JERSEY CITY LIST - Message Forum

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts (JCMan8)

Bottom

« 1 ... 87 88 89 (90) 91 92 93 ... 96 »

JCMan8

Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?

#2671

Home away from home

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
...

Heller states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Government cannot prevent non-felons of sound mind from possessing arms.

What was argued successfully in the 7th and 9th District Courts is that this right does not stop at the doorway of a person's home or business. Your constitutional rights do not become null and void when you leave your house.

Illinois was mandated by the court to become a shall issue as the State had to provide a reason for you NOT to carry. This is where the concept of 'reasonable limitations' come in. The State can limit the right (i.e. felons cannot carry). However, those limits cannot provide an undo burden. A burden that essentially becomes a ban. California is now facing the same with its 'May Issue' law. CA is appealing to the Supreme court.

...

The US Constitution generally protects individuals rights and freedoms, so long as they act responsibly and don't impinge on other people rights and freedoms. Other countries legislate on the basis that most people are idiots and need proscriptive laws to protect themselves and others from the consequences of that idiocy.

Hard to see how the anti-CC lobby have a case under both the letter and spirit of the US Constitution. Where is the real evidence that CC impinges on anyone else's rights or freedoms? "Ban that scary-looking dog" type arguments don't work for me.

I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.

Posted on: 2014/3/8 16:19

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?

#2672

Home away from home

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
How do violent crime stats compare overall in large cities that allow CC to those that don't?

From what I've seen, you have to compare the crime rate in a place before and after allowing CC. Otherwise it is comparing apples to oranges.

I believe the studies are all over the map. This is a good, unbiased (I think) brief article on the topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

The gist is: "Certainly, it appears such laws have not increased the crime rate, as opponents had feared, but it is equally a stretch to say such laws are a slam-dunk reason for why crimes have decreased."

Posted on: 2014/3/8 3:25

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?

#2673

Home away from home

Quote:

AlexC wrote:
Okay I give up. You win the pissing contest. When the law comes down I will carry when I want.

Have a great weekend.

Although I don't own a gun and have no plans to I would support New Jersey's ridiculous CCW law to be overturned. In practice, the only people who get approved to carry are former LEOs and politicians.

With that said, this topic was created because people are trying to persuade the Supreme Court to take up the appeal. They typically take less than 1% of such cases. Granted the odds are slightly higher here due to other states also petitioning them, but I think some here have the mistaken impression that all we have to do is wait for the decision to come down.

In fact, the odds are overwhelmingly likely the status quo remains as is for many years to come.

Posted on: 2014/3/7 19:58

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Chris Christie 'Suspiciously Connected' To Revenge Traffic Jam

#2674

Home away from home

Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
If Obama is held to anywhere the same 'standards' as some here seem to feel Christie should be held . . well, impeachment would have started a long time ago.

IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, checking reporter phone records, just to start.

And a traffic jam Christie didn't know about, or order, or was involved with is a big deal for a potential POTUS candidate?

As opposed to the blood of four Americans on the hands of Hilary Clinton?

The difference is in scale. There are a million federal agencies. Yes, it is conceivable that low level employees in those organizations (IRS local office) can do things that Obama did not order or was aware of.

It is tougher to make that argument for Benghazi, but I think that implicated Hillary Clinton far more so than Obama. And I think if she were to run for President, she will be facing tons of Benghazi related questioning, with good reason.

In contract to the federal government, the NJ government is far more tight-knit, especially the relationship between Christie's office and the Port Authority. Have you been following the news about the Port Authority? They basically serve as an extension of Christie.

It is staggeringly implausible that the highest-level employees in Christie's office and the Port Authority were carrying out these type of orders (political retaliation) and Christie had absolutely no knowledge or involvement. That's why he's getting killed in the press, because he's lying his ass off.

After the bridge scandle Christie is no longer the darling of Democrats. Republicans who think he is a RINO will hammer him with this in the primary elections.

I don't think Bengazi will hurt Hilary Clinton. I think people who don't watch Fox "News" believe it was another attack by crazy people who hate America. I just find it depressing that she's running. Obama was part of the Chicago Clinton cabal long before he ran for president. His presidency has shattered any illusions I had that politicians can be more than lying con artists. These days I think they're all, Democrats and Republicans, corporatists. They're in it for themselves. Anyone who is more than that is weeded out of the process before they can come close to winning the presidential primary election.

I agree with you 100%. We live in a plutocracy and the national presidential election is a sham to give people the illusion of control. In fact, one form of corruption is so rampant in America there's a term for it, google "regulatory capture."

That's why I'm one of the few who voted third party (Libertarian) last election. People say it's "throwing your vote away" but it actually felt very liberating, like my vote counted.

If Clinton wins the primary, unless there is a truly all star Republican candidate I plan on voting third party again. You may want to consider it.

Bernie Sanders just confirmed (informally) that he's going to run for president. I'm planning on getting involved with his campaign for the same reason you backed Ron Paul.

Good I hope he does. I'll be following him and any developments.

Posted on: 2014/3/7 3:16

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Chris Christie 'Suspiciously Connected' To Revenge Traffic Jam

#2675

Home away from home

Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
If Obama is held to anywhere the same 'standards' as some here seem to feel Christie should be held . . well, impeachment would have started a long time ago.

IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, checking reporter phone records, just to start.

And a traffic jam Christie didn't know about, or order, or was involved with is a big deal for a potential POTUS candidate?

As opposed to the blood of four Americans on the hands of Hilary Clinton?

The difference is in scale. There are a million federal agencies. Yes, it is conceivable that low level employees in those organizations (IRS local office) can do things that Obama did not order or was aware of.

It is tougher to make that argument for Benghazi, but I think that implicated Hillary Clinton far more so than Obama. And I think if she were to run for President, she will be facing tons of Benghazi related questioning, with good reason.

In contract to the federal government, the NJ government is far more tight-knit, especially the relationship between Christie's office and the Port Authority. Have you been following the news about the Port Authority? They basically serve as an extension of Christie.

It is staggeringly implausible that the highest-level employees in Christie's office and the Port Authority were carrying out these type of orders (political retaliation) and Christie had absolutely no knowledge or involvement. That's why he's getting killed in the press, because he's lying his ass off.

After the bridge scandle Christie is no longer the darling of Democrats. Republicans who think he is a RINO will hammer him with this in the primary elections.

I don't think Bengazi will hurt Hilary Clinton. I think people who don't watch Fox "News" believe it was another attack by crazy people who hate America. I just find it depressing that she's running. Obama was part of the Chicago Clinton cabal long before he ran for president. His presidency has shattered any illusions I had that politicians can be more than lying con artists. These days I think they're all, Democrats and Republicans, corporatists. They're in it for themselves. Anyone who is more than that is weeded out of the process before they can come close to winning the presidential primary election.

I agree with you 100%. We live in a plutocracy and the national presidential election is a sham to give people the illusion of control. In fact, one form of corruption is so rampant in America there's a term for it, google "regulatory capture."

That's why I'm one of the few who voted third party (Libertarian) last election. People say it's "throwing your vote away" but it actually felt very liberating, like my vote counted.

If Clinton wins the primary, unless there is a truly all star Republican candidate I plan on voting third party again. You may want to consider it.

Posted on: 2014/3/6 15:43

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Chris Christie 'Suspiciously Connected' To Revenge Traffic Jam

#2676

Home away from home

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
If Obama is held to anywhere the same 'standards' as some here seem to feel Christie should be held . . well, impeachment would have started a long time ago.

IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, checking reporter phone records, just to start.

And a traffic jam Christie didn't know about, or order, or was involved with is a big deal for a potential POTUS candidate?

As opposed to the blood of four Americans on the hands of Hilary Clinton?

The difference is in scale. There are a million federal agencies. Yes, it is conceivable that low level employees in those organizations (IRS local office) can do things that Obama did not order or was aware of.

It is tougher to make that argument for Benghazi, but I think that implicated Hillary Clinton far more so than Obama. And I think if she were to run for President, she will be facing tons of Benghazi related questioning, with good reason.

In contract to the federal government, the NJ government is far more tight-knit, especially the relationship between Christie's office and the Port Authority. Have you been following the news about the Port Authority? They basically serve as an extension of Christie.

It is staggeringly implausible that the highest-level employees in Christie's office and the Port Authority were carrying out these type of orders (political retaliation) and Christie had absolutely no knowledge or involvement. That's why he's getting killed in the press, because he's lying his ass off.

Posted on: 2014/3/6 3:27

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: JC business accepting bitcoin

#2677

Home away from home

The Doomsday Cult of Bitcoin

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/ ... sday-cult-of-bitcoin.html

Posted on: 2014/3/5 17:20

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?

#2678

Home away from home

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

Personally I'd like a full psychological test be carried out on anyone that wants a gun - Once they pass, let them get what they want ... At least this would go a long way to weed out nutters - The military do it, as well as law enforcement!

I think this is a great idea. Competent people who want to have guns certainly should be allowed to have them for protection. And nutjobs shouldn't. Criminals won't care either way but at least people have the option to do what they want.

Posted on: 2014/3/5 1:32

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Dog attack kills North Jersey teen, injures two others

#2679

Home away from home

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I have two pits and love em.. I have a cat too, who is the shady violent one.

I don't have a pit bull, but have numerous friends with pits. I do have a large dog who I'm sure many in this thread would love to ban as well. Frankly, I'm sick of authoritarian nutcases that believe they have the right to turn urban areas into their personal Disneylands. If you want a gated community then please by all means move to a gated community. That would be a totally reasonable place to tell people about what life choices they should be making.

Anyway, hope to see your pups at the dog park. We also have a cat that is shady and violent that for some reason no one wants to ban. Go figure.

The "authoritarian nutcases" you so hate are already winning through insurance companies. If a landlord allows a vicious dog on the premises, he will have to pay a higher homeowner's insurance premium with several companies. This, not fear of legal liability, leads to de facto bans on vicious dogs, as landlords may opt for the cheaper premium and forbid tenants from owning such a dog.

Good luck fighting against that.

The trend has actually been towards less breed restrictions in insurance, not greater. You're certainly right that if one has a vicious dog with a history of eating children then they will pay more for their home insurance (unless the dog is excluded). However, some do not equate size or breed with viciousness.

But I do agree that pressure on insurance companies is important, and I have been a part of the efforts that have led to a turn-around.

Do you mind showing me anything to support "the trend has actually been towards less restrictions in insurance, not greater."

Because all I find is the opposite:

"These days, companies offering homeowners and renters insurance are pickier than ever about which types of dogs they?ll insure and which they won?t, says Jeff McCarthy, an agent with Harrington Insurance Agency in Woburn, Mass.

The reason: The insurance companies don?t want to deal with a potential lawsuit if someone gets bitten or hurt by your dog while they?re in your home, he says."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/cateyhill ... r-homeowners-and-renters/

Posted on: 2014/3/4 23:41

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Dog attack kills North Jersey teen, injures two others

#2680

Home away from home

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I have two pits and love em.. I have a cat too, who is the shady violent one.

I don't have a pit bull, but have numerous friends with pits. I do have a large dog who I'm sure many in this thread would love to ban as well. Frankly, I'm sick of authoritarian nutcases that believe they have the right to turn urban areas into their personal Disneylands. If you want a gated community then please by all means move to a gated community. That would be a totally reasonable place to tell people about what life choices they should be making.

Anyway, hope to see your pups at the dog park. We also have a cat that is shady and violent that for some reason no one wants to ban. Go figure.

The "authoritarian nutcases" you so hate are already winning through insurance companies. If a landlord allows a vicious dog on the premises, he will have to pay a higher homeowner's insurance premium with several companies. This, not fear of legal liability, leads to de facto bans on vicious dogs, as landlords may opt for the cheaper premium and forbid tenants from owning such a dog.

Good luck fighting against that.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 23:29

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Jersey City man spends 35 days in jail after police enter home without a warrant

#2681

Home away from home

I think my comments are understandably being misconstrued as in favor of the police.

I will be clear that they trampled all over this guy's rights and clearly abused their power. Worse, they lied in court according to the judge. I hope this guy sues JC and the cops, and I also hope the cops who lied get in trouble (fat chance).

This article is also incredibly biased in favor of the police. And I wonder why the SL buried the follow up.

Having said that, I do believe you'd hear an angry crowd if this guy went on a shooting spree and the cops failed to notice the "warning signs." Especially because they had previously been called to his house.

I do not agree with this emotional reactionary line of thought but it is pervasive throughout our society. I have no doubt the writer of this article was influenced by it as well.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 21:34

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Jersey City man spends 35 days in jail after police enter home without a warrant

#2682

Home away from home

Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
It is tough because I don't like cops lying and trampling all over people's rights. But if they knew this guy had an assault rifle and did nothing, I bet people would be furious at the cops if this guy later went on a shooting spree.

You'd be furious at the cops if they followed the law? Doing something should have meant getting a warrant.

There was probably no basis for a warrant. But I think you would see mass outrage if this guy later went on a shooting spree.

It's not entirely rational. If someone robs a bank, people are fine if they are later caught. But if someone goes on a shooting spree, people are not fine when they catch the guy. Instead everyone asks how did this happen? If they find out the cops knew he had an assault rifle, people will be up in arms as to how they let him slip by. That's why I think it's tough.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 21:04

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Jersey City man spends 35 days in jail after police enter home without a warrant

#2683

Home away from home

It is tough because I don't like cops lying and trampling all over people's rights. But if they knew this guy had an assault rifle and did nothing, I bet people would be furious at the cops if this guy later went on a shooting spree.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 20:12

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: De Blasio Picks More Liberal Activists Than Managers for City Posts

#2684

Home away from home

Quote:

dojan wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Government needs managers, not activists with specific agendas, right or left.

And Cuomo spanked de Blasio again today, when it's reported he'll support payments for charter school rent if Kaiser Wilhelm tries to screw them more. After all, the NY Governor, the US Secretary of Education, and President Obama all support charter schools because of their successes.

http://nypost.com/2014/03/03/cuomo-ba ... ols-evicted-by-de-blasio/

Yes, Obama supports charter schools but not vouchers.

And de Blasio cut gifted programs due to lack of "diversity".

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgre ... s-over-lack-of-diversity/

He also wanted to apply affirmative action on NY's G&T school admssion.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/b ... issions-article-1.1481345

Hopefully this imbecile is limited in the damage he can do by being kicked out after one term.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 1:39

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Dog attack kills North Jersey teen, injures two others

#2685

Home away from home

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
[quote]

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/1979-1998 ... atal-human-attacks-us.pdf

Bullmastiffs don't make the top 8. Though to be honest, I'd rather face a pit bull than a bullmastiff.

Interesting list. I wouldn't expect a husky dog to be so high up with no bullmastiff but I guess they are more dangerous than I thought.

I took another look at my lease and it prohibits even bringing (let alone owning) the following dogs onto the premises: "any dogs considered vicious, including pitbulls, rottweillers, doberman pinschers, bull mastiffs, german shepherds, and any cross breed dog containing one or more of the above breeds." So not 8 like I thought but appears to capture most of that list.

Posted on: 2014/3/3 1:32

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Dog attack kills North Jersey teen, injures two others

#2686

Home away from home

Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
I can't believe that any landlord is dumb enough to open themselves up for these lawsuits -- just imagine when their insurance companies find out!

My apartment building will allow dogs but not 8 specific breeds, including pit bulls and bull mastiffs (like the one that killed the kid in this story).

Seems like a smart policy. I bet almost all of the fatal dog attacks are only caused by these 8 breeds.

Posted on: 2014/3/3 1:08

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Port Authority officials: Battle over toll hikes was all for show

#2687

Home away from home

I am not defending Christie but I bet if you took any high level politician and put them under a microscope, you would find tons of corrupt, shady dealings.

Posted on: 2014/3/2 23:34

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?

#2688

Home away from home

I think we would all be better in a hypothetical world where guns did not exist. But that is not the world we live in. Criminals with guns (I think mostly obtained illegally) are rampant.

Although I have no plans to ever own a gun, I don't have a problem with concealed carry laws allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals. Those people are going to get guns whether we like it or not so be realistic.

As far as I know, the statistics show that gun control laws do not reduce the instance with criminals with guns. I also believe statistics show that violent crime drops in areas that allow for concealed carry.

The talk about concealed carry leading to the Wild West is fear mongering hyperbole that has no basis in fact. So I would vote for a concealed carry law.

Posted on: 2014/2/28 16:50

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Necessary Evil: The Mayor of Jersey City on Tammany Hall

#2689

Home away from home

All this guy does is write op-eds and give interviews in national publications. Every other day there's a new one.

What was the point of this long-winded piece? He has so much to say about everything except for the PATH shutdown. Will Fulop be ready if we get another 6 inches of snow on Monday?

Posted on: 2014/2/28 2:53

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: We are going to be looking to buy in the upcoming months.

#2690

Home away from home

Quote:

PEC0905 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Again, I am talking about the 33rd St line going down for every weekend for a year, not WTC.

You seriously think 33rd down for the weekends is way worse than WTC down entirely for over 2 years?

Yes, because back then a ferry was provided as a viable alternative. The worst case scenario for 33rd is what is currently going on with WTC, no alternatives at all, other than cram into an overpacked PATH train on another line way out of the way.

If and when they close the 33rd line on the weekends, the impact on JC will not be nearly as bad as the current weekend WTC closures.

The Fulton transit center and WTC hub will both be finished and you will be able to transfer to 9 subway lines very easily. You can be in midtown or Brooklyn in less than 30 min with no hassle.

Not to mention it's a direct 4 minute train from JC to WTC with no Hoboken detour.

Regarding property values, the sky is the limit here.

A 4 minute ride from where? Exchange Place? Have you seen what weekend PATH service is like now with only one line going to NYC? Do you think anyone at Exchange Place will be able to fit into the train?

Posted on: 2014/2/27 22:30

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Jersey City Mayor Picks an Unlikely Target Steven Fulop Says New York City Mayor's Rhetoric 'Has Peo

#2691

Home away from home

Could Fulop stop trying to keep his name in the headlines and focus on actually running the city?

At the very least could he stop his blatant and incessant posturing to raise his state-wide profile and use his platform to advocate for concrete issues that impact his residents?

Posted on: 2014/2/27 16:05

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Chris Christie 'Suspiciously Connected' To Revenge Traffic Jam

#2692

Home away from home

Port Authority's NJ commissioners blast director for criticizing chairman's 'moral authority'

Yet another example of the Port Authority's corrupt leadership in action. I'm glad these Commissioners have finally decided to make a public stand for what's right! These are the issues affecting the public!

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... ority.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Posted on: 2014/2/27 4:05

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: The 'Polar Vortex' Is Coming Back. Again...

#2693

Home away from home

Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Weatherbell is reporting a possible storm dropping a foot on Monday as well.

Wow. People are going to be freaking out.

Joe Bastardi had a tweet that some forecasts are showing a cold March and snow in the Chicago area through early April.

NOAA predicted a warmer than normal winter for us back in November. Their long range forecasts have become worthless. The Korean weather service got the forecast right, except it got even colder than they predicted.

Over the summer, I was reading that the Farmers Almanac predicted an extremely harsh and bitterly cold winter. Looks like it was spot on.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/fe ... tly-predicted-this-harsh/

Posted on: 2014/2/26 23:45

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Is Gentrification All Bad?

#2694

Home away from home

Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Motherf**kin? Christopher Columbus Syndrome?: Spike Lee Goes On Epic Rant Against Gentrification - See more at: http://madamenoire.com/404886/spike-l ... ion/#sthash.rBGiysCD.dpuf

By epic rant they meant racist and hypocritical rant. Racist because every other word was about "white people." Imagine a white celebrity making similar comparisons to "black people" moving into the neighborhood.

And extremely hypocritical because that article fails to mention Spike Lee recently listed his UES mansion for $32 million. So he "hates" gentrification while at the same time positioning himself to use it to make a $$$ profit.

Spike Lee's interest is in continuing to perpetuate black and white stereotypes so he can continue to profit off them through his work.

Posted on: 2014/2/26 22:47

Edited by JCMan8 on 2014/2/26 23:07:24

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: We are going to be looking to buy in the upcoming months.

#2695

Home away from home

Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Again, I am talking about the 33rd St line going down for every weekend for a year, not WTC.

You seriously think 33rd down for the weekends is way worse than WTC down entirely for over 2 years?

Yes, because back then a ferry was provided as a viable alternative. The worst case scenario for 33rd is what is currently going on with WTC, no alternatives at all, other than cram into an overpacked PATH train on another line way out of the way.

Posted on: 2014/2/26 22:11

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: We are going to be looking to buy in the upcoming months.

#2696

Home away from home

Quote:

brewster wrote:
As someone who was watching the markets post 9/11 for a buying opportunity, they did not crash even with no service at all for a long time. This whole statement is rubbish designed to make people anxious.

See this graph "Median Sales Price in Jersey City, 07302", the inline image linking is so broken these days.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/07302-Jersey_City/market-trends/

Again, I am talking about the 33rd St line going down for every weekend for a year, not WTC. Someone who went to the Port Authority's meeting said they mentioned that's next. This is the worst case scenario I'm talking about.

I get that most people on this thread own and therefore have a vested interest in seeing property values continue to rise. But you are kidding yourselves to think they won't fall dramatically if the worst case scenario comes to pass and there is no 33rd street service for an entire year.

My advice is aimed at the original poster who is thinking of buying. We don't know that the worst case scenario will happen, just that it had been mentioned by the Port Authority. If you have already bought you're stuck but I would wait and see concrete plans for the 33rd line repairs before buying.

Posted on: 2014/2/26 22:00

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: We are going to be looking to buy in the upcoming months.

#2697

Home away from home

The Port Authority only recently made this announcement. I would expect to see selling prices in the Exchange Place area decrease over the next several months as a result. That is the area most impacted.

And many more people rely on the 33rd line than WTC. Which is why I used the strong language of plummet.

Keep in mind values will only plummet if the Port Authority takes a similar approach to the 33rd line as they did with the WTC line. If they actually provide alternatives, this would mitigate the damage and there may not be as much impact. But in the meantime, it is prudent to wait and see. Because the worst case scenario is pretty dire.

Posted on: 2014/2/26 19:49

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: We are going to be looking to buy in the upcoming months.

#2698

Home away from home

Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
If the Port Authority decides to shut down the 33rd St lines on weekends in 2015 as some have reported (after WTC is complete), the value of your home may plummet.

Personally I would not buy until the Port Authority has issued concrete plans about their intentions with the 33rd St line.

That's ridiculous. A temporary closure of the PATH on the weekends is not going to cause any home values to plummet.

The WTC line is closed for the next 45 weekends in a row. "Temporary" used in the loosest sense.

If they do that for the main artery going into Manhattan every weekend for a year, you're kidding yourself if you think that won't cause tons of people to reconsider relocating to JC. And cause people already living in JC to just move to Brooklyn or Manhattan.

Posted on: 2014/2/26 19:31

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: Concealed carry coming to NJ?

#2699

Home away from home

Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Or you could get the staff to do something about it instead. We all feel like shooting people over every little argument but when it comes time to pay for the consequences, we don't want to end up somewhere that absolves us of our stupidity because the law says so.

Good thing there are no states or laws that allow people to kill others over every little argument and then be absolved of their stupidity. Even Florida, which has been targeted in this thread, will prosecute such folk. Just read about Michael Dunn.

Posted on: 2014/2/26 19:07

Topic | Forum

JCMan8

Re: We are going to be looking to buy in the upcoming months.

#2700

Home away from home

If the Port Authority decides to shut down the 33rd St lines on weekends in 2015 as some have reported (after WTC is complete), the value of your home may plummet.

Personally I would not buy until the Port Authority has issued concrete plans about their intentions with the 33rd St line.

Posted on: 2014/2/26 18:48

Topic | Forum

Top

« 1 ... 87 88 89 (90) 91 92 93 ... 96 »