said the side of his car facing the street was streaked with blood and firefighters hosed the blood off. When the sound of gunfire woke him, he did not go to see what happened.

"I don't run to the window when someone is shooting a gun," the resident said. "That's when you wind up dead."

A 71-year-old woman said there was a 21st birthday party for her granddaughter at her Dwight Street home last night.

Around the time of the shooting, she said about 17 people were cleaning up inside the house and a few people were saying their good-byes outside the home.

Then "I heard all this commotion outside and someone yelled 'Someone is running,'" the 71-year-old said. "I ran to the window and that's when I heard shots. I told all those girls to go home and no dilly-dallying."

Smith was not at the party, the resident said, adding she was told he came running down the block from Garfield Avenue.

Another resident who identified herself only as Ferdi, said she heard the shots and "looked out and saw the man was in the street face down."

"There were girls all around him screaming and we called the ambulance," said Ferdi, who saw EMS arrive and perform CPR on Smith.

Anyone with information about this shooting is asked to call the Hudson County Prosecutor's Office's Homicide Squad at (201) 915-1345.

Journal staff writer Anthony J. Machcinski contributed to this story.

brewster wrote:
Pebble, you can rationalize all you want, but it's a zero sum game. Given the relative values, for every property paying too little, there's 2 or 3 paying too much, and having THEIR resale value depressed because of it. There's simply no justification for it, and "you knew what you were getting into when you bought" does not make a compelling argument, especially to longtime owners.

brewster wrote:
The status quo is simply unfair to more owners that it benefits. It just appears they're not as aware of it, and active to change it, as are the beneficiaries who are desperate to preserve their advantage of having their fair taxes paid by others. "Don't rock the boat" as a slogan for perpetuating injustice has a long and storied history, but I'd like to hope that it has no place here.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Let?s talk about the flip side. Would you be happy if the city doubled your taxes causing your condo value to drop a lot more? What about if your taxes doubled and someone else had their taxes drop in half? That?s what will happen to other home owners, maybe not to that extreme, but it will go up for quite a few people.

If I had been paying, say, $3,000 - $4,000 a year in property tax on the same condo for years, then, yes, I'd accept that the tax would have to rise sharply, if not double. No one likes paying more for anything, but the reality is if I've been getting this great deal for a long time, I've got to expect the party to end at some point.

JadedJC wrote:
It's the same thing with Amazon having to collect sales tax in NJ. It was a great incentive while it lasted, but at the end of the day it was unfair to other retailers, and the money to pay for public services has to come from somewhere. I'll still shop at Amazon and pony up the sales tax because they offer great customer service. At least they'll be winning my business on a level playing field. Your argument suggests that it's okay to leave the market distortion in place and that it's okay for some homeowners to be heavily subsidized by others.

JadedJC wrote:
Also your contention that people complaining about the tax unfairness didn't do their homework when they bought isn't so cut and dried. In the case of new construction or a condo conversion of an old building, prospective buyers are told taxes will only be set AFTER the sale. I have friends who bought at Dixon Mills and got sticker shock when they received the first tax bill. Of course, developers will provide an estimate on what the likely tax will be on the purchase, but they're almost always underestimated by a large margin. That's why I always tell friends and acquaintances to take the time to check with the tax assessor's office - don't ever believe what the realtor or developer tells you. That's the hard lesson every virgin home buyer learns.

brewster wrote:
Pebble, you can rationalize all you want, but it's a zero sum game. Given the relative values, for every property paying too little, there's 2 or 3 paying too much, and having THEIR resale value depressed because of it. There's simply no justification for it, and "you knew what you were getting into when you bought" does not make a compelling argument, especially to longtime owners.

brewster wrote:
The status quo is simply unfair to more owners that it benefits. It just appears they're not as aware of it, and active to change it, as are the beneficiaries who are desperate to preserve their advantage of having their fair taxes paid by others. "Don't rock the boat" as a slogan for perpetuating injustice has a long and storied history, but I'd like to hope that it has no place here.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
There seems to be a lot of reading comprehension issues here. I am not sure what the problem is or why anyone is so intent of forcing their opinion. I see both sides of the coin. I simply don?t believe that the argument of ?fairness? really is so cut and dry.

If the revaluation occurred every 5 years, this really wouldn?t be an issue. But a lot of things have changed since the last one.

So the solution is to wait even longer for a reval?

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

stephen wrote:
(Pro tip: If you advertise a speakeasy, it isn't a speakeasy. It's simply a club in a basement.)

I agree 100% with this. I would actually like this place a lot more if there was some creativity involved in the "speakeasy" part of the restaurant. A speakeasy is supposed to be a hidden secret....a gem of stiff drinks and a low-lit, relaxed atmosphere. The sign directly above the entrance on Morgan St. makes it feel like a speakeasy for either corporate America or the incredibly thick patron. I knew something like Death and Co. was out of Jersey City's grasp.

brewster wrote:
Pebble, I very nearly speechless. Almost nothing you say makes any sense or has a basis in reality. You sound like someone who's water meter was broken complaining that's it's unfair to fix it because ti was that way when you bought the house.

Firstly, there's plenty of people with historic homes all over JC paying far more than their ratio 33 share. If you'd bother to do some homework like I have rather than just letting off an opinion you'd know this. My building paying a 43 share is over 100 years old. As I've pointed out upthread, new construction gets assessed at market/3.3, which is theoretically accurate. But it's high relative to the low tax older properties Downtown that have appreciated drastically, outstripping the 3.3 inflation formula.

As for A, B & C, move along, nothing to see here. higher price SHOULD mean higher tax!! That's the basis of the whole system. Nothing complicated or mysterious.

I repeat, property owners ALL OVER JC, including some newer construction, are subsiding the undertaxed properties. And that's simply wrong.

mwa7368 wrote:
I would do this with any other service. If I go to Starbucks and pay $3 for a coffee but someone else comes in and pays $2 because he's been going to Starbucks for a few years longer than me and somehow contributed to the early development of the company, that's supposed to be ok?? What planet do you live on? Free Sh*t for everyoneland? The idea that I was responsible and originally budgeted to pay a certain amount of taxes and that should absolve me of any right or care to expect equal tax responsibility is complete garbage! I'm shocked at the socialist views that have been expressed in this thread. Wake up you live in the US not Cuba!
By the way, I'm also planning for my property value and my taxes to go up in the next twenty years. Maybe I'll get lucky and have a bunch of socialists running things then and be able to drink from the public teat. Yeah, my taxes won't go up because I helped build the city back in 2010. No sense.

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
...On the flip side, a home that's paying more than it's fair share in tax will see it's value depressed.

So if someone bought a building (or buildings) in say the Heights over the past 5 years -- they got it cheaper than they would have if it had been taxed less -- so they stand to make a lot more profit if there is a reval and they then sell -- not to mention they will be saving a bundle on their taxes.

mwa7368 wrote:
What percentage of people do you really think said, "you know what? I'm gonna buy in JC because I want to fix it up."? Do you think maybe they said, " I'm gonna buy in JC because I think my property is going to appreciate like crazy and I'm gonna make a ton of money." Or they just bought cause it was cheap and convenient? You don't get rewarded for that. Your thought process is completely flawed.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
While it is nice to believe that everything should be fair, I'd like to see those that bought in earlier to the area spend less. Those people helped pave the way for the new development.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
...On the flip side, a home that's paying more than it's fair share in tax will see it's value depressed.

So if someone bought a building (or buildings) in say the Heights over the past 5 years -- they got it cheaper than they would have if it had been taxed less -- so they stand to make a lot more profit if there is a reval and they then sell -- not to mention they will be saving a bundle on their taxes.

Can't really speak to the Heights, I'm only speaking from my experience downtown. When I sold my condo, I had to price it lower than comparable properties in the same neighborhood because of the ridiculous tax on it - around $9000 at the time for 1,000 square feet. And this wasn't even new construction. This was a historic building that had been converted into condos, so Pebble's argument that only new construction gets higher taxes is flat-out wrong. I don't think Pebble is even a homeowner. He sounds like a renter talking out of his ass.