|
Re: Council person Osborne presents Pedestrian plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
+ 1
Posted on: 2013/10/6 18:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 400 Unit Development in Hamilton Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
-Which part of Brooklyn? Brooklyn heights? Park slope? Those neighborhoods are discerning and they don't just say, "bring on more development" without looking at the impact on the community. Regarding different neighborhoods, Williamsburg waterfront is looking like Newport and downtown Brooklyn and Gowanus have major development pending. -I think Hamilton park needs to be delicate when it comes to development. I commend what Silverman has done with the neighborhood. Unfortunately, not every developer is Silverman. I also commend Mayor Fulop for standing up to developers for the embankment park. Preserving the embankment and not allowing it to become another development helps preserve the Hamilton Park integrity. -In terms of the path, I take WTC from Newport or grove since I'm equidistant. But my husband commutes on the 33rd street train and he refuses to pick it up at Newport since it's so crowded during rush hour (8am). -Regarding a pedestrian bridge, I believe the plan has a tunnel or pedestrian bridge for Marin. All that said, I have a feeling it's a done deal with Kuschner and now we have to negotiate with the developer to alleviate the impact.
Posted on: 2013/10/4 14:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 400 Unit Development in Hamilton Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
The complex will be on the 9th street park on Marin and the parking lots on the 9th street side. The footprint looks like an "L"
There will be a small park between Unico and the new building. There will be 2 stories of parking lots and 12 stories of residential buildings. After my original post, I was able to run over and see the plan briefly. The developer already bought the land. And what I've heard, it's a done deal since that block is already zoned. The whole thing is pretty sad considering all the other impending development in the area. It will deplete the already strained community resources and add more congestion. Also, I found the whole project very uninspired.
Posted on: 2013/10/3 14:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
400 Unit Development in Hamilton Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Tonight's Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association Meeting:
7:45 ? 8:45 ? Guest Speaker Jeffrey Persky of KRE(Kushner Real Estate Group) Topic: Proposed 400 unit development at Marin between 8th/9th Streets east of Unico Towers Unfortunately I could not attend the meeting so I have not seen the plans. I'm not sure I really want to see the plans considering the eyesore of Grove Pointe (KRE's other development). KRE also developed 225 Grand Street. Nevertheless, I realize I need to see what is going on there. I'm scared of the consequences of this development. Does anyone have any other information about the plan? Thanks
Posted on: 2013/10/3 0:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: CHEAP TAILOR to shorten all the pants
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
$10 at colony cleaners (pathmark plaza).
Posted on: 2013/10/1 21:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Smoking would be banned from Jersey City parks under councilman's plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
This is awesome. Hopefully it will pass and it will be enforced. Even when I was an active smoker, I supported anti-smoking laws. In public places, smoking is such a selfish habit.
Posted on: 2013/9/23 23:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... veto_override_effort.html
N.J. legislators inching toward override of Christie's gay marriage veto Ryan Hutchins/The Star-Ledger By Ryan Hutchins/The Star-Ledger September 23, 2013 TRENTON ? Under the din of a bustling election season, there?s a quiet movement afoot to make gay marriage a reality in New Jersey by the end of the year. Advocates have been working to convince state lawmakers ? including a number of Republicans ? that they should cross Gov. Chris Christie and override his veto of a bill (S1) that would legalize same-sex marriage. The state currently allows civil unions, and Christie maintains same-sex marriage should be decided by a voter referendum. The effort to override Christie is still an uphill battle: In the Assembly, advocates need 12 more lawmakers to vote for an override than those who voted for the original bill. Three more votes are needed in the Senate. And the clock is ticking, with the legislative session ending in January. But with new pledges to vote for an override ? and a lame-duck Legislative session approaching ? there are signs the gap is shrinking. State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), a supporter of same-sex marriage, says he has been given commitments for enough votes in the Senate, and lawmakers and advocates are still pressing to find them in the Assembly. In the lower house, Assemblyman Declan O?Scanlon (R-Monmouth) missed the vote on the bill last year. He has committed to voting for an override. Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R-Bergen), also absent during the vote, said she would vote in favor of an override, indicating she had been swayed by the U.S. Supreme Court?s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. The court?s ruling will be key in convincing others, said Jeff Cook-McCormac, the senior adviser to the American Unity Fund, which is focused on convincing GOP lawmakers across the country to support same-sex marriage. "It?s giving them a reason to re-think it," Cook-McCormac said of the court decision. At least two more Democrats have indicated a willingness to back an override. Assemblywoman Gabriela Mosquera (D-Camden), who was not a legislator last year, will vote for an override, said Carol Murphy, her spokeswoman. And Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-Hamilton) said he may support an override but continues to listen to constituents.. He said the response has been evenly split. SEEKING GOP SUPPORT Advocates say they are hoping Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini (R-Ocean), who did not vote on the bill, will support an override. She did not return a call for comment. Cook-McCormac said it is possible to convince more Republicans to support gay marriage because "the question is a little clearer than it was" last year. "I think the first thing is recognizing that the circumstances have changed considerably in New Jersey," he said, adding that the Supreme Court?s decision makes it clear that civil unions do not provide equal benefits to marriage and polls show gay marriage is supported by most New Jerseyans. "By getting them directly in touch with their representatives we are letting legislators know where their constituents stand," he said. Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said his group is part of a coalition ? including the National Organization for Marriage and the New Jersey Catholic Conference ? that is lobbying legislators to vote against the override attempt. "We?re working right now. The marriage coalition has been gathering and talking about opposition work to keep marriage as the union of a man and a woman," said Deo. "I don?t think it?s going to be an easy push for (gay marriage supporters), but it?s going to be a battle for both sides," he said. Meanwhile, a state Superior Court judge heard arguments last month over a lawsuit by six couples and Garden State Equality alleging civil unions fail to provide benefits equal to those afforded by marriage. The judge may rule soon, but the case is likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Lesniak said the Supreme Court could act before the Legislature has a chance to vote on an override, but that will have no impact on the effort to sway lawmakers. "We?re not going to give up on any avenue to get marriage equality done as soon as possible," he said. Star-Ledger staff writer Matt Friedman contributed to this report.
Posted on: 2013/9/23 15:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
CENSUS SURVEY PAINTS DISCOURAGING PORTRAIT OF NJ’S POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
CENSUS SURVEY PAINTS DISCOURAGING PORTRAIT OF NJ?S POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS
COLLEEN O'DEA | SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 Economic indicators show recession?s effects linger as household incomes barely increase, poverty climbs New Jerseyans are continuing to struggle to recover from the recession, with household incomes barely rising while the number of families living in poverty increased significantly. The U.S. Census Bureau?s 2012 American Community Survey paints a picture of a state not even close to regaining the wealth and high-paying jobs lost during the 2007-09 recession: Median household income was essentially stable at $69,667, but the proportion of families living in poverty rose to 8.3 percent and more than 1.1 million people were without health insurance. ?One thing is clear: the middle class and the poor are worse off than they were during the recession, and even than when the recovery had started,? said Ray Castro, senior policy analyst with the think-tank New Jersey Policy Perspective. ?Banks are doing well, Wall Street is doing well, but it?s not trickling down the way it?s supposed to, to ordinary New Jerseyans.? Castro said the state?s policies have had a negative impact on the way residents are recovering, or not, from the recession that economists say ended in June 2009. Cuts in the Earned Income Tax Credit program, New Jersey Family Care insurance program and public employee rolls have hurt those at lower- and middle-income levels, he said. ?And we?re still arguing over the minimum wage,? added Castro. Gov. Chris Christie twice vetoed legislation to raise the minimum wage in New Jersey to $8.25 and require annual increases tied to the cost of living. In his conditional veto message last January, Christie called the bill ?lopsided? and said it ?will jeopardize the economic recovery we all seek.? The Legislature, with Democratic votes, placed the question on the November ballot. Castro said a minimum wage increase is important because ?many good-paying jobs in New Jersey have been permanently lost? and much of the employment increase in the private sector has been in low-paying jobs. According to the statistics from the Census Bureau?s annual survey, the median household income for New Jerseyans last year was $69,667, an increase considered statistically insignificant compared to 2011?s inflation-adjusted median of $68,962. It is significantly lower ? almost 7 percent -- than the inflation-adjusted 2008 income of $74,826. During the same period, the percentage of New Jersey families living in poverty rose from 6.4 percent in 2008 to 7.8 percent in 2011 to 8.2 percent last year, the data show. Even more families with children were living in poverty ? 12.9 percent, up from 12 percent the previous year and 9.8 percent in 2008. The number of people living in poverty rose, as well. But that is not a good measure of true poverty in New Jersey. In its Benchmarks 2013 report released earlier this month, Legal Services of New Jersey noted, ?The federal poverty level is widely considered to understate true poverty. Among many shortcomings, the FPL is most prejudicial to New Jersey in failing to recognize any difference in or adjustment for wide disparities in the cost of living across the states.? The federal poverty level varies by the size of the household. In 2012, a family of four with $23,050 in income or less was considered poor. LSNJ?s report states that a better measure of poverty in New Jersey is 250 percent of the federal poverty level, which would have been $57,625 for a family of four last year. While the Census data does not directly correlate with these numbers, it shows that roughly 257,000 New Jersey families had incomes of less than $25,000 last year, while about 620,000 took in less than $50,000. ?With an income lower than the real cost of living, a family will likely be forced to go without food, default on a rent payment, defer a medical examination, or refrain from purchasing school clothing for a child,? the report states. According to Census officials, New Jersey was one of only five states in which the number of people living in poverty increased between 2011 and 2012. Still, the state had one of the lowest poverty rates in the nation. The Census data registered little change in another expense ? health insurance coverage ? between 2011 and 2012, but there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of people without insurance from 12 percent in 2008 to 12.7 percent last year. That means there are about 85,000 more New Jerseyans without health insurance in 2012 than there were four years earlier. ?I suppose that given how weak the employment market has been, this is actually good news,? said Joel Cantor, director of the Center for State Health Policy and a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. ?Employer coverage is holding its own in spite of stubbornly high unemployment. There is no sign of employers dropping coverage in response to, or anticipation of, the Affordable Care Act, at least as of 2012.? According to the data, 84.7 percent of employed New Jerseyans had health insurance last year, the same as in 2011 and 2010. That?s still less than the 86 percent with coverage in 2008. Cantor noted that while some provisions of the ACA are already in effect, its biggest impact won?t be felt until 2014, ?so it may be too early to see an employer reaction to the law.? The insurance picture is bleaker for the unemployed: Almost 4 in 10 of those people age 18-64 who were looking for work in 2012 were uninsured, the same proportion as in 2008. However, that was an improvement over the 42.5 percent uninsured rate in 2011. According to the Census Bureau, neither income nor poverty rates were statistically significant for most states, while the percentage of people uninsured dropped in most states between 2010 and 2012. Specific data for counties, also released yesterday, show some expected trends in New Jersey. Hunterdon County continued to have the highest median household income -- $105,186 ? as well as the lowest percentage of families living in poverty ? 2.7 percent. Hunterdon ranked as the fourth-richest county in the nation among counties with a population of at least 65,000 and was one of only five counties with a median household income of at least $100,000. Cumberland County had the highest proportion of poor families, 15.6 percent, as well as the lowest median income of $47,072. In total, the American Community Survey, released yesterday, includes statistics on more than 40 topics.
Posted on: 2013/9/19 14:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Who wants to protest Friday RE: booker in JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Not that I'm a fan of Booker, but if I were going to protest anyone there it would be Rahm Emmanuel
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173111/rahm-ropes#axzz2fIUj21Am
Posted on: 2013/9/19 1:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
New Jersey's Insane Ban on Self-Service Gasoline
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
New Jersey's Insane Ban on Self-Service Gasoline
By Matthew Yglesias | Posted Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013, Driving up and back to the Mohonk Mountain House for the Slate retreat, my colleague David Weigel had one goal in mind?don't buy gasoline in New Jersey. And he succeeded. Our northbound refueling took place in New York, and our southbound refueling was in Maryland. Megan Wiegand, driving a separate car was not as lucky, and she needed to stop in New Jersey. Why do people hate stopping in New Jersey for gas? It's simple. Self-service gasoline is illegal in the Garden State, a policy that Oregon also shares. I don't drive enough to have strong feelings about this, but many drivers find it so disconcerting to need to interact with another human being while refueling that they deliberately avoid Jersey gas even though it's cheaper than the gas for sale in New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. But it's the source of this cheap gasoline that makes it especially pernicious. Obviously all else being equal, if you ban self-serve gasoline, you're going to push prices up. New Jersey compensates for this by having an unusually low gasoline tax. That ends up depriving the state government of a source of revenue that scores unusually well on the economic efficiency scale. It's a consumption tax, which economists generally like. But it also penalizes an environmental externality (burning fuel), and since poor people tend not to own cars, it doesn't have the regressive implications of a sales tax. Maryland is being smart and raising its gasoline tax to save for the future by investing in transportation infrastructure. New Jersey, meanwhile, is stuck in a dysfunctional equilibrium of underinvesting in its infrastructure, underpricing gasoline, and annoying everyone with an inefficient gasoline delivery system. The idea, presumably, is that this saves jobs. But you could apply that Luddite logic to anything. New Jersey could ban washing machines to create more employment in the maid sector. Yet nobody does that because it would be insane. And it's not as if "gas station attendant" is such a wonderful job that it makes sense to create an industrial policy strategy around maximizing the number of jobs in that particular field. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2 ... he_madness_must_stop.html
Posted on: 2013/9/18 19:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Council person Osborne presents Pedestrian plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I initially suggested the $100 resident parking fee. I did not thoroughly think about the amount. I was trying to make the point that parking is a privilege and not a right. There is nothing in Councilperson's Osborne plan regarding parking fees. There is actually a movement called PARK (ing) to demonstrate the need for more public space and less space used for cars. From their website: "The mission of PARK(ing) Day is to call attention to the need for more urban open space, to generate critical debate around how public space is created and allocated, and to improve the quality of urban human habitat ? at least until the meter runs out!" "A brief history of PARK(ing) Day Rebar?s original PARK(ing) project in 2005 transformed a single metered parking space into a temporary public park in an area of San Francisco that the city had designated as lacking public open space. The great majority of San Francisco?s downtown outdoor space is dedicated to movement and storage of private vehicles, while only a fraction of that space is allocated to serve a broader range of public needs. Paying the meter of a parking space enables one to lease precious urban real estate on a short-term basis. The PARK(ing) project was created to explore the the range of possible activities for this short-term lease, and to provoke a critical examination of the values that generate the form of urban public space." http://parkingday.org/about-parking-day/ There is even a PARK(ing) day event planned in Jersey City https://www.facebook.com/events/530875 ... c851ded95fa09272f7d6224ed In terms of policy, I like what Hoboken does with residential parking. $15 for the first car, $30 for the second and $90 for the 3rd car in a household. Residents are also eligible for discounts at parking garages. http://www.hobokennj.org/departments/ ... ortation-parking/parking/
Posted on: 2013/9/18 15:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Council person Osborne presents Pedestrian plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Hoboken has stricter street parking rules and higher enforcement. There are sides of the street where people who are not Hoboken residents cannot park. On the other side of the street, non-residents can park up to 4 hours. Hoboken residents receive discounts at the parking garages. I think JC should incorporate that stricter street parking rules. http://www.hobokennj.org/departments/transportation-parking/ http://www.hobokennj.org/departments/ ... ortation-parking/parking/ And thanks for the statistic about $15 in Hoboken. I didn't know that. I rescind my comment about $100 but I think it could be higher than what it is now. I do like that Hoboken charges more for additional vehicles in households. Jersey City should do the same. Hoboken: Fees are $15/year for the first vehicle in a household, $30 /year for the second vehicle in a household, and $90 /year for the third and each additional vehicle in a household http://www.hobokennj.org/departments/ ... -parking/residentparking/ vs Jersey City $15 per vehicle http://www.jcparking.org/pdf/zonepark%20application%20_2_.pdf And regarding your inference that walkability lowers property value, it's quite the opposite (take for instance your example of Hoboken. Hoboken is notorious for parking shortages). Also see these articles I posted earlier: Walkability improves property value. Here is some data to support that idea (thus debunking your notion that people will leave the city) "The report, ?Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S. Cities? by Joseph Cortright, analyzed data from 94,000 real estate transactions in 15 major markets provided by ZipRealty and found that in 13 of the 15 markets, higher levels of walkability, as measured by Walk Score, were directly linked to higher home values. ?Even in a turbulent economy, we know that walkability adds value to residential property just as additional square footage, bedrooms, bathrooms and other amenities do,? said Cortright. ?It?s clear that consumers assign a tangible value to the convenience factor of living in more walkable places with access to a variety of destinations.? " http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/walking-the-walk/ Fewer young people want cars. In 1995 people age 21 to 30 drove 21 percent of all miles driven in the U.S.; in 2009 it was 14 percent, despite consistent growth of the age group. Living car-free in walkable areas fits younger lifestyles. [Advertising Age, 2010] A 10-point increase in Walk Score increases commercial property values by 5 percent to 8 percent. [University of Arizona & Indiana University, 2010] Homes in walkable urban neighborhoods have experienced less than half the average decline in price from the housing peak in the mid-2000s. [Brookings Institution, 2011] (See also this analysis.) http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neig ... en-case-walkability/1757/ NYT Opinion piece by CHRISTOPHER B. LEINBERGER, A professor at the George Washington University School of Business and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Mariela Alfonzo and I just released a Brookings Institution study that measures values of commercial and residential real estate in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, which includes the surrounding suburbs in Virginia and Maryland. Our research shows that real estate values increase as neighborhoods became more walkable, where everyday needs, including working, can be met by walking, transit or biking. There is a five-step ?ladder? of walkability, from least to most walkable. On average, each step up the walkability ladder adds $9 per square foot to annual office rents, $7 per square foot to retail rents, more than $300 per month to apartment rents and nearly $82 per square foot to home values. As a neighborhood moves up each step of the five-step walkability ladder, the average household income of those who live there increases some $10,000. People who live in more walkable places tend to earn more, but they also tend to pay a higher percentage of their income for housing." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/opi ... onvenient-place.html?_r=0 and Richard Florida's interview with Jeff Specks: "The Walkability Dividend is a concept advanced by the economist Joe Cortright and the non-profit CEOs for Cities, a group that has brought me into a small handful of downtowns with the understanding that all the events and amenities in the world won't make a difference in the absence of pedestrian culture. In his 2007 white paper "Portland's Green Dividend" [PDF], Cortright showed how that city's urban growth boundary, coupled with its investments in bike lanes and transit, resulted in a remarkable phenomenon: Portland's per-capita vehicle miles traveled peaked in 1996. Now Portlanders drive 20 percent less than the national average. This 20 percent results in financial savings and time savings that total almost four percent of GDP, ignoring all the wonderful externalities such as cleaner air and slimmer waistlines. Unlike driving dollars, 85 percent of which are sent out of town, much of those savings are spent locally, on housing and recreation. Portlanders are said to have the most roof racks, independent bookstores, and strip clubs per capita ? all exaggerations, but only slight ones." http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neig ... oward-walkable-city/4195/
Posted on: 2013/9/17 21:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Philly Inquirer Editorial: Two elections unnecessary
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
September 17, 2013
Gov. Christie is still sticking to his flimsy excuses for making New Jersey voters go to the polls twice in less than three weeks. Christie first refused to hold a special election to replace the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg on the same date as the general election, Nov. 5, saying voters deserved to choose Lautenberg's successor as soon as possible. Then, last week, he vetoed a bill that would have moved up the general election to the Oct. 16 special-election date. This time, the governor suggested New Jerseyans aren't adroit enough to handle changing the date. "Moving the date of the general election has the potential to cause unnecessary voter confusion, as the general election takes place at the same time each year," Christie said. He said he also feared some voters wouldn't find out about the date change. The Democratic-controlled Legislature expected Christie's veto, but the ploy served to further reveal the weakness of his arguments. Anyone paying attention can see Christie likely feared the potential impact on the governor's race if that election's candidates shared the ballot with the Senate candidates, including Cory Booker, Newark's popular, Democratic, African American mayor. An unusually high turnout of minority voters might not propel Christie's Democratic opponent, State Sen. Barbara Buono, to victory, but it could significantly reduce the size of his projected landslide in the gubernatorial election and consequently raise new doubts about Christie's potential to be the Republican Party's best hope to run for president in 2016. Christie's insistence on back-to-back elections certainly looks like an effort to stay off the same ballot as Booker. One sponsor of the bill to combine the special and general elections said Christie's veto reaffirms that he is willing to spend $12 million in public money to pay for an extra election just so he can pad his reelection stats. "He could have done what is most cost-effective for New Jersey taxpayers, and more convenient for New Jersey voters," State Sen. Shirley Turner (D., Mercer) said. "But Gov. Christie will instead inconvenience voters and have taxpayers foot the bill to increase his margin of victory and ensure that he remains a viable candidate for national office." Of course, voters outside New Jersey may be paying attention, too. If they are, they will see a politician who touts himself as a fiscal conservative spending taxpayer money on two separate elections when clearly one would suffice. Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/ ... .html#yo5gyf1kkYFpM3MR.99
Posted on: 2013/9/17 19:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yeah, here's some commentary regarding Christie's brief for his veto: SLATE: Chris Christie?s Legal Position on Gay Marriage Is Pure Nonsense The New Jersey governor?s court brief reads like a bad student paper. By Nathaniel Frank Updated Monday, Aug. 5, 2013, at 2:59 PM New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie?s administration filed a brief last week defending the state?s 2006 Civil Union Act, which grants gay couples all the benefits of marriage yet bars them from actually getting married. The brief is Christie?s first official legal statement on same-sex marriage. Given his apparent aspiration to be the next Republican nominee for president, it is especially too bad that the brief also may be the most incoherent defense of heterosexual supremacy yet. That?s saying something in an era in which lawyers have tied themselves in logical pretzels to defend indefensible anti-gay laws. Even by that low standard, the brief reads like a student paper written during an all-nighter. You?d think an aspiring president would take the task more seriously. The Christie brief was filed in state Superior Court, in a suit brought by six couples who sued New Jersey for the right to marry in 2011. After the Supreme Court?s June ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act?the 1996 law that denied federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples?the New Jersey plaintiffs asked the superior court to allow gay marriage in the state to begin right away. They argue that civil unions are inherently unequal now that the Supreme Court has tossed the key component of DOMA. The feds are now granting benefits to gay spouses, but New Jersey?s civil union law prevents gay partners from receiving those benefits. Christie?s brief defends civil unions in three ways. First, it argues that the state can rationally restrict the label ?marriage? to heterosexual unions because it is ?preserving? the definition of the word. Second, it contends that it?s actually the feds who are now blocking gay equality by withholding benefits to civil union partners. And third, it claims that the state courts should move very cautiously when contemplating a major change in social institutions?all fine and well except that, as the state itself admits, calling a gay union a marriage isn't much of a change anymore. In fact, throughout the brief, what?s most striking is that every last argument Christie?s administration makes, it then proceeds to blatantly contradict. The brief starts by arguing that the state?s 2006 Civil Union Act?passed in response to a state court ruling in the same year that New Jersey had to either let gays wed or grant them all the attendant benefits of marriage?has a rational relationship to a compelling state interest, and is therefore constitutional. ?To reserve the name of marriage for heterosexual couples,? says the brief, makes sense because ?altering the meaning of marriage? would, in the words of the 2006 ruling, ?render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of ancient origin.? The definition of marriage has ?far-reaching social implications.? Oops, except then it doesn?t. The brief then does an about-face, insisting that the nomenclature distinctions have no meaning at all?an effort to show that the law is not rooted in anti-gay prejudice. A ?long-standing precedent,? the brief explains, dictates ?that courts look to essence, not label.? It cites a 1915 court case finding that a law?s import ?lies in the essential nature of the work done rather than the names applied to those engaged in it.? The brief goes to great lengths to drive home this point, even dragging in the Bard: ?Shakespeare wondered what?s in a name?; for purposes of federal criminal law, the answer is ?nothing.? Substance rather than nomenclature matters.? And: ?A rose by any other name is still a rose.? And: ?Calling a dog?s tail a leg will not give the dog five legs.? Let?s imagine for a moment that it?s true that nomenclature doesn?t matter a whit. If that?s right, then it?s the strongest case yet for the other side. If there is nothing in the name ?marriage,? then New Jersey?s Civil Union Act has no rational relationship to an important state interest. The label is the single distinction the law makes. How can that both serve a compelling governmental interest and mean absolutely nothing, at the same time? As if to illustrate this muddle, the brief proceeds to use the terms ?partner? and ?spouse? interchangeably, going so far as to argue that the civil union partners the state bars from getting married are nevertheless ?spouses.? Indeed, the brief refers to ?civil union spouses? in the same breath that it complains that the sovereign state of New Jersey should not be forced to cede the definition of marriage to include gays. The idea seems to be to further New Jersey?s bizarre argument that it?s the feds who are depriving gays of equality rather than the state. Because the Civil Union Act intended to treat gay and straight couples equally, the brief argues, now that DOMA is dead, the federal government should give civil union partners full benefits ?because they are spouses.? The trouble is, New Jersey did not intend to treat gay couples equally. If it did, it would have actually made them spouses, granting them access to marriage?to the word itself. This is the precise meaning of the Supreme Court?s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that separate is ?inherently unequal.? Awarding equivalent material benefits does not erase the stigma of separating a class of people from the core institutions of American life. The contradictions continue: Precedent, says the brief, also requires a court to exercise ?maximum caution? in intervening where ?highly significant policy considerations? are involved. Therefore the New Jersey courts should not invalidate New Jersey?s law. But the state?s entire position is that there is no policy consideration at issue. There?s no material difference between civil unions and marriage, just a distinction in name only?and names don?t matter. Why shouldn?t the court act, then? Christie isn?t just making an argument against judicial activism here either. When he vetoed a same-sex marriage bill earlier this year, he said the legislature shouldn?t decide whether marriage should include gay unions?only ?people? should, by a direct vote at the ballot box. That might be fine for deciding how to fund a town library, but the whole point of constitutional rights is that they?re not subject to a vote. Can the Christie administration get away with its absurdly twisted logic? In 2009 the Obama administration defended DOMA against a California couple?s challenge. Its brief was so poorly worded and overreaching?it appeared to compare same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia?that the administration infuriated gay and straight activists alike. The outrage helped push the gay rights movement into overdrive. The Obama administration eventually had the sense to reverse course. DOMA?s demise in June, of course, followed. Luckily for Obama, the president emerged unscathed. If Christie doesn't get smart, he might not be so lucky. http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news ... 3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Posted on: 2013/9/16 22:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
George Amick Trenton Times September 16, 2013 It would appear at first glance to be Mission: Impossible. A group of prominent advocates is attempting to persuade Republicans and a handful of reluctant Democrats in the Legislature to help override Gov. Chris Christie?s 2012 veto of a same-sex marriage bill before the current term expires in January 2014. Well-financed and well-organized, they?re undaunted by the near-total control Christie has wielded up to now over his fellow Republicans in the Senate and Assembly. Not once since he became governor have the Democratic legislative leaders been able to muster the two-thirds ?supermajority? in each house needed to override a veto. The power a New Jersey chief executive possesses to help or hurt a lawmaker?s political career and Republicans? awareness of how this extraordinarily short-fused incumbent would likely react if they disrespected him have combined to keep his record perfect. Add the likelihood that soon after the override vote on the marriage bill is held, Christie will be sworn in for a second term with a big re-election victory under his belt, and the conventional wisdom would say it can?t be done. But New Jersey United for Marriage, a new alliance of national and state gay rights and civil rights groups, believes it can. It has been able to attract wealthy activists to provide funding; corporate leaders to talk up the economic benefits of marriage equality; ?ber-lobbyists such as Dale Florio and Hazel Gluck; prominent Republicans such as Steve Schmidt, a key adviser to Sen. John McCain?s 2008 presidential campaign, and Tom Wilson, a former state GOP chairman; and communications specialists such as Chris Donnelly, press secretary for the Senate Democratic majority. The bill Christie vetoed, S1, passed the Senate 24-16, with two Republicans, Sens. Diane Allen (R-Edgewater Park) and Jennifer Beck (R-Red Bank), voting yes and two Democrats voting no. If those four votes remain unchanged, three additional yes votes will be needed to beat the veto. In the Assembly, the tally was 42-33, with no Republicans voting yes, two Democrats voting no, three Republicans and one Democrat not voting, and one Democratic seat temporarily vacant. A veto override will require 12 additional ayes. At least three of those 12 ? one Republican and two Democratic ? are in sight right now. The Republican, freshman Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi of River Vale, who didn?t vote earlier, now says she?ll support the override effort. For her, the deciding factor was the U.S. Supreme Court?s June decision overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act. With DOMA dead, federal agencies can grant benefits to same-sex married couples in the 13 states, plus the District of Columbia, which allow such marriages. At one stroke, the justices ended any pretense that New Jersey?s law authorizing civil unions affords the equal rights and privileges to same-sex couples to which the New Jersey Supreme Court has said they?re entitled. On the Democratic side, the two Assembly members who weren?t available for the original vote, Wayne DeAngelo (D-Hamilton) and Gabriela Mosquera (D-Laurel Springs), also intend to back the override, although DeAngelo said he?ll listen to constituents on both sides of the issue first. ?I?m for equal treatment,? he told me. Carol Murphy, a spokeswoman for Mosquera, said her boss ?supports same-sex marriage and will vote for the override.? The two other Republicans who didn?t vote in 2012, Declan O?Scanlon (R-Little Silver) and Mary Pat Angelini (R-Ocean), haven?t committed themselves, but United for Marriage members think there?s a good chance the two will end up on their side. The advocates intend to make their case to individual lawmakers with arguments such as these: ?Assemblywoman Schepisi said it: The Supreme Court?s decision to throw out DOMA was a game-changer. It?s now clear that New Jersey?s civil union law doesn?t do what it?s supposed to do. As legislators who respect the national and state constitutions, you should want to address that problem. ?Inevitably, same-sex marriage is going to come to New Jersey. We?re one of only two states in the Northeast ? Pennsylvania is the other ? that doesn?t allow it. Polls show it?s favored by up to 64 percent of the public. It will become a reality here either because you vote it in or because the courts order it, and it?s on a potential fast track in the state courts right now. ?If you do the job, you can assure churches and clergy and religious organizations in your districts that object to same-sex marriage that nothing will change for them; they?ll have no obligation to solemnize gay weddings or acknowledge them in any way. The bill makes that clear. There?s no guarantee that a court decision would do the same. That should be an incentive to you to take the initiative yourselves. ?The Christie factor? Assume the governor is re-elected. Whether he wins big or wins small, the day he takes the oath of office he?ll be a lame duck. The pressure on you to do things his way will ease. In a couple of years, he could resign to run for president. But you?ll still be here, probably long after he?s gone. As for other concerns, we can show you evidence that only a tiny number of legislators nationwide who voted for gay marriage paid any price for it at election time. ?It?s going to be part of your legacy, one way or another. If it happens because of the courts, and not because of your vote, it will be a part of history that you can?t change. Do you really want to have to explain a few years from now ? when marriage equality will be in the mainstream, not even in the discussion any longer ? why you resisted it to the end?? That?s the pitch. Will it be persuasive? Stay tuned. http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index ... marriage_advocates_l.html
Posted on: 2013/9/16 13:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: NYT: Jersey City May Require Paid Sick Leave
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
This law only applies to full time work. There are federal labor laws that prohibit children working full time. http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/childlbr.htm
Posted on: 2013/9/15 22:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: NYT: Jersey City May Require Paid Sick Leave
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Earned sick days are good for N.J. business and the economy: Opinion
By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist, Jon Whiten Business lobbyists are lining up with guns blazing against proposals to provide earned sick days to workers in Jersey City, Newark and, ultimately, the entire state. They say these common-sense policies will harm businesses, lead to job loss and stifle a fragile economic recovery. Too bad none of these claims is true. But don?t take my word for it. Providing earned sick days is a growing trend, and we can look at the experience of the early adopters to see what?s actually happened. In reality, businesses in cities and states that have extended this benefit to workers have seen no impact to their bottom lines ? which makes sense, because earned sick days policies help strengthen the economy by creating a healthier, more productive workforce. (?Presenteeism,? the cost of employees? lower productivity when working sick, is estimated to cost employers $160 billion a year.) In each instance, supporters saw the same song-and-dance routine from the opposition. Business lobbyists put on their best Chicken Little outfits and sketched doomsday scenarios that would come as a result of an earned sick days policy. Then what happened? In San Francisco, which was the first city to implement the policy in 2007, researchers at the Institute for Women?s Policy Research followed up a few years later with a broad survey of employers. The findings? Eighty-six percent of employers polled said the law didn?t negatively impact their profits and only a third reported any difficulties implementing it. Another study of San Francisco, by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, found that job growth in San Francisco was much higher than in neighboring counties (where jobs actually disappeared) in the first three years after the law was introduced. The number of businesses created was also much higher in San Francisco than in the neighboring counties, in both large and small businesses, as well as the industries most impacted by earned sick days legislation: retail and food service. Perhaps that?s why, after a few years of reality, two-thirds of San Francisco employers surveyed supported the policy. Even the head of the city?s restaurant association, which lobbied hard against earned sick days, had a change of heart after several years of actual experience with the law. ?(It?s) the best public policy for the least cost,? Kevin Westlye said in 2010. In Seattle, earned sick days went into effect a year ago. And after a full year under the law, the economy has not collapsed. In fact, the Seattle area has outpaced the rest of the state in job growth, even in the retail and food service industries, according to data analyzed by the Main Street Alliance of Washington, a coalition of 2,500 small businesses in that state. In short, the economic trends that already existed in Seattle before passage of the ordinance continued, undeterred by the fact that employers were now required to provide earned sick days to their workers. Closer to home, Connecticut ? which enacted the first statewide earned sick days law in 2011 ? has actually seen job growth, not contraction, in two sectors with large shares of workers who previously lacked earned sick days: leisure/hospitality and education/health services. The experience of other cities and states can only be taken as a clear sign that New Jersey?s business lobbyists oppose earned sick days only because they ideologically oppose any kind of government regulation, not because it will actually do harm to businesses or the economy In fact, most successful businesses try very hard to avoid rapid employee turnover, to minimize their recruitment and training costs and to hold on to hard workers. Allowing a worker afflicted with a contagious infection to stay home and get well is not only sensible and respectful of the worker, but also beneficial to co-workers, customers and the economy. The bottom line is simple: When employers provide earned sick days to all workers, we all win. Jon Whiten is deputy director of New Jersey Policy Perspective, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/201 ... ck_days_are_good_for.html
Posted on: 2013/9/15 17:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City Council to vote on bond that provides for bicycling infrastructure improvements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I agree. You can always catch me barking at a bicyclist on a sidewalk, "Get off the sidewalk. Ride on the road." I do understand though why people with children seated on their bicycles use the sidewalks. But, I'm totally partial.
Posted on: 2013/9/12 16:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bonding, Debt and Taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
What was the outcome of this? Did the ordinance pass? Thanks
Posted on: 2013/9/12 0:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: bonding
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
What was the result of this? Did the ordinance pass? I hope so. I fully support using bond money towards pedestrian safety and bicycle lanes
Posted on: 2013/9/12 0:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: NYT: Jersey City May Require Paid Sick Leave
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
State Senate Majority Leader, Senator Loretta Weinberg wrote an open letter to Mayor Fulop
Mayor Steve Fulop Jersey City, New Jersey September 10, 2013 Mayor Fulop: I want to applaud you for your efforts to see that employees who work in Jersey City are entitled to paid sick leave as an earned right. I stand with you as you work to have it enacted in Jersey City and I encourage other cities in New Jersey to follow your lead with the goal of building momentum and support for my legislation that would set the same standard statewide. The time has come to ensure that the men and women who work so hard to support themselves and their families are not forced to choose between their health and their jobs when they become ill. But it will take the efforts of public officials, employees and even employers to see that this smart and compassionate right is made available to all workers. We have to work together in support of what is fast becoming a national movement to see that earned sick leave becomes a basic right in the same way that other rights have become part of the American workplace. My bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Dick Codey, Senator Ronald Rice and Senator Sandra Cunningham, with companion legislation in the State Assembly sponsored by Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, would allow employees to earn five sick days a year if they work at businesses with ten or fewer employees and seven sick days if they work at larger companies. Like your proposal in Jersey City, earned sick leave would be as smart for businesses, their customers and clients as it compassionate for employees and their families. It allows workers to get well, it prevents the spread of illnesses and it would allow parents to use the time to care for sick family members. For working people everywhere, this should be a right that accompanies the state law on Paid Family Leave, which has succeeded in New Jersey and elsewhere. I look forward to success in having earned sick leave enacted in Jersey City, in other cities and in the State of New Jersey. Sincerely, Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg http://www.bluejersey.com/diary/23812 ... -senator-loretta-weinberg
Posted on: 2013/9/11 16:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Former Gov. McGreevey to head Jersey City jobs commission
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I don't think Fulop is getting anything in exchange for McGreevey. McGreevey is a political untouchable. The only thing Fulop gets from this appointment is publicity for the program.
Posted on: 2013/9/10 18:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Council person Osborne presents Pedestrian plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Back to the original topic,
Jersey City passed a complete streets resolution in 2011 The resolution stipulates that all new construction and reconstruction in the city must be designed to safely accommodate all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists. http://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploa ... te-Streets-Resoultion.pdf tp://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... -streets%E2%80%99-policy/ In 2013, The Jersey City Police Department has received a $27,900 grant from the New Jersey Division of Highway to beef up pedestrian and traffic safety in the city. http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... s_jersey_city_police.html Jersey City has been chosen as a focus city by the FHWA and the NJTPA and they will be participating in a Pedestrian Safety Pilot program And Jersey City is part of a Pedestrian Safety Pilot program with the DOT http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/p ... ction/njersey/njersey.pdf More info re: Complete Streets http://www.state.nj.us/transportation ... ydevelopmentguide2012.pdf
Posted on: 2013/9/10 18:07
Edited by arcy on 2013/9/10 18:32:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Council person Osborne presents Pedestrian plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Why would you turn the parking lots into homeless shelters? Pay for parking lots are great. People should have to pay a premium for parking. When I lived in NYC, I did not think I was entitled to free street parking. As another poster mentioned: Walkability improves property value. Here is some data to support that idea (thus debunking your notion of turning away the middle class) "The report, ?Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S. Cities? by Joseph Cortright, analyzed data from 94,000 real estate transactions in 15 major markets provided by ZipRealty and found that in 13 of the 15 markets, higher levels of walkability, as measured by Walk Score, were directly linked to higher home values. ?Even in a turbulent economy, we know that walkability adds value to residential property just as additional square footage, bedrooms, bathrooms and other amenities do,? said Cortright. ?It?s clear that consumers assign a tangible value to the convenience factor of living in more walkable places with access to a variety of destinations.? " http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/walking-the-walk/ Fewer young people want cars. In 1995 people age 21 to 30 drove 21 percent of all miles driven in the U.S.; in 2009 it was 14 percent, despite consistent growth of the age group. Living car-free in walkable areas fits younger lifestyles. [Advertising Age, 2010] A 10-point increase in Walk Score increases commercial property values by 5 percent to 8 percent. [University of Arizona & Indiana University, 2010] Homes in walkable urban neighborhoods have experienced less than half the average decline in price from the housing peak in the mid-2000s. [Brookings Institution, 2011] (See also this analysis.) http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neig ... en-case-walkability/1757/ NYT Opinion piece by CHRISTOPHER B. LEINBERGER, A professor at the George Washington University School of Business and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Mariela Alfonzo and I just released a Brookings Institution study that measures values of commercial and residential real estate in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, which includes the surrounding suburbs in Virginia and Maryland. Our research shows that real estate values increase as neighborhoods became more walkable, where everyday needs, including working, can be met by walking, transit or biking. There is a five-step ?ladder? of walkability, from least to most walkable. On average, each step up the walkability ladder adds $9 per square foot to annual office rents, $7 per square foot to retail rents, more than $300 per month to apartment rents and nearly $82 per square foot to home values. As a neighborhood moves up each step of the five-step walkability ladder, the average household income of those who live there increases some $10,000. People who live in more walkable places tend to earn more, but they also tend to pay a higher percentage of their income for housing." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/opi ... html?_r=2&ref=realestate&
Posted on: 2013/9/10 16:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Council person Osborne presents Pedestrian plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I agree with raising the fees to $100 or more. Parking is a privilege and not a right.
Posted on: 2013/9/10 15:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Council person Osborne presents Pedestrian plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Ditto . I love what Bloomberg did with pedestrian malls/plazas on streets. I agree. we should do the same here. Including around Hamilton and VVP park
Posted on: 2013/9/9 13:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Star ledger editorial: Christie's Obamacare fiasco
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Christie's Obamacare fiasco: Editorial By Star-Ledger Editorial Board on September 08, 2013 at 6:02 AM, It?s becoming increasingly clear that Gov. Chris Christie made a big mistake by refusing to set up a state-run health insurance exchange as part of the Affordable Care Act and leaving the job instead to the federal government. This exchange is intended to allow people to sign up for health plans at reduced rates. But many still don't know about it and time is running out fast. Advocates are now scrambling to reach hundreds of thousands of the uninsured, with the Oct. 1 start date for applications less than a month away. Nearly half of those without insurance are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. And if they do not sign up, they?ll still rely on hospital emergency rooms when they get sick. That?s not just bad for their health, since they aren?t getting needed preventative care; it?s also expensive for taxpayers, who will pick up a much heftier emergency room bill later. And for many other low-income, uninsured New Jerseyans who do not sign up, the hospitals will not receive any federal support. Keep in mind that this crisis was entirely avoidable. A Rutgers study commissioned by Christie?s own administration found that most health experts believed New Jersey would do a better job implementing the exchange in its own state. Yet Christie ignored this advice. And now, his hands-off approach ? aimed at pleasing national conservatives who hate the health reform law, also known as ?Obamacare? ? has left our state at a real disadvantage. Had Christie decided to allow New Jersey to run its own health exchange, as New York did, our state would have been eligible for $15 million in federal grants for outreach efforts, possibly more. Now we?ve lost that funding, and are stuck with a measly $5.4 million for our enrollment drive. Since the feds didn?t expect to be running these exchanges in so many states, their money for outreach is spread more thinly. And when people don?t enroll, we all pay more. Not just for emergency room bills. Also for insurance premiums, which will be higher if we don?t get young, healthy adults to sign up. Then there?s the 3.5 percent fee that the federal government will apply to all insurers because we chose a federal exchange ? a cost that is likely to be passed down to consumers. Christie had plenty of opportunities to mitigate this damage, yet did nothing to support the exchange. He?s been sitting on his hands as this next big deadline approaches. Our state got an influx of federal money when he finally agreed to expand our Medicaid program, and he could have spent more of that on outreach. Instead, he used it to plug his state budget. And he still hasn?t said how, or even if, he will use the $7.6 million in federal grants that his administration already received for planning the health exchange that it never created. Why not use it now to boost enrollment? We?ve seen this indifference to the hardships of low-income families before. Christie scaled back the earned income tax credit, effectively hiking taxes on the working poor. He cut funding for women?s health clinics, and restricted eligibility for FamilyCare, leaving tens of thousands of poor parents and children without health insurance. What we need from him now is action. The $7.6 million is still on the shelf, and he should come up with a specific plan to grab it so it can be spent immediately on advertising and counseling to get more people enrolled. That?s the least he could do, after leaving New Jersey in the lurch. http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page ... obamacare_fiasco_edi.html
Posted on: 2013/9/9 0:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop backs statewide referendum to raise minimum wage
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I think it's based on the minimum wage after it's creation in 1936 plus inflation.
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/fa ... ry/amount-with-inflation/
Posted on: 2013/9/8 14:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Council person Osborne presents Pedestrian plan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... nce=jersey_city_top_story
Walk this way Osborne to introduce broad proposal to improve pedestrian safety downtown by E. Assata Wright If there is one thing that pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists can all agree on it?s this: the congested streets of Jersey City have become battle grounds as cars, feet, and bike wheels compete for limited space as everybody tries to go about their daily tasks. Cyclists complain about drivers who hog road lanes and crowd them up against parked cars and curbs. Pedestrians complain about drivers who won?t yield and speeding bikers who cycle as if traffic laws don?t apply to them. And drivers have a whole list of complaints about jaywalkers and absentminded pedestrians who seem too busy texting to pay attention to walk signals and right of way laws. While residents jokingly referred to local streets as racetracks, a number of serious accidents in recent months are a reminder that pedestrian and cyclist safety is a serious issue. In April, a man was seriously injured after being hit by a car at Monmouth and Second streets. Later that same month, an off-duty police officer allegedly struck and killed pedestrian Stephen Clifford as he tried crossing Fairmount Avenue (an investigation is ongoing). In June, Natasha Caicedo was hit and killed by a motorist as she rode her bike on Marin Boulevard. More recently, a little boy was hit by a car on 8th Street near Hamilton Park. To address the problem, Ward E City Councilwoman Candice Osborne has developed a proposal to increase pedestrian safety in her downtown ward. While her recommendations are specific to the ward she represents, she said she has shared her proposal with her City Council colleagues who represent other parts of the city. Her proposal has also been shared with the administration of Mayor Steven Fulop and various board members from the downtown neighborhood associations, who helped Osborne collect some of the anecdotal data used in her proposal. Osborne: ?We have an obligation? Osborne admitted that some parts of her traffic calming proposal ? which calls for the creation of bump outs, new traffic lights, de-synchronized traffic lights, improved street lighting, painted crosswalk lines, and a ticket writing campaign by the police ? might not be popular with drivers. But, she said, ?As a city, we have an obligation to proactively pursue policies that make residents feel safe, whether walking, biking, or driving.? Osborne, who took office on July 1, said pedestrian safety has emerged as a top concern among her constituents. ?I was already working on this plan. But complaints about pedestrian safety and the need for traffic calming have been coming in steadily since I took office,? she said. ?I?m getting, like, 10 complaints a day at this point.? _____________ ?I?ve had a few close encounters with cars.? ? Barry Critafoli ____________ To get a sense of the scope of the problem, Osborne met with board members from the six downtown neighborhood associations and did her own neighborhood patrol with her City Council aide to map out intersections that may be in need of crosswalk markings, all-way stop signs, traffic lights, better signage, or other traffic controlling tools. Based on this research, Osborne is now recommending an array of solutions throughout Ward E. Among other solutions, she is recommending the end of right turn on red at several intersections, mostly along Grand Street, where traffic can often top 50 miles per hour. Among the intersections where right turns would be banned during red lights are Grand Street and Grove Street; Grand and Jersey Avenue; Grand and Van Vorst, and Grand and Washington Boulevard. Under Osborne?s plan low grade speed humps would be installed on what she called, ?our worst speed streets: Erie Street, Monmouth Street, Manila Avenue, Brunswick Street, and parts of Washington and Van Vorst.? One suggestion that might win broad support from drivers and pedestrians alike is Osborne?s recommendation that the city create an all-walk traffic light sequence at Columbus Drive and Grove Street, an intersection where pedestrians often jaywalk and cross against the light. She would also like to lengthen the amount of time people have to cross the street along Marin Boulevard, a street that cuts through several large shopping areas. Under her proposal, 21 intersections would get all-way stop signs and four ?Second Street and Marin Boulevard, Van Vorst and Grand Streets, and Newark Avenue and Division Street ? would get new traffic lights. There are a number of intersections that currently have yellow ?yield to pedestrians? signs posted along sidewalks. Osborne would like to see these signs replaced with triangular ?stop for pedestrians? signs that sit in the middle of crosswalks. While Jersey City has a few of these signs, they are more commonly used in Hoboken. ?Evidence shows that these in-crosswalk signs are 35 to 46 percent more effective that the signs by the side of the road,? said Osborne. This evidence, she said, comes from the Pedestrian Safety Countermeasure Deployment Project, which was done by the Federal Highway Administration. (Interestingly, a recent anecdotal study of a few intersections in Hoboken where there are signs in the middle of the street showed that a majority of drivers did not yield to pedestrians.) Still, Osborne would like to see in-crosswalk signs installed at 86 intersections downtown. ?I wanted to get to the root issues [of the problem] as quickly as possible,? Osborne said, although some of her recommendations, if adopted by the city, will be implemented over a period of several months. According to Joe Dee, spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT), Jersey City can likely make most of these changes without state approval. ?There was a law enacted in Dec. 2008 that repealed certain sections of a [previous law] requiring approval of the DOT commissioner,? Dee said. ?The purpose of the repeal was to make it easier for municipalities to enact local laws that make the most sense for their residents? There are a few exceptions where state approval is still needed. Jersey City can make changes so long as the location where the change is taking place is not within 500 feet of a state road. If it?s within 500 feet of a state road, then state approval is still needed. Another exception has to do with commercial traffic. Any proposed changes that attempt to restrict commercial motor vehicles ? meaning trucks ? still needs to be approved by the state.? Fulop, who represented Ward E before being elected mayor, has seen Osborne?s proposal and said he supports it. ?It is impressive and important the work on traffic calming that Candice completed with the community,? Fulop said. ?We are going to start this month on implementing the plan so it is the residents who own the streets ? not the vehicles.? Residents respond At press time last week, only a few residents had seen the plan, although Osborne plans to post it to her website soon to get broader feedback from the public. When told of the plan, however, several Ward E residents and people who work downtown said they support its intent, even though they weren?t aware of any specifics. ?I live on Grove Street and take the PATH a lot,? said Lily Martin. ?I have a car, but I seldom use it. It stays parked most of the time. I walk a lot for the things I have to do. Drivers will see you standing at a corner, see that you have the right of way, and keep going anyway. It?s really frustrating.? Martin said she feels particularly vulnerable when crossing streets when drivers are making turns. Barry Cristafoli, a Jersey City Heights resident who walks downtown frequently, said, ?I?ve had a few close encounters with cars. Grand Street is dangerous. Washington Boulevard is bad. Parts of Grove Street are dangerous. So, anything that can be done to improve street safety for people is something I would support. I would just hope that whatever they do here [downtown] is duplicated elsewhere in the city, because I feel just as unsafe on Central Avenue as I do on Grand Street.? Ellie Smalls, Cristafoli?s wife, agreed. ?Drivers seem to be a little more cautious when I?m with my toddler. When I have my daughter with me, a driver will yield to me and I don?t feel rushed to cross. But if I don?t have her with me, forget it. I used to try to ride my bike [downtown] to do my grocery shopping. Now I just drive, because I don?t feel safe, either on my bike or when I?m walking.? Smalls described Newark Avenue as ?an Indie 500 track.? Similar analogies were made about other streets by others who were interviewed last week. While most of the feedback to Osborne?s proposal was positive, a few drivers argued that pedestrians have to do their part to be safe on the streets, too. ?I?m on foot a lot, too. So, I am sensitive to complaints about dangerous drivers. But I see just as much ?bad walking,? if I can use that term, as bad driving,? said Mary Bentley. ?When the signal says ?Don?t Walk,? why does everybody walk? When a light is clearly green, why is there always some pedestrian who is determined to race across the street anyway? I know New York City at one time gave jaywalking tickets. If they are going to crack down on drivers and implement traffic calming laws on drivers, I want to see something done about ?bad walking,? too.? Bentley and Martin both said that more also needs to be done to discourage pedestrians from texting and talking on the phone when they should be paying attention to traffic and traffic signals. E-mail E. Assata Wright at awright@hudsonreporter.com.
Posted on: 2013/9/8 13:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: NYT: Jersey City May Require Paid Sick Leave
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yvonne wrote: Steven Fulop's plan for special police officers - no benefits
Posted on: 2013/9/8 0:11
|
|||
|
||||
