Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Nearly 700,000 people have signed a petition to boycott Target. This was done in 6 days. Apparently, many people have my views, Pebble.

this just means there's a bunch of assholes out there. don't worry, there were a lot of people lynching them coloreds who got too good for their place back when you were young.

while true. still cringey.

Really sad, that people ignore the real dangers of sexual abuse of children. I have seen this in some of my students. I remember on student cutting herself. Your ridicule does not change the fact this will increase attacks on women and children. I find it interested politicians did not ask law enforcement about their opinion on this but instead only asked people with politician agendas. This is similar to the NRA ignoring the fact that some automatic guns should not be sold. Let's ignore the many sexual crimes that take place and pretend nothing will happen. This is the reason why I have state that people who support this is cooperating with evil.

neverleft wrote:
100 of these units are being designed specifically for baby boomers with an interest in lifelong learning and an active, healthy lifestyle. These apartments are open to all graduates of Jesuit schools in America.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Why do you keep ignoring this?

"conrail did not properly abandon the property and conrail should not have sold it"


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I don't agree Dan. while I respect you, this is wrong. It is a lie to say this is a rail spur. Just because Hyman is a developer/speculator does not mean it is right. Today it is his property tomorrow it is your property or mine property.

And why do you keep ignoring the lie to create a park by calling it a rail spur? Why is lying greater than what Conrail did? And I repeat, Schundler was aware of what was going on. In fact, the members of the Embankment group called Schundler out for this fact. Schundler knew this property was available. Nothing Conrail did was a secret.

Yvonne wrote:
I don't agree Dan. while I respect you, this is wrong. It is a lie to say this is a rail spur. Just because Hyman is a developer/speculator does not mean it is right. Today it is his property tomorrow it is your property or mine property.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
Yvonne, Right now we're talking about the remaining structures between Brunswick and Marin. If you're that curious about the abandonment status to the east and west then by all means do your own research and get back to us.

Hyman's purchase wasn't legal. He tried to fight it and he lost (so far). He had two choices: pay taxes so the city doesn't foreclose on the property for non-payment OR void the purchase from Conrail and let them complete the required abandonment process before executing a legal sale to the highest bidder or by eminent domain. IMO, Hyman is wasting his (and our) time on this because the law is quite clear.

Your logical does not make this deal smell any better. It is one thing for a crook to do this but this is government. The city is running a scam saying there will be a rail spur. It is a lie. No one should lose their property over a lie. This reminds me of the scams people get in the internet. You won a million dollars, in order for me to process the claim, give me your bank account. The government picked Hyman's pockets for years with property taxes then offered him a sum that is equivalent to two brownstones in the area.

Hyman isn't going to lose this property because of a lie. He's going to lose it because Conrail's sale/his purchase weren't legal under Federal law. That's it as far as Hyman is concerned. As for taxes he's paid to date, good question.

This thread reminds me of the quote of my mother: Rationalization is the root of all evil. The fact, people on this thread thinks the lie of a rail spur is OK and ignore the other abandonment of other rail lines. I hope no one here is involved in teaching morality.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
This is also not the same thing as eminent domain because the sale of the property to Hyman was not done in accordance with federal law.

If Hyman's property is illegal then the rest of 6th St is illegal including the street where Bath, Bed, and Beyond is located. The city for years gave Hyman a tax bill, if this was illegal, why give him a tax bill? So, it is OK to require someone to pay property taxes, then take his property for $3 million, then introduce and pass an ordinance pretending there will be a rail spur knowing this is a false. The Colonist revolted against the King of England for less reasons. This is down right horrible.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
That's right - change the subject...

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
It is amazing how people here have no problem with the city stealing someone's property. Hyman's property today, then your property tomorrow.

No I am not changing the subject, how can this be a park if it is zone to be a rail spur? The city took a private citizen's property who is paying taxes for the purpose of a park that the ordinance say will be a rail spur. Let me repeat, take Hyman's property today, then your property tomorrow.

Yvonne wrote:
It is amazing how people here have no problem with the city stealing someone's property. Hyman's property today, then your property tomorrow.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Love it - what are the real costs - go for it Yvonne - impress us all with your expansive and proven knowledge of municipal finance... please, I am begging...

And good - I hope there's no parking - put your car in a garage or just never come downtown. You are privileged to have a car... if you haven't accounted for the cost of owning a car in a urban environment, which frequently means paying for parking - that's your problem. OMG - you are soooo arrogant.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Once this is developed, there will be no parking. But let's get back to my second point, what is the real cost?

Yes, costs matter. I read the Jersey Journal today on pages 12 and 13, the city of Bayonne is advertising their tax liens. Bayonne has one-fourth the population of JC. Last December, the Jersey Journal published the tax liens for Jersey City. That was 32 pages. For Bayonne to be equal, there should have been eight pages of tax liens, not two. JC is paying too much in bond costs and taxes in general. Costs matter. I want to see the cost, not the hype.

Yvonne wrote:
Once this is developed, there will be no parking. But let's get back to my second point, what is the real cost?

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

EthanCrane wrote:
I absolutely never read her posts. I see that big gold box and I keep scrolling. Is she a nut? Is she delusional? Does she just want attention? Don't care. There aren't enough hours in the day.

But you took the time to type you never read my posts. You spend energy doing that. Energy from your life that you will not regain.

Yvonne wrote:
I brought up the increased spending at the last council meeting. The budget was $314 million in 2000 now it is $553 million. Councilwoman Coleman said. "Things go up." When I first started attending council meetings the budget was $90 million and it took 300 years to get to that $90 million. Yet it took 16 years to go an additional $239 million. I am not even including the cost of schools and county government.

JCbiscuit wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
I would love a good old fashioned diner in that space. bizarre that the only real diner option in a vibrant New Jersey downtown is the Brownstone.

Never heard of City Diner?

Just because it exists doesn't necessarily make it worth mentioning. Brownstone isn't even that great. Downtown needs a decent diner.

Oh, please. It's still a real diner option.

It's really not.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
What makes common sense? Conjecture? Sorry, I dont follow?

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
'could be' - maybe you want to elaborate on your extensive analysis?

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If Fulop appeals, that $325,000 in legal fees, could be $1 million. Which is what we owe the tax company.

What is there to say? The city council votes on these legal fees, not the mayor. Legal fees are higher when you appeal. This is common sense. If you want this to stop, contact the city council. They are the ones who has the legal authority to vote no when Fulop pushes more legal fees.

Do you know a legal law firm that would work for free? If you do I suggest you pass that information on to Fulop. Because that is the only way $325,000 will not go up to $1 million.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
I don't disagree with you... what point are you making?

Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Chic pea is a brand... a brand that is used to make money. No one is tearing her down - they are questioning the brand and how she uses it. I am sure she (the person) is delightful, but I think Chic Pea sucks - actually contrived, juvenile, and poorly planned to be specific. I dont read her blog for those reasons.

I get it... Chic Pea means well, loves the city, blah blah, but she is getting her nut too. A lot of this is like saying, don't give that crappy restaurant one star on yelp because its a local business and we should like all local businesses, because they're local, and local is good. Come on now.

She deserve criticism as much as she deserves love.

You mean she wants to get paid for the work she does? How dare she?

Yes, she's paid advertising for JC local businesses but she doesn't pretend to be Consumer Reports. And paid advertising existed a long time before her. All in all, she brings more publicity to JC, which is a good thing.

You seem to have a problem with her getting paid for her services

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
'could be' - maybe you want to elaborate on your extensive analysis?

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If Fulop appeals, that $325,000 in legal fees, could be $1 million. Which is what we owe the tax company.

What is there to say? The city council votes on these legal fees, not the mayor. Legal fees are higher when you appeal. This is common sense. If you want this to stop, contact the city council. They are the ones who has the legal authority to vote no when Fulop pushes more legal fees.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
Chic pea is a brand... a brand that is used to make money. No one is tearing her down - they are questioning the brand and how she uses it. I am sure she (the person) is delightful, but I think Chic Pea sucks - actually contrived, juvenile, and poorly planned to be specific. I dont read her blog for those reasons.

I get it... Chic Pea means well, loves the city, blah blah, but she is getting her nut too. A lot of this is like saying, don't give that crappy restaurant one star on yelp because its a local business and we should like all local businesses, because they're local, and local is good. Come on now.

She deserve criticism as much as she deserves love.

You mean she wants to get paid for the work she does? How dare she?

Yes, she's paid advertising for JC local businesses but she doesn't pretend to be Consumer Reports. And paid advertising existed a long time before her. All in all, she brings more publicity to JC, which is a good thing.

Yvonne wrote:
If Fulop appeals, that $325,000 in legal fees, could be $1 million. Which is what we owe the tax company.

iGreg wrote:
Wait till they discover Bayonne.

Huge nicely maintained stand alone 3 or 4 bedroom homes with driveways and garages in the back - still floating for around the 250k mark.

Bayonne will make you moan.

DanL wrote:

this article could have been written about JC, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 even 30 years ago, then a few years following the first wave of condo construction and conversions. and there regularly have been other similar pieces in the times. it all manifested itself with Bret Schundler's election in the early 1990's.