There are dysfunctional individuals, people and families.

In todays day and age we now have dysfunctional neighborhoods and government bodies.

Tomorrow we will have dysfunctional cities, states and nations..............or are we there already?

Its not the neighborhood that's dysfunctional, its the people in it!

I hope you love it in the Heights. We bought on the corner of Webster/Hutton back in 99 and like it here alot. It has it's rough spots and it's definitely city dwelling so you gotta be aware of your surroundings, but it's gotten so much better in the last 8 years and we look forward to seeing it through the next years to come.

There are alot of great people up here...families, singles, everything...Alot of owner occupied homes that really do care about the neighborhood. Unfortunately the streets are still pretty dirty and can look rough sometimes, but we're doing alot to correct that.

Welcome to the neighborhood! There are a couple organisations (historical, neighborhood watch, etc) around here you might want to become part of and you can always join us at the Community garden in Fisk park in the Spring (well there are a couple evil ones in there too...but...) =)

Really welcome...you'll love it I think!

Hello fellow Mom!

I really think Webster has come a long way. I used to live on Sherman Avenue between Griffith and Bowers back in 2000. There are so many great people in the area including some new moms like yourself.

As a co-founder of the Downtown JC Neighborhood Watch, I still agree with the former poster that sometimes its best not to follow the crime statistics unless you have been a victim or have specific crime issues on your block like drug dealing. I don't like to alarm people unnecessarily especially new moms (that sensitivity meter really goes up!)

For connecting with other moms in your neighborhood, check out www.jcfijc.org which is a family organization with a yahoo group board. You will find the support you need in your new home. They will also be hosting their annual Family Stir Crazy event on Sunday, March 4th, at the Golden Charter School.

Hope to see you!

We moved in nearer Pershing Field in August. The crime, so far, has not affected us. The occasional noisy car stereo is about it. Signing for a home is always nerve wracking. You have made a good decision to come here - amenities, daycare, transport and as of yesterday the reservoir will be preserved and improved. That has to be a good thing for a child to grow up near. (Also Pershing Field has indoor swimming and swim classes.)

And I have been fine walking at night, no trouble.

Enjoy the Heights.

I live five blocks from there, and yes, it is "pretty" safe -- by city standards. (You've chosen to live in a city, and surely you know that there is no urban neighborhood in this city, state or country that is 100 percent safe, especially at night.) I don't expect you will have any problems running errands during the daytime, though. My wife and I raised a child on Palisade Avenue, certain sections of which have been trouble spots, but we personally never had any problems with street crime.

Sometimes you are better off not reading forums. If you read forums pertaining to the village, upper east side nyc etc you would find there is crime everywhere there are people.

I live in the heights. Its coming along nicely. there is crime in all parts of city including downtown JC and yes hoboken. Its relatively safe for a city. The heights has a good neighborhood watch. Better than hoboken.


I lived in hoboken for 5 years. My car was stolen from my parking lot in a luxury building.

Also I grew up in westchester NY suburbs and the city life is relatively new to me.

You made the right choice. It is best value in the area. Good luck and welcome to the neighborhood.

Hi Everyone,

We have just signed a contract a brand new condo on 185 Webster Avenue (b/w Griffith and Bowers) and I found out about this board by coincidence tonight...Well, I guess I should have done it before signing the contract but we have an attorney review period so I hope it's still not late.

My question is to all who lives in JC Heights...I'll greatly appreciate if you can tell me about how safe this area is because I am a work-at-home mom with a newborn and I have to run many errands around during the day time.

I tried to check the message boards and saw mixed reviews...some people say it's pretty safe (not sure what they exactly mean by "pretty"; does it mean there are occasional murders?) and some people seem to be concerned about crimes, etc.

I am very concerned now because we are almost about to purchase the condo. Any comments will be helpful!

Thanks so much!!!

Quote:

Welcome to Minnie's world.
She gets "no ball playing" signs posted, then claims she'll magnanimously decline to call the cops if you do, presumably as long as you "play ball" with her. This was one technique that "Atlas Shrugged" opened my eyes to as a youth, passing laws not to get them obeyed but to get leverage in exchange for lenient enforcement. Many zoning laws work like this, it's how NY got full of setback, oversized towers in ugly plazas.

Quote:

There's nothing better than a "I'm doing something, (i am assuming) you're doing nothing, therefore whatever i'm doing must be right" argument!

Quote:

Brewster: Minnie and the mystery cohert you speak of have never called the cops on little kids and I don't appreciate your insulting remark.

BTW.. what are you doing to get the NCAA field unlocked so that others can use it too?

Quote:
Go to the JC Reservoir Preservation Alliance website and find out.

Again with the personal attacks. That's quite a constructive argument you make there: Ian is a narcissist, so obviously he has nothing worthwhile to say. The only thing you seem to make clear is that the only opinion that matters is your own; now that seems rather narcissistic to me.

Anyone who disagrees with you is immediately labeled a shill. Or even better, an apologist, which carries with it the connotation of something much worse-- as if to include pro-development with pro-fascists, pro-holocaust, pro-nazism.

Now, in either case, for the most part JP, you've taken the time to make extensive and well formulated arguments, and I will respond in kind.

Indeed, there are two issues at work here: one part, the arts district and the artists, and part two, the historic district. I'm less interested in the fight the artists had or have.

As far as the historic district, the merits of 111 First street are very much up for debate, because it is a subjective matter.

Quote:

Great, just what we need, a memorial to the arrival of national chains. So in essence, a monument to Wal*Mart, The Gap, and Starbucks. Perfect.

I don't think 111 First Street is particularly significant. I'm sure there are a number of people, amateurs and professionals alike who would agree with me, just as I'm sure you all could find a number of people to agree with you that the building is significant.

I also don't believe the city was better off during the last 18 months when 111 First street was wrapped up in scaffolding and no one was living there and the building was vacant.

I agree that the streetscape in the powerhouse district is quite interesting as a former warehouse district. Industrial architecture is unique and visually appealing: the cobblestones, the industrial style window panes, the ornamentation, the industrial accessories.

I think its possible that the developer exaggerated the need to rip the building down, perhaps even likely that he did.

I also think that if the developer had been inclined, he could have kept the shell of the old facade intact and built a tower in the center, similar to the Hearst building in New York; old meets new. But the way I see it, and I could be wrong, the hard line stance by preservation activists lead the developer to find a tricky way of getting around the zoning, that is, simply to say that the building needed to be demolished because it was unsafe. Instead, perhaps it would have been better to grant a variance for a higher tower on the condition that the existing facades be maintained and with greater setbacks.

I think the other problem too is that the preservation crowd in the city is taking a shotgun approach to historical preservation. Apparently, everything with the slightest hint of history needs to be preserved. I think people believe it trendy and cool to fight the good fight, I think people are afraid of change. We don't live in a museum, but a city, an organic machine.

A city is not a park, not a building, not a street. A city is ever changing, an environment in flux, a massive system in motion. Part of that system is preservation and conservation, the protection of the past, but part of that system is also change.

Finally I think folks should take a look at John Lumea's well articulated essay on contextual zoning and historical preservation. http://www.johnlumea.com/2007/02/nimbyopolis.html

Goldman brougbt several lawsuits, six I believe. Some without merit. Some with, but they would not have given him the relief he could have obtained here.

Goldman was initially successful challenging the district's historic designation. The terms of several commissioners had lapsed. This happens more often than one might think, and usually the commissioners just serve lapsed terms, replaceable at will.

A decision a few years back relating to the Planning Board's approval of the Millenium Towers project, however, said that if a commission was operating on lapsed terms, its actions were void.

So Judge Gallipolli voided the warehouse district's designation. He explicitly told the city, however, that they could re-vote on the designation (the city had, since the designation, appointed new commissioners or reappointed old ones).

Goldman also submitted an application to the HPC for a certificate of economic hardship, claiming that renovation of the building was infeasible (this was before the ordinance was struck down). The HPC denied it. Presumably he would have challenged this decision in court, but it would have been a tough challenge, since it is a fact based determination that courts give deference to (although Gallipolli has shown a lot of hostility toward Jersey City).

Then there was the federal lawsuit. That alleged that the whole process of designating the historic district and passing the redevelopment plan constituted an unlawful "conspiracy" to deprive NewGold Equities of its property rights. Goldman sought $100 million in damages.

This was just ridiculous. Essentially Goldman was saying that the entire legislative process was being designed with no purpose but to bully him and take his money away. Whatever the merits you think of the PAD, whatever you think of 111 First St, and whatever you think of the historic importance of the area, it is just ludicrous to say that this was all done to get Lloyd Goldman. To the extent a particular ordinance was procedurally invalid, Goldman had his remedies in state court. Goldman took it a huge leap forward, and essentially argued that urban planning constitutes unlawful conspiracy.

The city had a counterclaim for $70 million in fines. Some of these claims may not have been timely, although they could have possibly been used to offset any judgment against Goldman.

The thing to remember is this. There is no way Goldman could have obtained the relief which he sought with respect to 111 First Street. If he wins completely, and the PAD and historic designation are invalid, then he is left with a building in Industrial/Warehouse Zoning. Essentially, his lawyer's were saying that not only were the restrictions invalid, but that he had the RIGHT to have zoning changed so that he could build the second largest building in the state, with no restrictions whatsoever.

If 111 was in fact in such bad shape that it was beyond repair, he could have been allowed to take it down and build a new structure that conformed with the rest of the plan. This could have been a new warehouse. or if PAD was valid, a building around 90 feet high.

Another thing to remember. Preserving 111 does not mean keeping the building (buildings, actually) intact in all regards, interior or exterior. Yes, it would have been neat to have the courtyards, etc. But the real concern was always the exterior. The facade could have been renovated or replicated, and the interior could have been reconfigured in a variety of ways. He still had the right to build up to 90 feet, so long as it was set back. And since the building comprised two full blocks, there were still plenty of units to build.

There's another part of this as well, 110 First Street. 110 had already been torn down. And 110 had been part of the section that was rezoned as "Hudson Exchange" a few years before. So in that case, Goldman had a stronger case because he could point to that property being downzoned, although downzoning is not per se illegal. If the city really wanted to settle, they could have given him flexiibility on 110 in exchange for sticking with the plan in 111.

Ultimately, this can't be considered a "settlement" because Goldman not only didn't give anything significant up, but because he got MORE than he could have received had he won his lawsuit hands down.

But I really don't think the city was settling to avoid liability. It was settling because the administration had never really bought into the plan in the first place. For this administration, downtown is a place where builders should be given the right to build as high as possible, receive an abatement (PILOT), and help plug the city's budget gap without making the tough choices that fiscal responsibility requires. Make the waterfront "Hong Kong on the Hudson" to pay for the rest of the city.

Has the City really cave in to Goldman or was City's case in the lawsuit not strong enough to win outright?

On City's side there were some $70 million in fines for safety and fire violations (seems a bit high, but whatever).

On Goldman's side was an argument that the PAD designation caused him undue hardship, since fixing up the wreck that was 111 First was not economically feasible and would cause him to lose money.

I can see how an impartial judge could find Goldman's argument convincing.

So they settled. Happens all the time.

I am not buying the argument that Goldman managed to ruin 111 First in the 15-or-so years since he took title. I think it's been neglected much, much longer than that. Now that the demolition is revealing 111 First layer after layer, everyone can see that the building was indeed in a pretty bad shape.

I also think that the other warehouses in PAD (those that are currently being turned into condos etc) were in much better shape in 111 First and lent themselves better to conversion.

I am not going to cry after 111 First.

The Port Authority's obstructionist behavior is much worse than Goldman's in this whole PAD debacle.

That's a pretty blatant attempt at insurance fraud. I hope he had a good alibi for where he was during that window of time.

Quote:

That's right, because as you see, I haven't explained the history behind the Powerhouse Arts District, historic warehouse, district, etc.

But let me make one clarification. I would not be so [narcisssistic http://www.ianmacallen.com/ian-narcissism.html] as to claim that the concept of preservation and redevelopment of the warehouse district/Powerhouse Arts District were "my views." They were the result of delberation and cooperation by the city's planning department, Pro-Arts, the Urban Land Institute, the State Historic Preservation office.

If anyone at the Conservancy deserves credit, it is John Gomez, who single handedly prepared a National Register nomination for the Hudson and Manhattan Powerhouse, something which one usually pays professionals tens of thousands of dollars to do. It was successful and placed on the National Register despite the vehement opposition of the Port Authority, who came up with such "visions" like building an office tower in the middle of the Powerhouse, with the current structure serving as a parking deck.

I really couldn't give a rats ass if someone says "JP, you know nothing about architecture." Because I don't pretend to take credit for all the planning, deliberation and hard work that went into the one redevelopment plan that the city didn't just hand off to the owner and say "write whatever you want."

Heights: Beacon Avenue apartment robbed of rare coins

Friday, February 16, 2007
By MICHAELANGELO CONTE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Rare coins and jewelry were reported missing from the apartment of a Jersey City man when he returned home yesterday morning to find a burglar had broken through a window in the early morning hours yesterday, officials said.

The 47-year-old Beacon Avenue man left his home at midnight and called police when he returned at 12:45 a.m. and found his door was open and his front window was broken, police reports said.

He told the officers a number of rare coins were taken as well as two diamond rings, a wedding ring, a DVD player, a clock radio, a birth certificate and a blue laundry bag, reports said.

The police report did not include the value of the items taken.

Hi LoucheNJ,

You're right in that two issues often get crossed up. But that's in part because they were, together, part of the revitilization of what was an abandoned and underutilized industrial district.

The redevelopment of the district had two components. The first was the historic designation of the neighborhood as the Historic Warehouse District. That was a historic designation which protected the buildings.

The second was the redevelopment plan which created the Powerhouse Arts District. This also required restoration of the buildings according to historic standards, and required that units in each building be developed as lofts so they could be used by artists.

The two districts' boundaries were almost (though not exactly) identical.

The historic designation of the district was, in my opinion, a key component of the overall development, as it helped create and solidify the district's identity. A copy of the warehouse district nomination, prepared by Richard James, is below.

http://www.jerseycityhistory.net/warehousenomination.html

The warehouse district was considered to be eligible by the State's Historic Preservation Office. The state's HPC unanimously recommended historic designation, and the city council unanimously adopted it. In addition to the architectural merits of the various buildings, the district was a complete neighborhood that was replete with Jersey City's industrial history. The Lorillard Tobacco Headquarters, the Butler Brothers Warehouse, The A&P Headquarters were all major presences in Jersey City and, along with the other businesses, crucial to the industrial development of the city.

Some of the buildings were in fact converted according to this plan. As mentioned above, 140 Bay Street, the J. Leo Cooke Warehouse, was converted and is a fantastic combination of restored warehouse and modern architecture. The units sold out almost immediately. 150 Bay, the former A&P headqaurters, is undergoing a similar conversion. The floors that have been completed abd opened as rentals have also filled up. Several of the owners/renters are artists. And this doesn't just apply to the subsidized units. Last October, when I went on the Artist's studio tour, I was impressed with how many artists bought or rented the apartments and market rate, because they really liked the idea of living in these restored warehouses and thought it was great space.

There were also some vacant spaces in the district that were being construted. Waldo Lofts, just north of the A&P headquarters, is an example of modern construction that fits in well (though I do know some people who think the building is ugly) The developer had originally claimed that building according to the PAD guidelines was unviable. At that time, the city stuck to its guns and made the developer follow the plan (with a slight height variance).

Now that the city has capitulated on 111, that same developer is in a joint venture with Toll Brothers with respect to the former A&P Annex and Manischewitz Matzoh factory. They are now claiming that they to, should not have to follow the plan, and are demanding that they be allowed to build 50 stories.

There were also plans for a theater on one of the other vacant spots. I have been told that the owner of that property is now making noises about abandoning the plan and building a high rise as well.

Maybe 111 will be a masterpiece. Maybe it will be, as some posters have suggested, the equivalent of the World Trade Center or Empire State Building of Jersey City. So for all the talk of Rem Koolhaas, and how he can build a great set of skyscrapers, perhaps as tall as 60 stories each., to anchor the district, that's simply not what this is about.

Right now, this is about developers who are asking for as much density as they can to make as much money as they can, and the city capitulating because they want to give them a tax PILOT to provide some immediate revenue for a broke city. And to do so, the city abandoned a plan that was the product of years of consultations between builders, artists, preservationists, and groups like the Urban Land Institute. One that was working very well.

Jersey City reservoir to stay urban oasis
Mayor says it will be passive recreation park

Friday, February 16, 2007
BY RUSSELL BEN-ALI
Star-Ledger Staff

The future of an abandoned Jersey City reservoir -- home to peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, egrets and largemouth bass -- has been the source of competing visions.

A city councilman wanted to see the 13 acres filled with ballfields, but an alliance of neighborhood naturalists envisioned a public nature park, the mayor an ecology-themed school and developers condominiums, a sports complex, a parking garage and a mini mall.

Yesterday, Mayor Jerramiah Healy said the eclectic Reservoir 3 will remain a green urban oasis -- the site of a passive recreation park with a pier for fishing, a dock for canoes and a trail for walking or jogging.

"This is not something that was arrived at willy-nilly or quickly," Healy told several dozen residents, city and state officials and reporters gathered at a news conference. "This has been kind of an evolutionary process."

The announcement can be seen as a compromise to some, but not all, of those who were passionate about the reservoir's future.

"I'd have to say that, reluctantly, I think they received it pretty well," Healy said of a group that wanted to see ballfields built for children at the site.

In the end, Healy noted the Jersey City Heights area that contains the reservoir is one of the most congested in the city and an unlikely place for more housing. And some of the city's baseball diamonds and soccer fields are underutilized, he said, including those at Pershing Field, which is adjacent to the reservoir and has ballfields and a running track.

"This type of park is something that we do not have, and this is a more immediate need," he said.

The costs and construction completion date are unknown, Healy said. Parts of the new park could be open to the public as soon as next summer, according to officials.

The mayor was joined by state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa Jackson at the conference, which was held at a Pershing Field community center.

"Nothing can be more important than the saving of an eco-oasis -- that's really what this is," Jackson said. "Saving it so that you don't have to go too far to find open space and, not just open space, but species, 'critters' ... as I say with my kids."

Built in the 1870s, Reservoir 3 was a holding tank for Passaic River drinking water. The water was later deemed too polluted to drink, and the city decommissioned it in 1989.

Birch trees, red oaks and maples sprouted from organic material that accumulated on the basalt banks of the reservoir.

Unconnected to any other body of water, fish somehow made it inside the reservoir, said Steve Latham, head of the Jersey City Reservoir Preservation Alliance, who gave several journalists a tour of the site yesterday.

It is elevated and difficult to see from the street, shrouded in part by massive Egyptian revival-style stone walls.

The Reservoir Preservation Alliance, a group of neighborhood environmental groups, obtained a city permit to give tours two years ago and has since introduced hundreds to the reservoir.

The city is mulling over a design by T&M Associates, a Middletown-based engineering group.

The design leaves space for a wildlife wetlands area, which will be off limits to the public, Jersey City corporate counsel William Matsikoudis said. He said the design includes space for public hiking paths, docks for fishing and kayaks and an environmental center in one of the historic buildings abutting the reservoir.

But the Reservoir Preservation Alliance favors its own design -- one that leaves the size of the reservoir intact -- over the city plan, which could reduce it dramatically to make room for amenities.

"That would make it more like a pond," alliance member Ed Mullen, who designed the group's proposal, said of the city plan.

But city officials said the final plan is far from approved.

"We're all basically on the same page," said Matsikoudis. "So we just need to sit down and work this through."

Quote:

Calling someone an "developer apologist" is still name calling and usually comes out whenever certain people lack the ability to produce a clear, coherent, logical defense of their own views.

Need a little clarification here to evaluate some of these posts because some issues have become combined, at least for me.

1. Are the individuals advocating the preservation of the warehouse district doing so BOTH for its architecture and as artist housing?

2. Do people advocating property owners' rights support the area's use as artists' housing in some way?

For me, these issues keep getting crossed when I think about them. I am not wedded to saving most of the warehouses, but would like to see at least some of them converted to market rate housing, perhaps with artist set asides, if only for architectural variety and to see if architects can integrate modern purpose built residential with converted older buildings. Overall, what I would like to see is a "green", pedestrian friendly residential/retail area that links the waterfront with the interior historic districts.

Since several of you had challenged the qualifications of posters to express their opinions concerning architecture and development, I am LoucheNJ, M.Arch, MBA.

Yesterday, I met someone who works for the NYS Council on the Arts -she knew about the situation in JC - essentially she thought that real estate had gotten too expensive, too fast for an artist community to survive.

The Fraggles, colorful little cave dwelling creatures, lived in a symbiotic relationship with small little green creatures called Doozers. The Doozers built structures from radish extract that the Fraggles ate. One afternoon, Mokey Fraggle saw the beauty of the Doozer structures; elaborate, crystal palaces. Mokey convinced the other Fraggles to stop eating the Doozer structures in order to preserve them. Eventually the Doozers all decided to leave because there was no place left in the cave for them to build. The Fraggles were also quite hungry as the Doozer buildings were their main source of food. Eventually, the Doozers agreed to return on the promise that the Fraggles would once again eat their buildings.

(Hint: This is a metaphor)

Quote:

What a comeback!

Wow, you really got one back here. I'm impressed.

My original remark must've hurt since it so stuck in your mind.

Whatever.

White Star is still a frigging bar/lounge, and it should be okay to nurse one drink and twirl one's hair, $5-whiners like you notwithstanding.

I am glad Joshua and Dan are out ther speaking up on my and others behalf. There are valid points on each side of the story, and I don't need to repeat what has been argued at length by others. Each side makes some sense to me. Whether or not a skyscraper belongs on that block, whether or not it will be ugly, whether or not the architect is good, whether or not we should have an arts neighborhood, or whether or not there are enough places to eat lunch is beside the point. They are red herrings tossed out to confuse the real issue here.
What trumps every other issue for me is the disregard with which the zoning decision of the city has been treated by Goldman. What it means, is that if you have enough money to threaten a multi-million dollar lawsuit, you can defy any local ordinance; whether or not your suit has merit.
I am tremendously disappointed that the city just let this happen and that some national legal organization didn't step in to fund the city's defense.
This is exactly what the federal superfund law has done in a different sphere. Our city could never force someone like Honeywell to clean up toxins. The cost of a suit would bankrupt the city, so we need state and national funding sources to pay for enforcement.
If Goldman succeeds, and it appears that he has, there is a good chance that we will have lost the ability to control local zoning. As long as you threaten to spend enough money, you can build what you want.
Oh, not you. You still can't put up a deck unless your neighbors say its OK. Unless you have enough money to threaten the city.
Years ago a developer in New York but an extra floor or two on top of his skyscraper, beyond what the zoning law told him he could build. He figured maybe no one would notice, or that once he had them up, he'd have to pay a fine or something, and that would be the end of it. Well, New York City made him remove the extra floors. That's what I'd like to see Jersey City do to Goldman, except we've already backed down.
I suggest that we need State and/or Federal laws that enforce local zoning, and a system of fines that will fund lawsuits against the offending developers. More big government, and more taxes; I know, I know. But somebody come up with a better solution. If we don't, I think we're going to be in trouble. One skyscaper isn't the issue here. We will have lost the ability to dictate any limits to anyone with the money to defy us.

Quote:

Worse is the fact that they have refused to create multi-use fields, so there's no place to play soccer. When Enos Jones was renovated we at HPNA asked, and were ignored. We now have a padlocked NCAA field, but no place for 8 year olds to kick a ball around without risking Minnie and her cohort calling the cops.

Quote:

That's a very good point. The little leagues around here all play bascially the same season--April through June--so the fields are booked for most nights and weekends during that part of the year.

Unfortunately, that means those fields basically sit unused the other nine months of the year. I'm not sure about Pershing, but the fields downtown are used solely by the Clemente little league.

If the little leagues were really interested in getting more children playing, they would maximize use of the fields, perhaps having a July-September league, to double the use.

I like baseball, and I like the Clemente league, but between baseball fields that are used by a narrow segment of the poulation for a portion of the year, and natural public park space, right now, the latter wins, in my mind.

Quote:

whiniest post of the year (and from the guy who a few posts up was complaining about name-calling!)

"Shill" has a specific meaning and I very much doubt that it applies to anyone who has disagreed with you on this issue; it certainly doesn't apply to me. It is mere name-calling on your part.

Clearly you believe that non-owners should be able to dictate how owners can use their property down to very specific details. Your citing previous zoning, landmarking, etc. at great length suggests a belief that everyone agrees with you on this but that is simply not the case.

That some people treasure freedom, and the combined wisdom of multiple owners/buyers/tenants acting in a free market over a few "planners" does not make us "shills".

Quote:

excuse my ignorance but does passive mean it will just allow to grow wild with no facilities or maintenance?

I'd like to see some activities setup, maybe contract with a local shop to sell different activities.

What summer/winter activities will be offered, for example can you ice skate there in the winter?

Quote:

Hurray for a passive nature preserve/park. Three cheers for Steve Latham and team. And the Mayor if he follows through.

Now if only we could get some more focus on preserving poor old historic Hamilton Park. What a shame. What a shame.