went for dinner last night around 8:30 place was full but no wait for tables.....the little hot rolls were excellent (more of those less of the harder crusty bread please!) we split a mac and cheese appetizer (nice, I liked the french onion soup-esque melted cheese layer on the top and the herbs), he got the ribs (I only had a taste but he seems to really like them), I did the prawns (I liked that the waitress warned they would be served with the head and she could have them removed if I liked (yes please!), wasn't as happy that the risotto that went with it wasn't piping hot, as she got me all excited for it....still very good but I was a little cold myself and looking forward to something that would warm me up)
since I am a dessert lover dinner was saved by the warm chocolate cake though.....but how can I not love someone that serves me chocolate filled with chocolate?
I loved the atmosphere -- if that doorway original upstairs? does it slide to make a private "party" room? I also was really excited to see a fire place but unfortunately no real fire yet (though I guess its still a little warm out and its my fault for still wearing my "summer" clothes)

they were very accommodating (shut all the front windows cause I was cold) and the bus staff was great with the water.....I love when my glass is always full and its one thing that often gets neglected even at very nice places
our waitress could have been a little better but the table next to us had a guy that seemed great so I guess its the luck of the draw (then again that seems to be a common issue in JC), we did have a little issue (the risotto) and she never did the 3-5 min after you get your plates is everything ok check which would have solved the issue right away (she did comp dessert though which was nice)

I will definitely be back though and I think its a great little place! excited to try some of the other stuff --- the salads and pasta dished looked great! also I like that they are open for lunch....

As an attorney specializing in corporate governance law, I concur with JCLAW.

The Faulkner Act in no way would limit the City from adopting such an ordinance.

For those who may not have read the Faulkner Act, this act concerns itself almost exclusively with the various forms of government under which a municipality may choose to organize and operate itself. JC operates under the city council / corporate form of local government.

If for some reason, JC wished to change its form of government, it would be restricted to the choices appearing in the act; otherwise, an amendment to the act would be required.

The above being said, the Faulkner Act in no way restricts the form of anti-conflict of interest legislation JC could choose to adopt and apply to its own employees and council representatives.

All the best.

Geoff


P.S. On a final note, if we are truly concerned about good government, only a comprehensive piece of anti-conflict of interest legislation covering the behavior of all City employees and councilpeople would make a significant difference.

Healy stated: "The City Council made a decision for various reasons, the most important being the proposed resolution was beyond the powers of the City Council under the terms of the Faulkner Act, which governs Cities of the First Class, which Jersey City is."

This is an infuriatingly stupid argument with no merit other than it is deliberately confusing to readers who have no time or interest to actual looking up the Faulkner Act to see what it says.

The Faulkner Act does not in any even remote way prevent the City from adopting ethics standards by which its Council operates. It establishes that the City is to be run by a Council and a Mayor, but the Council ABSOLUTELY CAN self impose restrictions as to the type of jobs its members can hold after they have been elected. The Faulkner Act in no way prohibits this.

This is just absurd. Truly absurd.

Hi Fat-Ass-Bike,

Please have a look at my older posts. The City practices needless double talk when it comes to the so-called "abatements."

The reason they accepted this one and all the other ones was not because of a need to spur development, but rather because:

1) The City receives more dollars from a property under a PILOT "abatement" than it does when the property is taxed traditionally.

2) The builder pays more dollars in taxes when the property is paying the PILOT "abatement" formula than when it pays traditional taxes, in exchange for some advance tax certainty.

Because of the sometime enormous overcharge caused by the PILOT formula, several abatements have been terminated by property owners on a voluntary basis in the last 3 years and Jersey City has lost millions of dollars of revenue as a result. They can make up those lost dollars by either raising the traditional property tax rate (and performing a re-val), or encouraging developers to take new PILOT deals.

In this case, if you read the history of the articles, the builder first did not want a PILOT deal, then asked for a 5-year abatement, then was rejected and told by the Council to come back for at least a 15-year PILOT, then started construction and came back with a 10-year PILOT to the City's liking, and then had the deal approved.

Unlike in NY and other places, "abatements" in Jersey City have nothing to do with spurring development, and never have. They have everything to do with the City covering its budget while keeping traditional property taxes at the relatively reasonable rate of 1.4% of value (as equalized). Unless the City can find a way to cut its budget, of course.

Quote:

I can't believe WE still need to 'spur' on development here (initially yes, but not now) and give out huge tax abatements.

Developers and Investors know full well that JC and its close distance to NY is the only few places available still to build large scale rentals / condo's / office buildings

Improvement board adds Owen Dabney

Friday, September 14, 2007

By a 7-0-1 vote, the Hudson County freeholders ratified Jersey City Incinerator Authority Executive Director Oren K. Dabney Wednesday as a board member of the Hudson County Improvement Authority.

Dabney replaces Jersey City resident Carolyn Oliver-Fair on the nine-member board and his term expires Feb. 13, 2010, a county official said. Oliver-Fair served on the board for five years.

Union City Freeholder Tilo Rivas abstained in the vote, and Albert Cifelli of Kearny was absent.

Dabney said yesterday his experience as a solid waste manager for five years and a former member of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency dovetails with the needs of the HCIA, which deals with both solid waste and redevelopment issues.

Dabney was appointed by Hudson County Executive Thomas DeGise to the non-paid post. He also had the backing of Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy and Sandra Cunningham, Democratic nominee for state senator in the 31st District.

KEN THORBOURNE

Shooter is arrested on murder charges, may face extradition

Friday, September 14, 2007
By JARRETT RENSHAW
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

A Jersey City man charged with gunning down a 28-year-old man at a public housing complex in May has been charged with attempted murder in North Carolina, Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio said.

Samard Campbell, 24, of Bramhall Avenue, was wanted in the May 21 slaying of Toby Lewis, 28, at the Booker T. Washington housing complex, DeFazio said. A warrant for Campbell's arrest was issued shortly after witnesses identified him as the shooter.

Campbell was arrested Wednesday in High Point, N.C., by members of the U.S. Marshals Service Fugitive Task Force, Hudson County Prosecutor's Office Homicide Squad and local law enforcement.

Despite the arrest, Campbell is not likely to face prosecution in Hudson County any time soon. That's because Campbell is now also charged in a shooting less than two weeks ago in Laurinberg, N.C., DeFazio said.

Campbell, who is currently being held in North Carolina, will have to face the local attempted murder charges before being extradited to New Jersey, DeFazio said.

Aquablu tower wins its abatement council shrugs off possible challenge

Friday, September 14, 2007
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

In a move that may be open to legal challenge, the Jersey City City Council approved on Tuesday a 10-year abatement for the LeFrak Organization's Aquablu rental project in Newport.

The abatement for the 358-unit development had stalled due to a legal complication: Construction on the 31-story building is already under way.

As City Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis points out in a memo to City Council members, "there is case law indicating that a tax abatement must be approved prior to the commencement of a project," since "the primary purpose of a tax abatement is to spur development."

But in his memo, Matsikoudis - who is on vacation and couldn't be reached to comment - maneuvers around this legal obstacle by pointing out that in a precedent-setting 1998 case involving a development in Camden, construction was complete when the abatement was approved.

But judging by his memo, Matsikoudis isn't convinced the Aquablu abatement is legally bulletproof.

"If the abatement were challenged, it may well fail, but such an outcome is not a guarantee," Matsikoudis wrote. "Additionally, the applicant has agreed to indemnify the city in the event of a challenge."

Council members Michael Sottolano, Mary Spinello, Peter Brennan, Bill Gaughan and Willie Flood voted for the abatement.

"I personally don't see a legal challenge," Gaughan said. "They (the developer) had their application in for a long period of time. I think there is a fairness issue because through no fault of their own, the city dragged its heels on this abatement."

City officials stopped approving abatements for two months earlier this year while they restructured guidelines for the program.

Council members Steve Fulop, Steve Lipski, and Mariano Vega were absent for the vote.

Fulop aims to put ethics tightening to public vote

Friday, September 14, 2007
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Undaunted by the defeat of his ethics bill in the City Council earlier this week, Jersey City Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop now wants to take his case directly to the public.

Fulop announced yesterday plans to gather sufficient petition signatures to put two referendums on the ballot.

The first ballot item would bar a person who has a taxpayer-funded job from collecting a salary as a City Council member or receiving contributions to their pension plans based on their council salaries.

The second initiative revisits an issue Fulop had no success with in January, when he tried to pass a local pay-to-play ordinance that would have restricted when developers dealing with the city could make campaign donations to local politicians.

"I want to eliminate the conflicts of interests and at the same time create a council strictly to serve the public," Fulop said.

"I am confident that if you asked the public, 'Should council people have one publicly funded salary and one publicly funded pension, or two . or three,' they would say one is plenty," Fulop added.

To place the items on the ballot, Fulop said he needs to collect roughly 3,000 signatures of registered Jersey City voters.

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, along with council members William Gaughan and Peter Brennan - both of whom hold county jobs - dismissed Fulop's announcement as more "grandstanding" by a candidate for mayor. Fulop, a Citigroup trader, denies that claim.

The three officials said Fulop's proposals also run contrary to state law and discriminate against poor and working-class people.

Healy stated: "The City Council made a decision for various reasons, the most important being the proposed resolution was beyond the powers of the City Council under the terms of the Faulkner Act, which governs Cities of the First Class, which Jersey City is."

SAY DEMOLITION WILL START JAN.
Building in Square will start in April, builders tell city

Friday, September 14, 2007
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Demolition and site work for the two-tower development slated for the heart of Journal Square will begin in January, the project's builder told a roomful of Jersey City department heads yesterday.

Actual construction on the foundation and the seven-story base is scheduled to begin next spring, said Bruce Becker, president of Fairfield, Conn.-based Becker + Becker, an architecture, planning, preservation and development firm that has a 12.5 percent stake in the development.

Some of the buildings at the site have been demolished, while others still have tenants operating businesses.

Becker revealed the latest timetable for the $500 million mixed-used development planned for the block adjacent to the Journal Square PATH Transportation Center at a meeting of city officials called by Housing, Economic, Development and Commerce Acting Director Robert Antonicello.

It is the second such gathering for a group Antonicello has dubbed the Smart Development Interdepartmental Team (SDIT), which will be responsible for coordinating and tracking development projects in the city. Yesterday's meeting was roughly 40 percent presentation by Becker, 60 percent brainstorming session.

Along the way, Becker revealed the project was reconfigured from two more or less equal-sized towers to a development that will now feature a north tower rising 58 floors above the seven-story base and a south tower that will add 38 stories to the base.

The redesign makes the project more profitable by taking better advantage of views of the city and upping the number of studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom rental units from 1,200 to 1,500, he said.

The seven-story base will contain five levels of parking and three levels of retail, both components having one level below grade, Becker said.

A terrace level on the seventh floor will feature a swimming pool, fitness center, and courtyard terrace, he said.

The seven-story base and north tower will be built first and the market will drive when the south tower gets built, Becker said.

The plan goes before the Planning Board on Sept. 25 for site plan approval.

Quote:

I have no special loyalty to any of JC's current elected officials, but I don?t agree with any of this. IMO, all of this is ?a pissing match? (excuse the blunt term) between elected officials who don?t get along.
As I stated in a previous post, a well drafted, thorough and complete Code of Ethics for all Jersey City employees is needed. If we?re going to do it, let?s do it right and implement legislation that covers all.

It is not impossible to adopt such a policy...NYC did it, so has all of the NJ County Prosecutors offices (all staff members including clerical) and the NJ Department of Criminal Justice.



Quote:

Thanks all for your very "helpful comments and reviews". It's a swell joint with 5$ beers a nice menu, great looks and good food from what I had. You can do better? Chill and enjoy.

ate and drank there tonight - good vibe - a HUGE improvement to newark ave's "restaurant row" - lots of people in and out - decent food selection - good beer - love the open doors - brick walls, tin roof, cool artwork - friendly bartenders and waitresses - enjoy this welcome addition to the neighborHOOD

or we could talk about MELT some more......cricket...

One can just walk along the waterfront to Jersey Ave., which is a long way from Kennedy Bvd., and cross over to LSP. The problem is that, at least the last time I did it, the walkway was a bit isolated and sketchy. I think it has become better but extending Jersey Ave. (with a walkway/sidewalk) would solve that problem.

Regardless, it is a waterfront walkway and I don't see why walking along the canal, aside from safety, is such a big problem. In particular, I like all the sailboats and it would have to be a very tall pedestrian bridge to allow them to go under it. I guess I see part of the point being going for a walk and also see the canal as part of appreciating the history rather than an impediment to commuting to LSP, which mostly offers more walking anyways.

Quote:

BDLAW,

1) The example of your father-in-law woudlnt apply. The problem is elected officials with multiple publicly funded salaries and pensions simultaneously.

2) We had a prelim conversating with the clerk and legal dept. I will get you all the procedural info when I get back in the office on Monday

My idea solution:

1) More ferries between JC/Manhattan that can be picked up multiple times per day on weekends and multiple locations up/down the Hudson. They need to be priced around $2 per leg.

2) No bridge to LSP. Instead, git rid of the commuter lot (or rebuild it up) , the garbage at the far west end of the canal and move the boat storage. Then build a new path/park, like the west side highway in Manhattan, all the way through to LSP.


Cheaper than bridges , more people get access, and better long term benefits.

Two questions to the Councilman:

1. When you say you want to eliminate multiple pensions- what do you mean, per se? My former Father in Law drew multiple pensions because, over the course of his career, he worked (non-concurrently) for multiple state and county agencies (in a different county). Of course as I mentioned, he did not hold multiple positions at the same time- he was with the State Police for a period of time, and then with a county law enforcement body.

2. What is the process for gathering these signatures? Provided I agree with the text of the resolution (which I admittedly have not seen yet), I would be interested in at least signing.

Please note that the Monday, September 17 Historic Preservation Commission Agenda includes the 11 previously rescheduled applications to demolish the 6th Street Embankment on the grounds of economic hardship.

Please plan on attending this very important meeting, which will commence at 6:30pm on the 14th Floor Conference Room at 35 Montgomery Street

It is vitally important that all residents of Hamilton Park and Hasimus Cove and those concerned with Historic Preservation and Greenspace development turn out to oppose these applications, which should be considered barred by the court preceeding voiding the sale of these parcels to the developer without offering it first to the city.

The Historic Preservation Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the Jersey City Planning Board, which will take final action at a subsequent meeting, whose date has yet to be determined.

Harsimus Cove Association
President
www.harsimuscove.org

Quote:

As Geoff points out, the Embankment Preservation Coalition and the Reservoir Preservation Alliance did a lot more than cause chatter on the web. They brought several people to turnout to events at City Hall and at the sites themselves.

The Reservoir Alliance's greatest success was getting the opportunity to showcase the site on weekends. Anytime someone stepped in there, they became a supporter.

The Embankment Preservation Coalition didn't just get people to say "Make My Park!" They helped identify and secure millions of dollars in available funding.

The Web is a good communication tool. And cyber-action has its place, just as do phone calls and handwritten letters. Many councilmembers were overwhelmed by the hundreds of e-mails they received opposing the proposed "carport" bill that would have changed R1 Zoning for the worst. But equally important were the people who actually showed up at the Planning Board and Council Meetings to speak out against the proposed bill, and to speak in support of the subsequent "R1A" zoning that protected large lots.

When people like Charlene Burke (West Bergen Neighborhood Association), Becky Hoffman (Riverview Neighborhood Association), Rosalyn Brown (Communipaw Avenue Block Association), or Sam Pesin (Friends of Liberty State Park) appear at a planning board or city council meeting to voice support for a position the Conservancy supports, I'm a happy man. Why? Because they don't just create threads on JCList. They know their neighbors, organize meetings with them, and organize actual real world events and activities. That's what impresses council people and gets things done.

This is the press release from today. I hope it is helpful as I am commited to getting both initiatives on the ballot and passed.

I already have quite a few volunteers to help but If you are interested please reach out via e-mail as the more people we can get involved the more effective we will be.

Best regards
Steven Fulop

-----------------------

Councilman Fulop To Take Reform Issue Directly To Voters

Process begins for two voter referendums -- first time in Jersey City history

(JERSEY CITY) ? On Tuesday, the Jersey City Municipal Council voted to defeat a comprehensive ethics reform package proposed by Councilman Steven Fulop.

This reform package, endorsed by the city?s newspaper of record, The Jersey Journal, and allowed under the state statute permitting municipalities and cities to adopt stricter ethics ordinances than the state?s current weak ethics legislation, would have been the strictest of its kind in the state.

The proposed resolution would have most notably covered elected officials having multiple pensions and salaries of which currently 7 of the 9 council members in Jersey City have. In addition, the reform package would cover conflicts of responsibilities of working for both the municipal government as well as the county government, personal use of municipal vehicles and included more comprehensive public disclosures. The City Council?s ?no? vote for the ethics package came on the heels of a previous developer pay-to-play rejection in March 2007.

Today, Councilman Fulop announced he will start the process of gathering signatures and initiating two ballot referendums. The first initiative will prohibit elected members of the City Council that hold more than one government position to collect only one taxpayer salary. This initiative would strengthen the legislation recently passed by state legislators.

The second initiative will be a developer pay-to-play ban similar to the one that the Jersey City Municipal Council rejected in March 2007.

?This ballot initiative would allow voters to enact much needed reform measures in light of the Council members refusal to do so,? Fulop said. ?If the Mayor and the City Council don?t want to voluntarily make our city better, the voters of Jersey City will force them to do so.?

?I am a firm believer that real change must start at the local level. That is why I hope to strengthen the recent dual office holding legislation that was recently passed by our state legislature,? added Fulop.

Both pay-to-play laws as well as City Council salaries and pensions are governed by local ordinances allowing ballot initiatives to be pursued. Councilman Fulop will be announcing more details on this historic ballot initiative in the days to come.

?When passed, these reforms will allow for only one publicly funded pension and one publicly funded salary per individual. It?s time that Jersey City takes the lead in ensuring that public service is about serving the people and not about personal gain,? Fulop concluded.
# # # # #

We could have some of these 'bad boys' to shuttle people across the water instead of a bridge or TUNNEL!

Quote:

Modernity encapsulated would be a giant FAX machine (invented in JC) that turn me into a telephone signal and reassemble me at my office in Manhattan, if it could iron my shirt and shine my shoes as part of the deal that would be modernity encapsulated with truffles.

I certainly agree there are more important transportation projects, both real -- Second Avenue Subway, Trans Hudson Tunnel for instance -- and imaginary -- 7 Train extension to NJ, Southern subway connecting Manhattan and Staten Island's North shore line via Jersey City and Bayonne.

But the first point is transportation would not be the primary goal, more of an accidental benefit. Projects like this are architectural pornography that in themselves attract tourists. The Brooklyn Bridge is for instance, a major tourist attraction with huge economic benefits derived directly from tourism, independently of the fact that it is also a bridge for vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and walking across the bridge is free.

Yes, indeed, the bridges I listed are much smaller in scale than anything that would be needed to cross the Hudson. But that's the whole point-- build something grand. Make it the biggest and the best, a symbol of the modern age, a symbol of American industrialism.

Such a bridge would also be a symbol of Jersey City's rebirth. Brooklyn might have the Brooklyn Bridge steeped in its own history and mythology and lore, but a trans Hudson Pedestrian Bridge linking Jersey City to Manhattan would be modernity encapsulated, a monument to the new Jersey City, to technology, a link to the future.

Mr Elkind,of course you have to do the job first.No argument there.If this is done right and it passes it can change the nature of Jersey City politics for the Better.No amount of people in that chamber was going to make them vote the right way.

has anyone figured out about what time the 99S stops on ogden/congress...I know this is laughable...but, I was hoping maybe they would stick to a sort of schedule. If it helps, today I was picked up at 8:06AM...let's see if it remains consistent.

There was a woman there with me who said it picked her up at 8:37AM the day before but the driver said he was running late, so it's not too accurate.

The Embankment and Resevoir Coalition Groups invested much additional and significant effort to ensure significant physical turn outs at key public meetings.

Speaking generally, it doesn't matter whether you believe your governmental officials to be corrupt or on the take.

No significant public response in the form of a physical presence is interpreted as a lack of public interest or apathy, and leads to the easy dismissal of the issue as political grandstanding and something which can then be ignored.

Having the physical presence of significant numbers of people makes it less easy for other public officials to dismiss the issue and certainly raises the discomfort level when they realize that people cared enough to show up at City Hall.

Again, the basic premise these folks recognize is that if people appear, it makes it all the more difficult to dismiss the issue, even if the first attempt results in a failure.

All the best.

Geoff

P.S. for Mr. Rogers. It remains to be seen. If I actually see people turn out to vote in favor of such a referendum, (which I would personally support), and it passes, I will then be the first to say "Well Done" -- but not before.

The bridges you posted are beautiful.

The only problem is that they are maybe at most 30 feet off the ground or water below. They are also not close to covering a span of almost a mile. The amount of structure that would be required to span a mile across the Hudson, with the lowest point on the bridge being 210 feet from the surface of the water is unbelievable. It would have to be a suspension bridge, and it would also need to be over 30 stories high. Suspension bridge spans are close to flat, with maybe a slight arch. That means that in order to be able to cross at 210 feet high, the person would have to walk up 20 flights of stairs, and back down another 20 on the other side. Who the heck would want to do that?

All of the landmarks you mentioned generate revenue. Usually enough to recoup the initial investment over time, as well as the maintenance for the year. Are you going to charge people to cross this bridge? It's going to be a toll pedestrian bridge across the Hudson? People will have to pay how much? $10-$15 for the privilege of walking up 20 flights, another mile, and then back down another 20 flights? Who are the people that are going to do this? People commuting to the city aren't. I can't see tourists doing it. Maybe families on the weekend? If you don't charge people, where is the money going to come from for this project? There is no point to it when there are hundreds of more important public transportation projects that are lacking funding.

Are you talking about other economic benefits like increased tourism? Nobody visiting Manhattan is going to cross this bridge to come to Jersey City and spend money. Why would they? Are tourists clamoring to get to Brooklyn or Queens? Not that I've ever heard. People who live in Jersey City and are going to New York City already have a half dozen ways to get to the city. Why would they choose this one, that has no benefits, other than to stretch their legs. Is that worth the millions and millions of dollars this would cost? No one in their right mind would think it is.

I don't lack vision. I love development and progress and take pride when beautiful public works are built in the area. I love all of the new building going up in Jersey City, and I can't wait to see what the skyline is going to look like 10 years from now.

So, I still stand by my statement that this project makes no sense, any way you look at it.

Just out of curiosity: where would a pedestrian bridge - let's say crossing the river at Exchange Place - have to start on the Jersey side in order to not be too steep to be unwalkable? Where would it end on the NYC side? Wouldn't the NJ side have to be surrounded by Park N'Walks to really dent PATH crowding? Wouldn't a pedestrian bridge have to be ADA compliant, therefore making it almost necessary to build a people mover rather than a walkway (this would also allow for a steeper gradiant). Wouldn't it just be easier to make one lane of the Holland Tunnel a pedestrian walkway, isolated from the fumes and assorted other dangers.

***********************************************
With respect to those who question the chintziness of our current public building habits think about:
The PATH terminal at WTC (Calatrava has replaced Fidel Castro as my favorite Marrano because of this project, btw).
The Fulton Street Subway project
The proposed Gare de Moynihan
The (lavish) new entrance to the Brooklyn Museum
just four off the top of my head....

Not one of those pedestrian bridges you link to accomodates for the type of major sea traffic on the hudson, nor is any one of them even remotely as long as the span between lower manhattan and the JC waterfront.

and trying to compare the economics of monuments (and gifts) to transportation infrastructure is an apples and zebras game.

oh, and ask the South Dakota tourism board if there are any positive economic effects of Mt. Rushmore.

Well according to the nj.com web site we just may get the chance to say "well done".They are reporting that Steve Fulop will put the Question on the Ballot in a Referendum.

So it should go from "well said" to "well done" No?