Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

210 Pavonia Ave, which is one of the raided homes, is a one family home Downtown. The Milburn couple that owns it paid $240,000 for it in 1990.
354 Wayne St. is a large two family home. The couple that owns it paid $89,900 for it in 1981.
Are you trying to say that what these two couples did was because they couldn't make any money renting or selling their homes legitimately? Really?

Not sure if you are asking me but obviously the buildings were vastly overcrowded. I am sure that like many landlords the people may have thought they were renting legitimately but then you would have to ask them. My first landlord lived in North Carolina. We could have had 20 people living in our place and they would never have known. And many out of town landlords NEVER check on their properties.

Yes, I was asking you because you wrote that the owners were breaking the law because they couldn't make money legitimately. Those owners own very valuable properties and the owners can most definitley rent and or sell for profit.
Here's another question: why did you make it a point of mentioning Asians and Indians (BTW, Indians are Asian) when you could have not made any reference to nationality and it would have had the same effect? It came across as racist to me.

I never ONCE said that they couldn't make money legitimately. I never once said they were breaking the law. I didn't need to as the city obviously exposed that. I think you may be imaginening things that are not there. As for people's racial sensitivities? That's their burden.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

210 Pavonia Ave, which is one of the raided homes, is a one family home Downtown. The Milburn couple that owns it paid $240,000 for it in 1990.
354 Wayne St. is a large two family home. The couple that owns it paid $89,900 for it in 1981.
Are you trying to say that what these two couples did was because they couldn't make any money renting or selling their homes legitimately? Really?

Not sure if you are asking me but obviously the buildings were vastly overcrowded. I am sure that like many landlords the people may have thought they were renting legitimately but then you would have to ask them. My first landlord lived in North Carolina. We could have had 20 people living in our place and they would never have known. And many out of town landlords NEVER check on their properties.

07310 wrote:
Quote:

brosjch wrote:
With Hoboken and low lying parts of JC seeing such flooding, I've been wondering what will the effect be on Heights real estate? Mostly Hoboken really, kinda refreshing to see the wind taken out of their bloated $property value$ sails.

Any thoughts? Will Heights see a boom...being 100 ft above sea level and all? The global warming 'alarmists' will be trumpeting Sandy as "things to come", so who will benefit?

Please, only thought-out responses. No silliness because you're butt-hurt over my tone or content.

DT JC and lower Manhattan are at or slightly above sea level if these areas are in danger of being flooded permanently this will have a negative impact on JC Heights. Flooding would cause the loss of important infrastructure such as the PATH system and the Holland tunnel and probably the Lincoln tunnel. This would also destroy much of the subway system and buildings in lower Manhattan. All the jobs that the local economy depends on would probably move far away.

CdeCoincy wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

CdeCoincy wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Good point vindication15. Why are the artists called pioneers when it's really the rich who have driven up the prices downtown because they will pay higher and higher prices. And what about the poor people who stayed Downtown after the white flight of the late 80's and the place was like a slum. Are they pioneers?

White flight out of downtown in the late 80's? News to me. By then "rich people" were busy buying row houses as soon as they came on the market, usually owner-occupied row houses, in my experience. Not sure of the dates, but it was about that time that the nabes were put on the National Register. At worst, dtjc was a commercially under-serviced inner city neighborhood with excellent transportation to high-paying jobs and with a very desirable housing stock.

My neighbor couldn't get anyone to pay $25K for a Brownstone down there in the eighties. My ex wouldn't move there in the 90's because he thought it was a dump.
So what does 'inner-city' really mean? Is it related to an 'outer-city'?

What's the address of this house - I'd like to walk by.

ianmac47 wrote:
All of this complaining is policy through emotional response. That helps no one.

You think these towers are causing some kind of change, like they will be a catalyst to ruining quality of life in Journal Square. That's not it. The change has already happened. These towers are the result, not the cause, the product, not the catalyst.

They are to built practically on top of the Journal Square transit center. Buses, PATH, and what could have been a light rail station if the don't-change-anything crowd hadn't been so oppositional to running a line down Sixth Street.

The traffic problems with fix themselves. If there is too much traffic, more people will take transit.

Let the grownups talk now.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

CdeCoincy wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Good point vindication15. Why are the artists called pioneers when it's really the rich who have driven up the prices downtown because they will pay higher and higher prices. And what about the poor people who stayed Downtown after the white flight of the late 80's and the place was like a slum. Are they pioneers?

White flight out of downtown in the late 80's? News to me. By then "rich people" were busy buying row houses as soon as they came on the market, usually owner-occupied row houses, in my experience. Not sure of the dates, but it was about that time that the nabes were put on the National Register. At worst, dtjc was a commercially under-serviced inner city neighborhood with excellent transportation to high-paying jobs and with a very desirable housing stock.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Willie- Let's keep this to ourselves and let the naysayers say what they will. Actually, I used to be a Heights-basher but I've seen the light, especially after Sandy and I was forced to take the jitneys to Manhattan via Union City.

I friend had to take the NJ transit bus from Port Authority and it took a shocking 15 minutes around 6pm

Welcome to the light.. As far as supermarkets Willie all of JC supermarkets suck a##!

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
trust me there are plenty of people moving from Manhattan, Brooklyn, Hoboken and downtown j,c to the heights

Very true. Why would anyone ever want to live in NYC when all the businesses, world class restaurants, hotels, clubs, museums, and broadway are in the heights! oh wait...none of that are in the heights...

Yes artists are moving to the heights...rofl. Cause you know, artists are millionaires that will bring the wealth to your part of town. I kid, I kid, artists are great, just visit the empty, wordndown lots of the powerhouse arts district to see how artists revitalized that area.

You really seem to have no concept of economics. There's something we call "money" and not everyone has unlimited amounts of it. People usually leave NYC, including me, not because they don't like it but because they can't afford it! And some people make the choice after that to buy a single family with a yard in the Heights rather than a 1 bedroom in Downtown or Hoboken for the same budget.

Do you REALLY also not understand the cycle of the wealthy pouring into areas the impoverished artists pioneer in search of affordable space and make hip? SOHO, Alphabet City, TriBeCa, Williamsburg, DUMBO, Hoboken, DTJC. What planet are you from? I was attending SVA art school parties in Hoboken in 1982. I was working with a musician and model maker who had several years earlier went in with a couple of buddies and bought a loft building there for $40k. Certainly there were guys like you who mocked them throwing their money away!

Oh, I agree about the affordability. Prior posts made it seem like people were moving to the heights for other reasons besides not being able to afford to live somewhere else. because you know, the heights offers something unique...

as for the artists, I stand by what I said. why were the artists pioneers? They were in those areas before the rich came in and started to bring in business and development. Why not call homeless people pioneers? Thank the professionals themselves for moving into Hoboken, Newport, DTJC, not the artists...that makes no sense.

HeightsBrat wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
What about the huge vacant lot/area of property in the Heights where Stop & Shop was going to move to. Between Laidlaw & Jefferson/Central & Summit. They are digging up the soil with construction vehicles inside there. I am hearing now that it may become a school.

Where have you been? Eminent Domain was declared at least 8 years ago. Stop & Shop was going to build store, jobs for 275 locals, monies for recreation, NO TAX ABATEMENT BEING SOUGHT, new police station. But we now we get a school & no ratables. Though can't be 100% certain if school. I've been meaning to stop & ask.

JC_Man wrote:
It will be rentals - a 11 or 12 story building. Majority of larger projects now in the city are rentals since banks won't finance condos and rental market is solid.

SammyTheT wrote:
jmiz - a voice of reason - THANK YOU!