Doozer-
Per your request, I will look to get you that information.

However, to further put into perspective what I am asking for help to deal with, I can immediately tell you without much thought of 9,000 units that will be on-line in Ward E alone within the next 4 years. That is a conservative number.

The vast majority of the buildings that will house those units will have parking built in as is the case with the existing buildings. However, as is the case now, many of the new buildings will be entitled to get parking permits.

Whichever way you choose to look at the numbers and the policy, the parking situation will be getting significantly more difficult if not addressed

Steve

This will veer a bit off topic, but I'll try to make it relevant.

As Nuada points out, in this country (and elsewhere), automobile ownership brings with it a certain status. People who can afford to own cars often do even if it is not that necessary or convenient.

Still, individuals owning multiple cars in an urban setting is a bit of overkill. And automobile dependence in a city is not sustainable. We can't tell people "you can't own cars." But we shouldn't try to build a city around excess automobile ownership either.

The only reason I own a car is because a few years ago my grandfather decided that he was too old to drive. So now I have a 1988 Toyota Camry which he hardly put any miles on. We primarily use it when we go away for the weekends. Occassionally I'll sometimes drive it to synagogue or to the vegetable market on 440. There are weeks where I don't touch the car at all.

Right now, I can use public transportation to get to most places I need to go. If Zipcar expands a bit more in Jersey City to the point where I know I can get a car nearby when I really need one, I'll pass up buying a new car and possibly even get rid of this one (although I kind of take pride in being able to stretch out the life of a vehicle over 20 years). That's one more free parking space for downtown. You're welcome.

Anyway, to relate this to the proposed legislation. I think the councilman has hit on an issue which is a sore spot both ways. Residents of the brownstones resent that developers get tax abatements, residents indirectly benefit, and then don't use the parking spaces which the developers agreed to build. Residents of the high rises resent being told that they can't park on the streets in the neighborhood in which they live.

Right now it seems that there are several valid concerns being raised, and my worry is that the final legislation will have so many loopholes that it will be too narrow to have an effect. Then there is the question of how serious the city will be when it comes to enforcement.

All in all though, this is a band aid solution to a more serious problem, which is the overabundance of automobiles and lack of alternative transportation in dense urban areas. That's not to say that Steve shouldn't try to do something like this to address the problem immediately. But some longer term solutions are necessary (and I know through discussions with Steve that he is looking at these as well).

Joshua

Yes, whereas generally speaking, my conversations on this ordinance at neighborhood meetings in Paulus Hook, Van Vorst Park, Hamilton Park, and Harsimus have been very positive and teh residents overwhelmingly support the change, the Newport Waterfront Association was the exact opposite.

I certainly tried to convey to the Newport group how this will help them as I wholeheartedly believe it will, however, the conversation with a select few of that group became nasty to the point on the Newport Board people were accusing me of having a quid pro quo agreement with the Lefraks for a campaign contribution in exchange for a ordinance change (bribe). If you know me as a person, you would know this is not a possibility but it is hurtful nevertheless because I put everything I have into this job ? and that is an attack on character not policy

Truthfully, my reputation means more to me than forcing a situation on a community that had little support for the ordinance - even if I believe it is best for them. That would just be a lose-lose at the end of the day

Regarding the ordinance, in my eyes, the purpose of the ordinance is to eliminate the competition between on-street and off-street parking. Newport does not have this competition for the reason that there are no buildings without off-street parking in that area. I think the ordinance would have served to force compression on pricing for residents but I can?t have a conversation when it resorts to baseless personal attacks such as I would take a bribe ? even though it made no sense.

I do still think they are missing a positive opportunity but ordinance will still achieve the said goal in the communities that are mixed between larger and smaller buildings without that zone included.

I support the proposed changes. Thanks for keeping us involved, councilman.

Steve, Do you have any estimate what percentage of housing is in 30+ unit buildings (or will be in ~5 years), and how many currently use street parking? Assuming the ordinance removed all of the street permits for the large buildings, how great would the impact be? Also, how many non-resident permits are given out for your ward?

Councilman: Did I hear correctly ... that you are contemplating some kind of temporary exemption for Newport? If so, who requested this?

I have to agree, penalize landlords/developers. And make them prove that spaces are rented to BUILDING RESIDENTS!

Many of us rented in JC with the promise of off-street parking and when we have unloaded the moving van, we are then told the spot went to someone else and there is a waiting list of up to a year. Some landlords/developers have 2 and 3 spots for themselves or associates and you are left out in the cold.
Quote:

I am confused. I believe I am already in that second class of residents -- I cannot get a permit because I live in one of the large towers, so that ordinance already exisits, right? And I am therefore being forced to pay a lot each month for parking. As JC has done little to protect tenants in these high-rise buildings (my rent went up 10 percent last year, and after contacting the city, I was told I have no recourse), it would be nice if, for once, JC looked after tenants rather than developers. Why is it that, if I live in a small building, I get street parking, and if I live in a big building, I don't? And why is it that some people in big buildings get permits, while others don't? The problem is that you can't give a logical, fair explanation, and that would be a problem for the new ordinance.
Besides, you can't tie the parking directly to the apartment, as many residents don't have cars and won't want to have a parking space that they won't use included in their rent.
Maybe people who don't qualify for a permit should get some sort of rebate -- at least then it would seem more fair.
Also, the garage in my building is pretty much full-- I don't see the developer wanting for renters for the spaces. Perhaps that's because we can't get permits?

Once again GWB, I recommend that you re-read my post.

Quote:

"Further investigation into the incident" was precisely my intention in forwarding the email to Mayor Healy, Steve Fulop and the JCNWA.

You are the person who derailed this entire thread by insinuating that the alleged victim's connection with a "commie" group automatically discredits him. The incident involved three people, one of whom was in fact a member of the org that disseminated the press release. Why is that so surprising to you? Then you further derailed the thread by jumping to conclusions and making insinuations about me.

I agree that more information is good, essential even, which is again why I forwarded to the press release to the authorities. You on the other hand did a google search then made your own assumptions.

Also, my "clairvoyance" is based on the fact that you have never been able to engage in a debate here on JCList without resorting to personal attacks or doting on the individual. So yes, I knew you were going to focus on me and stray from the subject .

Further investigation into the incident, not the group.

And as I said, I already know enough about the group, and their accusations to discount it utterly until I get some information from a reliable news source. I also don't want my name forwarded to the Commintern for future liquidation once the Worker's Paradise arrives. When that happens I'll carry my copy of the CM in my pocket just like everyone else :D

I'm not sure where it lead to, but I'm glad I've validated your belief in your own clairvoyance.

You derailed this by responding to my post, pointing out what kind of organization we were talking about here. I simply wanted that info out there so everyone would be better informed before coming to a conclusion. Apparently you would have preferred that the group not be scrutinized and instead be taken at face value. I can think of no other reason why you've responded so forcefully.

More information is good, don't you think?

GWB

I KNEW that's where this was going to lead to. How utterly predictable. How did this become about ME?

Just so you know, I worked for a Democratic Senator so YOU can make your own conclusion about which party I owe my loyatly to.

By the way, you completely contradict yourself here:

Quote:

As for the misspelling, I would extend you that courtesy, but really, all you needed to do was look at the subject line. But for your info, the people of the Philippine are called Filipinos (in English) or Pilipinos (in Tagalog/Pilipino). The 2 national languages are English and Pilipino (often times called Tagalog). There are absolutely no Phillipinos living anywhere on that archipelago. I am only clarifying this to you because you so eloquently underlined the need to do our research/investigation before posting or jumping to any conclusions here.


Any other questions?

EDIT: Actually, I think you should just direct your questions to the organization, because you are clearly doting way too much on me, and this thread has nothing to do with ME. If you re-read the orginal post, you will see their email address.

"Phillipino hate" was not, clearly, a reference of hatred by "phillipinos". I was referring to the lack of hatred OF Filipinos.

You made the analogy and the intent was clear. You didn't make an analogy between whistleblowers at Enron and these youngsters. You made an analogy between the Jim Crow south and the JCPD. If you don't like the response, perhaps you should choose your analogies more carefully.

Philippines, Filipino. Maybe even Pilipino? A country, a person, a language. Would you forgive someone who called a Uzbek a Uzbekistani? Then extend the same courtesy to me.

I do find it interesting that not once does anyone refer to anyone involved, or even the groups involved, as "Filipino Americans". I assume that's what they are. Or maybe they're not.

Alan Alda is a member of the organization. The organization sent out the press release. You are on that organization's mailing list, so presumably you know what kind of organization it is. You forwarded the press release around without further investigation. You were not ignorant of the source, as you have cleared up. P1979 saw it on Indy Media and probably did not notice where it was from. You got it direct from the source.

So at least we know where everyone stands now. If indeed these kids were treated as they claim, heads should roll, endstop. But not based on an uncorroborated claim from some commie organization.

As far as speaking, no offense, but I'll pass. I won't even go as far as to say, Ms. JC, are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party? :)

Thanks

GWB

Affluence brings with it a desire to own a car. Not in every case of course, but often. Having a car is a great, great convenience.

When I think of the folks I know who live in Manhattan, all but one owns a car. Admittedly, this is a 50+, reasonably well-heeled crowd for whom a $400/month parking fee isn't insurmountable.

My hunch is that as Jersey City becomes more affluent, there will be more cars.

That's already proving true in the Heights where many of my neighbors have three or more cars! A generation ago eaxh family might have had one car and some had none.

Drivers seem to circle endlessly in search of spaces at night.

All this said...after living in JC for 6 months I got rid of one car and now have only one (and my house has off-street parking so I am in spades).

Well, if you must know, I received the press release from the organization itself. I emailed it to Mayor Healy, Steve Fulop and the JCNWA, who all have official ties with the JCPD, with my disclaimer that the press release clearly has some strong language but that my intention in forwarding the message to them is to request an investigation and an official statement from the JCPD.

I personally know some JCPD police officers and while I have shared my criticisms of the JCPD as a whole here on this online forum, I have done nothing but support them in real life, as evidenced by my willingness to join the neighborhood watch groups, which work in conjunction with the JCPD. So, GWD my dear, there is no jumping-to-conclusion on my part, and most certainly no "phillipino hate" toward the JCPD emanating from me or my many Fil Am friends from JC.

Any more questions for me before YOU start jumping to any more silly conclusions?

As for "equating the experience of these folks to what African Americans had to live with under slavery and Jim Crow", please re-read my post. I was making the analogy between one politically active/connected person who had bad experiences with another, and refuting your silly notion that just because Alan Alda was a member of such-and-such organization, all his actions & motives particularly surrounding this incident are automatically suspect.

By the way, it's "Filipino" not "phillipino". Might wanna look into that, too, before you "blindly" post messages on a forum without doing your research. Google is your friend, as are dictionary.com and other nifty sites.

Now, before you go any further, I suggest we speak in person, because many people here on JCList know me personally [they know my name, address and contact info] while I/we only know you as GWB. Not exactly a fair debate, especially on something that is so personal to me, and could potentially have a backlash towards me if you or anyone makes any more wrong assumptions.

Lastly, to avoid any further confusion, and I am a "she".

Yes, but JC said that he/she forwarded it around after getting it in email form, which has a larger potential for circulation than this messageboard.

On that note, I wonder exactly who emailed it to JC to begin with.

GWB

Hey W,

I think jc_insominac didn't start this thread Pisces1979 did.

Quote:

I really appreciate the feedback, and I will do my best today to take time to respond to each post. Figuring out how to make this work is important and I think it is close...

Doozer-
The disclaimer you mentioned is included in the ordinance. There is a financial penalty on the developer if this disclosure is not provided.

In general, I don't like the idea of anything that makes owning a car in an urban area like JC easier. Just as affluent communities use 2 acre zoning the ensure that new residents are of a certain economic level, maybe we should make parking sufficiently difficult that families that must own multiple vehicles find living here unattractive and people who can get by with public transit find the area more attractive. I know this is pie in the sky thinking. Okay then, how about making all parking private. I don't own a car, but i own a twenty foot wide brownstone. I can get a ticket if my sidewalk is not clean, so why can't I rent out my curb as a parking space, since apparently I own it. After a 34% tax hike that $200 bucks a month would be nice. Privatizing would eliminate a bit of the city bureaucracy - no more permits. Parking rules could remain in effect too.

Here's an implication of the proposed ordinance that troubles me. As an example: Grove Pointe. If I understand correctly, residents will not be allowed street permits because parking will be included in the project. Will there be parking over and above the necessary amount for owner/tenants to accommodate people who want to drive to our soon to blossom Restaurant Row? As much as I would like to see patrons and shoppers arrive on foot or by public transit, will the new ordinance make it difficult for people who do want to drive into the area to find off street parking because so much of it will have to be taken up by residents. This would be a hardship on merchants trying to make a success of their new businesses.

Personally, I would like to see more efforts to discourage non-resident street parking, including an increase in the fee for non-resident permits. That would not only free up spaces but also decrease commuter traffic and hopefully encourage public transportation.

First off...the important point is that you are initiating a discussion of parking which, I believe, is fast becoming a hot button issue. Old parking lots downtown are vanishing. They were there to inventory land and now that the land has value as building lots, the parking goes. Downtown is not alone in facing a parking crisis. The Heights is far down this path, too. (Thus the many, many illegal curb cuts that attempt to create private parking slots.) There just aren't enough spaces anymore. This is a problem that needs addressing, so I support your efforts. As for your specifics -- <> This is a fine idea. When I lived in Marbella, right after it opened, I paid for two parking slots (a total of $350/monthly, if I recall correctly). Much of that parking garage was empty however. Either residents didn't own cars or they fought for spaces on the streets -- but those street spaces are vanishing as new condo towers go up in the warehouse district. Street parking is not an inalienable right. Developers are required to put in off-street parking so that residents will park there and not fight for a dwindling number of street slots. Yes, this does mean an extra $175 or $200 out of pocket...but so it goes. Personally...I envision us moving back downtown or to Paulus Hook in a year or so...but I won't buy anything that doesn't offer parking. Will that cost me $$? You bet. But I'd rather pay for a spot than pay innumerable tickets.

I would be for this only if new tenants in the affected building sign a seperate document stating they are aware of the parking regulation. Otherwise, I feel too many new residents will be gouged by developers.

Here's why: In the above examples, we can not use a free market analogy, because this is not a free market and the developers clearly have a monopoly over their tenants parking situation. For example, let's say developers continue to offer rent at the current price, without included parking. If the developer decides to raise parking from $200/month to $400/month, what recourse does a tenant have? Existing tenants using parking will not have street permits, and will not have the option of getting one. If half the tenants decide to sell their cars rather than pay the premium, the developer will still earn the same amount they did before (because the doubled the price), and street parking will not be any better off. Meanwhile, tenants who were parking off street are penalized.

I would be much more in favor of a system that penalizes the building for empty spots. That would force the building to lower monthly prices until the spots are filled or open the spots to outside residents (or both). Unless the developer/building management faces a penalty, there is no reason they shouldn't raise their prices and capitalize off their new found monopoly.

There is an exemption in the ordinance for affordable housing and Senior Housing. Don't forget, this will effect only the people who will be moving in to the larger buildings, not residents who are here.

Steven Fulop

Sounds like it may be tough on the less affluent areas.

Since I have been in this position, one thing I have learned is that people are apprehensive about change regardless of the situation. Since elected, I have taken the approach to try and navigate some contentious issues to what I believe is better for JC even if I recognize there may be some political fallout. With that said, I would like you all to be aware of a significant change to the Parking Ordinance that Councilwoman Richardson and I have proposed that I believe in my heart will benefit buildings with off-street parking, buildings without off-street parking, and visitors.

This has been an interesting situation for me, as I have had some pushback from residents and pushback from developers - which is an interesting mix. It leads me to say I am missing something as these are always competing interests. With that said I will do my best to explain the ordinance, and I do welcome/hope for your feedback and perspective.

-----------Important note----------
There will be no change to anyone reading this. There is a grandfather clause in the ordinance that if you have a permit now you will have one going forward. This will only affect residents who do not yet live in JC (maybe do not know they are moving to JC) and will correct the issue in existing units over time as people move out.

----------The Goal Of the Ordinance--------
The goal is to ease the parking problem. Most large buildings are forced to build off-street parking but the city has made a mistake in the past whereas we have not forced the parking to be linked to the units. In many buildings over half the spots sit vacant as those residents get on-street parking permit. I believe this ordinance will correct this and benefit everyone involved

-----------How It Works---------
Residents in buildings of 30 units or more with off-street would no longer be entitled to on street parking permits until all spaces in that building are filled (this is the basic premise- there are nuances to this) but this the overview

--------The Comments From Critics---------
We are creating a second class of residents that are not entitled to on-street parking - which is not fair. We are forcing these people to buy off street parking at a premium.

-------My Thoughts on How It Will Ultimately Effect Buildings With Off Street parking--------
The argument above is not really true as the ordinance doesn?t affect anyone currently here and the burden of disclosure regarding the parking situation for future residents is very clear before someone signs a lease. Nobody will be blindsided.

On pricing, I think anyone who saw this as an opportunity for price increases from a landlord is mistaken and this is a knee-jerk way to look at the legislation. I will do my best to elaborate and I recognize that I don?t have the best writing skills so I hope the idea is conveyed appropriately.

If we agree that markets are self correcting and efficient over the longer term (which they are) it is difficult to make the argument that this is remotely beneficial for a developer, in actuality I would argue it is the exact apposite. This is based on the reality that the housing market in JC (or anywhere) will only hold what the individuals in the market are willing to pay. The housing market and rental market clearly do not go up indefinitely. I think we would all agree that the Jersey City market will always be at a slight discount to Manhattan, at a premium to markets like Bayonne/Weehawken, and (perhaps) similarly priced to Hoboken.

With that said, lets go with the argument that a developer who previously charged X for rent now will charge new residents X+200 automatically because parking is now included. If this was the pricing scheme it is a self correcting market and people would choose not to live here, because the value add is no longer there versus neighboring municipalities because the market is out of perspective.

The only reason that the current pricing scheme is X for rent and an optional $200 for parking today is because essentially there are currently two Jersey City offerings in those buildings for residents (off-street parking and on-street parking). The only thing that this legislation will do is eliminate the dual offerings because there will only be one way to go. Once again if you believe markets are efficient, if anything it will only decrease the value of the off street parking proposition versus rent because it will correct itself with what people are willing to pay to live in any building in Jersey City.

-----------Why I think it will benefit Residents without Off Street Parking---------
This is clear as over time it will work proactively to take cars off the street and put them in parking spaces that were built to house them

Once again, there are competing interests here that rarely see ?eye to eye? which sends an alarm in my head and your feedback is certainly appreciated. If you had the stamina to make it through this excessively long post for which I apologize, hopefully you are willing to give some perspective as it would certainly be appreciated.

Steven Fulop

JC-

Like I said- Form your own opinion. I provided in my post more information on the organization this young man is a member of. That organization ALSO is the one who wrote and disseminated the press release.

There has been absolutely no reportage by anyone anywhere outside of the press release from this organization.

I don't have to "acknowledge" that 3 men went to a precinct and somehow ended up in jail. Everything anyone knows about this case comes from a biased "press release" that you blindly circulated without even looking into it. You say now that you're interested in learning more, but you circulated this with the intention of "getting some answers".

You are the one who is jumping to conclusions.

And if you want to compare the NAACP with a communist organization, that's your choice.

Let me ask you this: Every time some outfit accuses a cop of doing something wrong, is the police department compelled to spend resources on opening a full-blown investigation?

Look at the "quote" from the offended individual. It sounds like it was lifted right out of a party pamplet of talking points. Does that sound natural to you, or what a normal person would say after an incident like this, or does it sound like a "message moment"?

Cops can be clowns like anyone else, but give me a break. Batons? Are you sure they didn't whip out water cannons and dogs too?

If this happened like these guys say it did, it is a career-ender for the officers involved. Why, because of that rampant phillipino hate that is flying around downtown?

And you should be ashamed of yourself for equating the experience of these folks to what African Americans had to live with under slavery and Jim Crow. There is no comparison. Period.


Thanks.

GWB

So, based on your post GWB, we should have ignored people like Rosa Parks (who I'm sure you are aware was a secretary for the NAACP -- GASP!) as "apparently not some political innocent with no agenda". In fact, hers was such a strong agenda that she repeatedly refused to sit in the back of the bus until the last well-known incident exploded in the national media and set the wheels rolling for the American CR movement.

Also, you failed to acknowledge that the 3 men in this story went to the precinct to report a cab driver and essentially ask the JCPD for help, and this is where things get hairy, for some reason was instead arrested themselves. I highly doubt that they went there with the full intention of getting arrested -- for what? So they can launch an attack on the JCPD?

My point here is this -- stop jumping to conclusions one way or another until you've heard both sides. I won't be attending Saturday's meeting because frankly I don't find the story incredible, yet I am reserving judgment until I hear an official statement and hopefully an investigation from the JCPD about this, both as a concerned JC resident and a Filipino American. There are some people on this list that have direct ties with Chief Troy and the JCPD and I really would appreciate if we could get their side. In fact, I would even attend that meeting if I knew that an official representative JCPD would be there to speak on their behalf.

Hey, I could be wrong, I haven't followed local politics closely and didn't live in JC during the Schundler years, but I have some impressions.
Didn't he, in the typical Republican way, refinance the city's debt so that he didn't have to raise taxes? And doesn't the repayment of that debt add substantially to our financial burden now?
Wasn't the charter schools push the Republican way to show how for-profit corporations could do things better than government? And still earn a profit? And wasn't Golden Door built with money donated by real estate developers? That made him look like a champion of the common people, whose children were struggling to get a decent education, but anyone else who needed to build a charter school had to rely on corporations looking to make a profit from our tax money.
Needless to say, Schundler's daughter went to school in Hoboken. And I don't think Golden Door has been a success. Nor do I think the corporation-run schools in this or any other city have worked. But it sounded like a good idea.
Didn't he sell the water supply that had been publicly owned to United Water, and didn't they want to sell it in turn to a French company?
Schundler was just another Republican believer in the transfer of public assets into private hands, which we are seeing nowdays on a much larger and more frightening scale.
I share many other's dismay and frustration at the corruption of local government: Schundler presented a different image to the public, but his policies have done plenty of harm in the long run.

Anakbayan:

http://members.tripod.com/~chapelnet/anakbayan.html

http://www.geocities.com/ysaklan/

http://kilusan.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=338 (nice commie graphics here)

It's some sort of communist (claims socialist, but what's with all the Commintern love) youth group.

Does that mean he didn't have a rough night? No, but he's apparently not some political innocent with no agenda.

The cops are the ones who got hoodwinked here, in my opinion. Ya'll form your own.

I guess the giveaway was how fast they were able to get a press release out. Shame on those who blindly forward this stuff out without further investigating the sources.

Thanks

GWB

What happened, Newsboy?



got your



?

[Sorry everyone, I couldn't resist. ]

Quote:

I recall that Bret had a terrible relationship with the police, mainly because he wouldn't rollover to the union. But, in spite of this dicey relationship, crime was still less than now.

I am a bit concerned that there may be much more crime going on then we are hearing about. The Jersey Journal also used to be better at covering the crime beat. What happened?

-M