Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
47 user(s) are online (32 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 47

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (bodhipooh)




Re: Hudson Cinemas closed?
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Mmmm wrote:
Looks like it closed again in November 2019... any one know if there are any plans to reopen or is it gone for good? At least the Hudson mall is still going ..


I thought it closed before November 2019 maybe not. I looked at the HM property management website it shows that space is available for lease. I used to go to the Bayonne South Cove movie theater until it closed. Now it is off to Secaucus or Clifton to see a movie. I am surprised no one is jumping on it and opening it again seeing that they are building thousands of new apartments right down the street on the MOT property. I guess the same could be said for the HM theater with the new modern apartment buildings going up on the other side of rt 440.

This is a pretty good website to get information on old theaters. I remember the HM theater looking like that. The entrance was on the side. Notice the number of screen's history. As I mentioned in other posts the HM was the place to go to in the 70?s always packed. Parking spots in front and rear of the mall were full most of the time.

Cinema Treasures

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/1616

.


I didn't realize that Frank Theaters at South Cove had closed. When did it happen?

As for local theaters, the Newport Centre AMC is actually really nice after the renovations were performed.

Posted on: 2020/1/22 16:28
 Top 


Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


The MTA just ordered 20 open gangway cars to test the concept as potential replacements of the existing subway trains. Defintely would love to see the PA test such a concept for the PATH. It would likely alleviate some of the overcrowding in cars.

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/n ... -open-gangway-subway-cars

Posted on: 2020/1/22 16:20
 Top 


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
It would have been a lot easier if you admit what you originally wrote, that is PILOT owners would pay less on property taxes than the payment in lieu. That is what I responded to. It is on you to correct what you have written.


Here is my original message:
Abatements expiring is not going to magically solve the tax problem: as those properties start to contribute directly to the school budget, the city itself will receive a LOT LESS in tax revenue from the formerly abated properties. And, since the city budget will not decrease, it is fair to conclude that as more and more abatements expire, the city will have to increase its tax levy to make up the loss of revenue.

That's what you responded to with an incorrect statement. It really is that simple.

In a subsequent message, I stated that some properties may actually end up paying less when paying the regular tax rate, and that's a fact. I even gave you a concrete example of that (CanCo Lofts) but you still refuse to believe the data. Not all abatements have worked out to be a good deal for the property owners. That's because, as already explained, the abatements were based on (and, compared to) a tax rate that was estimated, and WAY OFF from what turned out to be the actual rate post-reval.

I can keep explaining it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Posted on: 2020/1/22 14:20
 Top 


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
You wrote:

"Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! "

"Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218"

The 1st paragraph is wrong. The second paragraph is correct. Take a deep breath. Do you understand the problem?

Now, back to the original thread title. If all PILOTS were to expire overnight, yes indeed there would be less (tax) revenue for the municipal government** and more for the school district. However, all other things remain equal, Jersey City would still remain an Abbott school district.

Collectively, there is not enough revenue among the municipality and the school district. The district has a big budget deficit. That redistribution of tax revenue would only go towards plugging the district deficit, while creating a deficit in the municipal budget (short term)

I'll let you do the math, i sure am not going to do so on my phone - but the MUNICIPAL property tax rate would increase dramatically on the 100% PILOT overnight expiry. That will create great economic harm to many JC residents. There is a very good reason why JC was designated as an Abbott district.

Also it would be counterproductive to NJS, despite all their school aid doled out to the district, the City does generate a lot of tax revenue for the State, much like NYC overwhelmingly does for NYS. How much that is above my pay grade, but I bet it is very significant. The folks in Trenton should realize that. That shock in residents and commercial property taxes would hurt the local economy. Leas economic activity means less revenue for the State.

Overtime, as PILOTs do expire and RE development activity drops off, then I could see JC losing its Abbott status. That is less shocking - fiscally, economically, and the thought itself.

Losing such status - it is not quite there, yet. **In part, with emphasis on "in part" due to what you meant to write originally - a big drop in revenue for the municipality.


It would have been a lot easier for you to simply admit you were wrong when you said "Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition" instead of writing all of that nonsense above.

As for Abbott, it is essentially impossible for JC to lose Abbott status. It has to do with the way legislation was written, and the many Abbott court rulings.

Also, as to your contention that municipal taxes would have to go up dramatically to make up the shortfall as abatements expire (btw, that budget shortfall was my initial contention, which you failed to understand) that will not necessarily be true. Using the numbers from the 2017 User Friendly Budget, the necessary increase to cover the shortfall would have to be about 32%, which translates to a 16% increase in our total tex levy. That's a heck of a lot less than what the school budget shortfall (after the state proposed cuts) will require, which will be in excess of a doubling, leading to an increase in our total tax levy of at least 25%, and quite likely much higher.

Posted on: 2020/1/22 2:07
 Top 


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.


You still write a lot of nonsense.

Here is what you do. Go to the city's website, finance section. Click on a link for the "User Friendly Budget" in that budget, there is a sheet that lists all PILOTS - what they currently pay and what they would/will be paying if it is not an abatement. Compare the two lists. You will see that you are wrong.

It is really as simple as that. There is no mystery. It's a simple fact.

Alternatively you can simply look up the definition of "abatement". It will be time better spent than typing out ignorant comments.


Sigh. I will try to explain it for you again, using the very documents you reference in your reply.

If you look up the most recent user-friendly budget document in the city's website, you can see a list/breakdown of all the long term abatements on the seventh page. Here is what the GRAND TOTAL line shows:

Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218

(Figures taken from here: 2017 User Friendly Budget)

The total revenue the city would get to keep from the "Taxes if Billed In Full" is ~50%, which would amount to about $104,295,000. That's because the total tax levy follows a breakdown close to 50/25/25 between the city, county, and BOE.

So, based on the 2017 User Friendly Budget, the city would stand to lose almost 33 million dollars if all abatements expired tomorrow and the formerly abated properties were to pay regular taxes, as those properties currently contribute just shy of 137 million dollars to the city budget.

Posted on: 2020/1/21 16:53
 Top 


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.

Posted on: 2020/1/21 1:08
 Top 


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

azsrz wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.


Look at the numbers it will probably be around 2%, not too bad. And many of the abatements are going to expire soon. IMO they should put the rate at 1.8% like many people expected and start increasing from there so there wouldn't be another outcry like the reval.


Abatements expiring is not going to magically solve the tax problem: as those properties start to contribute directly to the school budget, the city itself will receive a LOT LESS in tax revenue from the formerly abated properties. And, since the city budget will not decrease, it is fair to conclude that as more and more abatements expire, the city will have to increase its tax levy to make up the loss of revenue.

Posted on: 2020/1/20 2:42
 Top 


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:


"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."



Well that's the argument of the state, not necessarily the law.

The argument simply begs the question - whether the SFRA, as amended by S2, is constitutional. One way the legislature was able to convince the court it was, was that it provided for the hold harmless/adjustment aid. The aid that Jersey City and other Abbott districts received was based on prior court findings and mandates.

SFRA tried to cobble that all into a one size fits all formula. If they had not included the hold harmless/adjustment aid, the court may very well have rejected the formula entirely, because it would be ignoring the needs that had been demonstrated and the remedies that had been ordered.

SFRA used anodyne terms such as "local fair share" and "adequacy budget" in order to sell the SFRA as equitable. It doesn't mean one way or another that those terms have meaning as applied to the NJ Constitution's requirement for the state to provide a thorough and efficient education.


I know you are a smart, and reasonable, person. So, I respect your opinion. Having said that, I think it would be hard for the average person to look at the JC local school budget, and the fact that our local school taxes only pay for ~17% of said budget, and conclude that we are paying our fair share. Particularly when most towns cover a majority of their own local school budget.

In my opinion, we have gotten away for far too long with contributing a pittance towards our school budget, which has enabled the runaway spending we are now seeing. I suspect (hope?) that in the future, when local taxes are inevitably raised to cover the school budget, people will feel enough pain to expect and demand more accountability. If the proposed cuts are fully phased in as proposed, we will soon need to at least double our school taxes (not sure how much revenue is being generated by the recent payroll tax, so I am hedging my estimate, which would otherwise be a tripling of current rate) and our local tax rate would surpass 2%. That is still one of the lowest in the state, but given the reaction to the reval's 1.48% tax rate, I am sure we will see many more DTJCers picketing outside city hall complaining about unfair taxation.

Regardless, the court case, and its eventual result, will be very interesting to watch.

Posted on: 2020/1/19 17:40
 Top 


Re: Did DPW neglect to brine the roads pre snowfall?
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
With just a quarter inch of snow the roads were as slippery as dog snot. I don't recall seeing any brine trucks overnight or this morning spraying the roads with brine. JC had this issue last winter with the salt trucks getting very late on the roads.


A real mess today! Driving up the Newark Avenue hill I got a first row seat to a bunch of cars slipping all over. Too many people around here driving as aggressively as usual, but without much traction. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bunch of accidents or near misses.

Posted on: 2020/1/18 22:15
 Top 


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
We need a new slate that will defund the school board and keep taxes low.


I am all for lower taxes and lean governments, but defunding the school board may not be a very practical or viable approach. We need to provide a public education (it is a "greater good" action that merits public funding) and that requires money. But, we should demand greater accountability from the BOE, and responsible stewardship of public funds. Currently, Jersey City has one of the most bloated/costly school budgets as evidenced by the per-pupil cost. Add to that stat that we also have one of the worst achievement/graduation rates, and you really have to start asking some questions.

BOE apologists bristle at the notion of citizens demanding better results and more accountability, but they seem to forget that their job and mission, by its very nature, implies accountability to the city residents.

Posted on: 2020/1/18 17:52
 Top 


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.

Posted on: 2020/1/18 13:54
 Top 


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Then who is buying up all of this real estate? I realize the real estate market in NYC and some areas of NNJ have cooled in part. But that's in part because the numbers had reached super, super stratospheric heights. Still, even with the dip, prices are high and people are still buying expensive real estate. In Asbury Park at least 20 units in the Ocean Club sold for anywhere from $1mm to $5mm. Properties in JC are still moving as are properties in the several million mark in NYC. It seems to me there's plenty of money floating around.


A lot (most?) of the high end real estate in NYC/Manhattan is being snapped up by foreigners who don't have to pay state taxes on income. As the real estate market in NYC has remained hot for so long, people have been pushed out into other areas, such as the ones you point out in your message. In many ways, Jersey City, and much of NJ, has benefitted from the overly-hot NYC real estate market, as people leave NY and relocate here.

The problem with foreigners snapping up real estate (which is also a problem locally in JC, btw) is that it can artificially inflate a local market but those buying properties don't contribute to state coffers much, if at all. They are not subject to state income taxes, and property taxes are super low in NYC.

Posted on: 2020/1/16 1:51
 Top 


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Unless most of those millionaires were renters, someone (other than Dixon Leasing in one city) is buying all of that real estate. Odds are most of them are millionaires too. What don't I get?


It is well known that a lot of the high-end, costly NYC real estate (particularly Manhattan, and Brooklyn to some extent) is being snapped up by foreigners. Those people are buying properties but they are not contributing state taxes (since they are not residents) which is why real estate is not a very good indicator as to whether or not millionaires are leaving.

Posted on: 2020/1/16 1:47
 Top 


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


I love reviving this thread every year, as annual data comes out that clearly repudiates the narrative pushed by Dolomiti and other so-called progressives who think you can continue to raise taxes on people year after year and that people will continue to take it.

From the thread below, the idea that taxes can spur people to leave NY/NJ was dismissed as a myth. Too bad the data does not fit that characterization.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-florid ... he-tax-relief-11578501325

https://nypost.com/2019/12/30/new-york ... -an-alarming-rate-report/

Posted on: 2020/1/13 14:14
 Top 


Re: Pick up and drop off UPSĀ® packages at CVS
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


This is nice, but... there is already a UPS store across from the mall at 100 Town Square Place. If I am dropping off a UPS package, that's where I go: quick in and out without the hassle of having to go up and down escalators, and then fighting crowds of shoppers or office drones.

Posted on: 2019/12/9 11:47
 Top 


Re: 12/5/19 Pulaski Skyway to be closed in both directions Sat and Sun for repair work
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JC_Man wrote:
Almost four SIX years on and STILL not complete. Amazing - your tax dollars hard at work.

NO accountability for the government.


I fixed it for you!

Technically, rehab work started over 10 years ago, but the current effort started in mid April, 2014, when eastbound traffic was suspended. It is INSANE that almost 6 years later that bridge is still undergoing rehab work.

Posted on: 2019/12/8 4:10
 Top 


Re: JC teachers who made 99K or more in 2019
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
So we have a problem, we have a shitty system with some of the best paid teachers in the country. Go figure.


This right here is the real problem! While we should have well paid teachers to ensure we give our kids the best possible education we can afford as a city, we have a real problem in that we have very well paid teachers and an atrocious school system that ranks VERY poorly. Why is that?

If better teachers equal better results, then why are we having such bad results? Something is not adding up in JC.

Posted on: 2019/12/6 21:15
 Top 


Re: Pedestrian plaza development
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


People who think a car-free / pedestrian plaza is incompatible with thriving retail establishments need to get out and travel. All over the world you see areas just like the one we have here in JC, and they do phenomenally well.

The one issue I see with our pedestrian plaza is that it is still too small. If they extended the plaza towards the West (as has been proposed/planned) then you would have more space for retail. Our pedestrian plaza is dominated by restaurants and bars, which is great, but it does prevent people from making it a shopping destination, since it has limited appeal/variety. We need more retail in there. Alas, the rents might be prohibitive for small businesses to survive and thrive.

Posted on: 2019/12/6 21:06
 Top 


Re: Woman charged after keeping her 2 kids and mom in filthy JC home
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

biggoron wrote:
The house looks like it is for sale and/or up for a foreclosure auction. Taxes are $18,265 which does not seem right for a home that :
Quote:
One of the two two bathrooms in the story-home had no running water and had corroded sinks and bathtubs, the source said. The entire second floor, where the dogs were kept, was covered with feces.


https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/54- ... y-NJ-07302/38888459_zpid/


lol... wut? Is that some sort of new strategy: let dogs shit all over the place and then file for reduced taxes??

The house is in foreclosure, but has also been on the market for quite some time. They are asking 2.6 MM. Perhaps that's why it hasn't sold?!?

I met many people in my old neighborhood (BeLa) that prior to the recession were holding out and refusing to sell properties, demanding or unrealistically expecting million dollar payouts for homes that were dilapidated and worthy of being condemned. Their rationale was always "people are getting that kind of money for other properties" never acknowledging that those other properties had better locations (say, DT, instead of BeLa) and in much better conditions. Some people just live in fantasy land.

Seeing how the 2019 taxes are just over 18K, that puts the value of the property at just over 1.2 MM. They are asking for twice that. They will be evicted long before anyone pays that money for that place.

Posted on: 2019/9/17 19:00
 Top 


Re: Another trendy JC restaurant is closing.
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

On_The_3rd wrote:
That's a difficult location that really only seems to cater to the after-work, #crispyboys crowd. I still can't believe that Greene Hook, which is only a few blocks away, is still in business. Their food has always been ok-to-decent but I've never seen the space filled.


Perhaps it is just "a few blocks away," but it might as well be miles away. You can't possibly compare the two locations. There is nothing in Harborside to really attract people after work hours, or during weekends, while Greene Hook is in a bustling residential area, surrounded by many other restaurants in the vicinity, which invariably leads to more foot traffic.

Also, not sure if they still do it, but they used to do $1 oysters on Sundays and that was a popular draw. I do agree with you that their food was so-so, so I am not a regular (it's been at least two or three years since I last visited) but they are probably filling some need or void. Less than a block away is Rumi, which is DELICIOUS, and that place is usually dead, but they make brisk takeout business.

Posted on: 2019/9/17 18:50
 Top 


Re: Skunks out of control in Lafayette!!! City Sides with Skunks!
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I really hope that last post is a joke. But, if it isn't... why would anyone think/assume/believe that Animal Control can and should locate, trap, and dispose of random wildlife making its way into private property?

[sarcasm]
Ill be sure to call Animal Control the next time a bird flies into my place!
[/sarcasm]

Actually, yes, that is within their mission. But it seems like their primary job is being non-responsive so as to make whatever it is the citizens problem. They will not even return a call. Even the nice workers at LHS admit as much. Lord help you if instead of calling them 10 times till they send someone with a trap you rescue a cat yourself but are unable to keep it. You might as well put it out on the street again, even the cat rescues won't take it. Ask me how I know, the kitten is making our elderly cat miserable.

http://www.libertyhumane.org/animal_response_team
Quote:

The Animal Response Team serves Jersey City, Hoboken and Bayonne. If you live outside of these areas you need to contact your municipal Health Department or Police Department for assistance in reaching your animal services provider.

Contact the Animal Response Team Anytime If:

-You have found an injured or sick stray animal (this includes wildlife)

-You have found and confined a stray domestic animal

-You are witnessing possible animal cruelty or neglect

-There is a stray animal who appears to be dangerous

-There is a wild animal in your living space that cannot escape


*that cannot escape*

The OP stated that they couldn?t even locate the animal themselves, or even identify it.

Going by a strict reading of the highlighted item, if wildlife makes its way to your home, Animal Control is only required to assist IF the animal is unable to make its way out. A wild animal that meanders into your home and has left (or, could leave) will not warrant a visit by AC personnel.

Posted on: 2019/9/12 15:05
 Top 


Re: Skunks out of control in Lafayette!!! City Sides with Skunks!
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


I really hope that last post is a joke. But, if it isn't... why would anyone think/assume/believe that Animal Control can and should locate, trap, and dispose of random wildlife making its way into private property?

[sarcasm]
Ill be sure to call Animal Control the next time a bird flies into my place!
[/sarcasm]

Posted on: 2019/9/11 17:59
 Top 


Re: One of N.J.'s trendiest Asian restaurants has closed its doors
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JC_Man wrote:
Quote:

Well-deserved - service sucked and the food was worse.


SO TRUE - the last time I visited was about two years ago and swore that never again. It was one too many "second chances". A group of eight and half of our food order took over an hour to show up. Half the table had already finished their meals while some of us kept waiting for ours. And, the management was just inept at dealing with the issue.

Previous to that visit, at least two or three times visited with friends during happy hour and it was always the same "mistake" where the bill would reflect the regular prices instead of the discounted happy hour prices. The first time it was easy to believe the "innocent mistake" explanation, but after two or three such occurrences, you just realize that the whole thing is SOP. Oh well, we simply stopped going. The clientele was also the usual obnoxious "after work" crowd that is out to get drunk before heading out to the suburbs.

Posted on: 2019/8/27 8:51
 Top 


Re: One of N.J.'s trendiest Asian restaurants has closed its doors
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Bread wrote:
If this new place is looking to draw it's clientele from NYC, then they should stay in NYC. Who needs them here?


Shouldn't a city that's going through a financial crisis and is increasingly forced to raise taxes be accepting of anybody that wants to come here and spend money and contribute to the local economy? If you want to live in some insular community, there are plenty of shit suburbs in NJ where you'll never have to worry about anyone coming to visit.


Agreed with you. I can't understand this insular mentality of eschewing visitors (who want to come here to spend some of their money) out of some misplaced sense of entitlement or fear that visitors will somehow "destroy" the fabric of our city.

I would rather see JCPD clamp down on the drunks who come here to imbibe and then drive all over town like maniacs at closing time, or the out-of-town commuters that speed on local streets as they try to make in/out of JC.

Posted on: 2019/8/27 8:43
 Top 


Re: Female Jogger Slain - Body Found in Lincoln Park Lake
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

D_Nasir_McClain wrote:
Quote:

sullyx wrote:
Quote:

D_Nasir_McClain wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Hey Cuomo today just signed a bill designed to give scum like this a drivers license. With a drivers license undocumented people can vote in NY. Further the bill limits the dentention time allowed to hold criminal illegals. I'm sure that dope Murphy will be on board soon.


This simply isn't true, undocumented persons will not be able to vote as the requirements to register are:

- Be a United States citizen;
- Be 18 years old by December 31 of the year in which you file this form (note: you must be 18 years old by the date of the general, primary or other election in which you want to vote);
- Resident of this state and the county, city or village for at least 30 days before the election;
- Not be in prison or on parole for a felony conviction (unless parolee pardoned or restored rights of citizenship);
- Not be adjudged mentally incompetent by a court;
- Not claim the right to vote elsewhere.

And the bill has no provisions regarding detention, incarceration or any other form of detainment.

The point is the animal that killed Ms. Carolina was a bad dude and his citizenship status has nothing to do with that.


1. if they are already here illegally what's to stop them from checking the box claiming they are a US citizen and registering to vote? --- NOTHING
2. he was here illegally after being deported twice, his status has everything to do with her being dead at his hands.



What? Checking a box is not how we prove our citizenship in this country. We have these things called Social Security Cards and Birth Certificates.


And yet, that's exactly how you get registered to vote in NYS. You just have to check off a box and all is good to go. Even the spokesperson for the state's BOE has confirmed that is the case.

Quote:

...at voting polls you're typically required to bring two forms of ID one of which is those documents that "undocumented" people wouldn't have.


Have you actually ever voted around here?? At polling stations you show NOTHING. You just state your name, and address, and they look you up in the voter register rolls. They match what you state with that's in the rolls and you are then given your ballot.

Posted on: 2019/6/20 21:08
 Top 


Re: Female Jogger Slain - Body Found in Lincoln Park Lake
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
https://www.ny.gov/services/register-vote

Social Security number required


They require the last four of a social security number, and only when doing so online. In person at the DMV, they are only required to check off a box.

Posted on: 2019/6/20 20:08
 Top 


Re: Female Jogger Slain - Body Found in Lincoln Park Lake
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

D_Nasir_McClain wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Here is a link to what NY requires someone to possess in order to vote.


https://www.voteriders.org/ufaqs/new-york-voter-id-information/


You should probably try getting your voter registration requirements from the state in question and not some non-profit from Santa Monica, California. Notice the .gov... that's official

https://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingRegister.html


Dude, you are being DENSE. In NYS, the sole requirement to register to vote is to provide/present a driver's license and to attest that you are eligible to vote, but this last requirement is an honor system without verification.

You can do it online here: https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MotorVoter/

Or, you can do it in person at the DMV when submitting your driver's license paperwork by use checking the box that says you want to be registered to vote.

Heck, even the guy who sponsored the bill admitted as much ("Theoretically, they could have the ability to vote") and the spokesperson for the NYS Board of Election confirmed it, as well.

"Voters need only provide a driver?s license number to register to vote, according to BOE spokesman John Conklin.

?If you have a driver?s license number, you basically stop there,? Conklin told The Post Tuesday of the vetting process.

Registrants are required to check a box swearing they are eligible to vote in the US, but ?it?s ?basically an honor system,? he said.

Posted on: 2019/6/20 20:07
 Top 


Re: Window washers spray nesting peregrine falcons off JC building
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
What the hell is wrong with people?


A whole lot...

Posted on: 2019/6/20 14:31
 Top 


Re: Dixon Leasing renovated Fulop's Ogden home for free.
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dcourts1984 wrote:
Cant wait for this Dixon era to come to an end. Never healthy to have one institution own such a large share and concentration of properties in one area.

Cutting your dividend to 1% from 5% spells significant issues at the investor/master fund level. As that fund winds down or massive redemptions, the forced liquidation of their assets in downtown JC will be interesting to watch. As a resident, what you don't want is them making the market and having a massive downfall where they have to sell a significant amount of their properties in a short amount of time.

Either way, not healthy for the market. They have ability to control and move market on way up and same could be said for the way down.


This entire diatribe is predicated on a false premise: that Dixon Leasing somehow owns (and, controls) a large share of the local market. By all accounts, they owned 24 units that could have been affected by the reval. Even if they owned twice or four times that, you are talking about less than 100 units, in a city that boasts well over 100,000 units. How is that a large share?

My experience from following them (and being inside several of the units leased by friends or acquaintances) is that they do really good work and that the people renting the units are generally satisfied. I think a lot of people simply don't like Dixon because they cater to a specific segment/demographic and hating on rich or well-to-do people is so very cool nowadays.

Posted on: 2019/6/18 21:51
 Top 


Re: End of AirBnB in Jersey City?
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

val7101 wrote:
The issue is that if you are living in a building where lots of units are Air Bnb then they need to let you know up front so you can decide if you want to live with that.
If you have a building that's completely AirBnb then it needs to have signage indicating that so once again, people can decide if they want to live there.
I wouldn't live in a building with strangers constantly coming in and out, and neither would a lot of other people.
Second, how do people not see what this does to the housing market? Not to mention neighborhoods.
There is a big difference between people renting their house here and there or even a room, particularly if it's owner occupied.


But, again, this measure is overly aggressive in trying to solve this problem. If I want to spend the Summer away and rent out my unit to a friend, or even a stranger, for the month or two I will be away, I would not be allowed to do so legally, even if I had the consent of my landlord, as I live in a building with 5+ units. Where's the harm in that scenario?

Posted on: 2019/6/11 16:39
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 123 »






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017