bill wrote:
I only live here because my job is in Manhattan.

Jersey City would only be better off if Manhattan wasn't here only if it became the financial center that Manhattan is. However, Chicago or Philadelphia would have most likely taken that role and JC would b like most NJ coastal crap cities like Elizabeth, Perth Amboy, etc.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Actually if NYC wasn't there JC would probably be MORE substantial. The only reason that it seems insignificant is because Manhattan dwarfs everything around it. If Manhattan was gone, JC would be a serious mid-sized city - bigger than Boulder, Orlando, Richmond, etc.

hahahahaha. If JC wasn't right next to NYC with 24/7 access then it wouldn't be the second largest city in NJ, there would be no luxury condos, there would be no restaurant row, there would be any luxury at all actually. Minus well just rename Jersey City Greenville.

Just look at all the new buildings, restaurants, food trucks, and population growth - all of that is happening in the area right next to NYC - DTJC.

You people are fooling yourselves.

greenville wrote:
The cop shot him in self defense per spectators of the event.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e94_1408294281

Adonis wrote:
If Manhatran didn't exist JC would have been even greater because JC would have been the gateway to the US and its heartland. Manhattan has been holding JC back all these years.

Ixnay on the 6th Oroughbay. JC has always been good enough to stand on it's own.

getz011 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

jcdd wrote:
DevilsAdvocate: Don't assume. I am very familiar with Manhattan. My husband lived in a beautiful brownstone on the UWS 2 blocks from the park for over 15 years. We have both worked in Manhattan for a very long time. I know there are great neighborhoods. We have some fantastically wealthy family members that live in those most excellent neighborhoods. That being said, I no longer want to live there. Not everyone is as enamored with Manhattan as you may be. And for the record, I don't find the people in NYC to be particularly any more interesting than other areas of this world.

I don't even know what to say to this. There are objectively more people that are extremely accomplished in Manhattan than here. In addition to the numerous other advantages. There is just very little that JC does better without factoring money into the equation.

There are objectively more talented people than in JC in the following cities:

- Sofia, Bulgaria
- Ankara, Turkey
- Bratislava, Slovakia
- Novi Sad, Serbia
- Kuwait City
- Riga, Latvia

So move there.

For the record, I've lived in the East Village as well as JC. I prefer JC for exactly the reasons jcdd laid out. Looking forward to learning why I'm wrong.

jcdd wrote:
DevilsAdvocate: Don't assume. I am very familiar with Manhattan. My husband lived in a beautiful brownstone on the UWS 2 blocks from the park for over 15 years. We have both worked in Manhattan for a very long time. I know there are great neighborhoods. We have some fantastically wealthy family members that live in those most excellent neighborhoods. That being said, I no longer want to live there. Not everyone is as enamored with Manhattan as you may be. And for the record, I don't find the people in NYC to be particularly any more interesting than other areas of this world.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Jesus, I hope we DON'T try to become a borough of NY or emulate NY in anyway ... when did NY ever win a 'BEST OF' in anything !

We should concentrate and be our own city they others will come over, study and try to emulate in their cities !

jcdd wrote:
Speak for yourself, Devils advocate. Perhaps I would have liked to move to Manhattan in my early 20s, but never now. Now, with a family, living in New York City is simply too much of a hassle and doesn't hold the allure any longer. I can't stand how it takes forever to get off the island, particularly if you want to travel during the holidays. I personally no longer like how crowded it is and how transient it feels.
I like living in Jersey City because I can still commute to Manhattan for work and play but specifically do not have to live there. Drop me a billion dollars and I most certainly will not be moving to Manhattan. That being said, without the financial constraints of work, I'd probably be heading out of JC to a carribean island!

getz011 wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Very True. Our slogan should just be " Downtown JC, cause you can't afford NYC and don't want to be shot in Greenville"

You never miss a chance to take a dig at other people's neighborhoods. It's the hallmark of a provincial mentality.

Not to mention misguided. The average Manhattanite might say: "Queens, because you can't afford here and you don't want to be shot in Jersey City." That includes all of us.

stc4blues wrote:
Quote:

Plus, yuppies aren't chill either. Yuppies are a horribly neurotic bunch (and I say this as a quintessential yuppy). Chilltown is somewhere in Idaho or something like that.

Has nothing to do with Idaho, or potatoes for that matter. This old article has the 411:

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... l-Jersey-City--Chilltown-

tommyc_37 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:

I moved to JC 6 years ago, and consider it the biggest mistake of my life, and don't know any native JCers, but NYC is the world city bar none, so I don't see what is wrong with basking in it's glow and any connection to it we can find!

Perhaps it's time for you to move to a place where you want to be instead of torturing yourself.

Lets be honest - if we all suddenly happened upon $1 billion we would all move to NYC in a heartbeat. We live in JC because we cannot afford the lifestyle we have in JC in NYC. I occasionally wistfully look at row houses in Manhattan, near Central Park, and then give a sad laugh when I see the prices.

That said, the reason people live here is because we are the 6th borough. If we weren't then this place would become a significantly bigger dump than it already is.

I'm not so sure that's true. Years ago when I moved to JC, my intention was to live here for a few years and then move over to Manhattan. I got very comfortable here and really don't have any plans to leave. I can certainly move across to Manhattan, but choose to stay here.

nope wrote:
why the huge campaign of people trying to make jersey city out to be the "sixth borough?"

honestly, i don't want this town to be just an extension of nyc, i prefer to see jc have it's own identity. if i wanted to live in brooklyn or somewhere else, i would. this isn't nyc and the idea of pretending it is kinda comes off as silly to me. it's pining to be something that jc doesn't have to be.

HeightsBrat wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

craigslistdiva wrote:

Just an FYI - I have lived in JC - Paulus Hook to be exact - since 2003. I have never, not once, heard JC been called Chilltown until recently.

Well, I've lived here my whole life, and that's what it has been called. I don't really like that name either, but it's been around for decades.

I've lived in Jersey City just over 60 years & have never heard of the name Chilltown. The first few times I ever heard it, I thought it was a new hangout & wondered where it was. Personally, I don't think the name fits. Jersey City is a gritty working class city & no amount of yuppification will ever change that.

07310 wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:

I moved to JC 6 years ago, and consider it the biggest mistake of my life, and don't know any native JCers, but NYC is the world city bar none, so I don't see what is wrong with basking in it's glow and any connection to it we can find!

Perhaps it's time for you to move to a place where you want to be instead of torturing yourself.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Lima17 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Speaking of which, supposedly that was coming to an end after their insane lobbying, yet from what I see there has been absolutely no change.

There has been very little change. I walk my dog (on a leash) daily through that park. It seems like the Parks & Recreation people there more frequently (or at least it seems to me), and when they're there dogs are on leashes. But when they're not, game on. I don't care either way. I prefer to keep my dog on a leash, but I'm not concerned by those who don't.

That's what I was getting at. DTJC was SWEARING that he would put an end to offleash dogs there. I laughed at him and noted that it would never happen.

Who was? Not I. I happen to think that ticketing owners with off-leash dogs is one of those selectively enforceable laws. Like kids skateboarding, or playing wiffleball in a park. If they're not causing anyone any harm, what's the problem?

Cilento wrote:
Thanks for posting! This is great.

It always bothers me how much power we give the state borderline ignoring the actual geography of a megalopolis like NYC. There are more than 20 million people living in this population cluster, regardless of political borders. The worst thing the British ever did was give New Jersey over to Berkeley and Carteret as a repayment for their loyalty to the crown in the English Civil War. ]

The competition this created between these two colonies, then between the states, has been incredibly counter productive. Its modern repercussion is the Port Authority of NY and NJ which is ridiculous.

Why split one of the greatest harbors in the world between 2 political entities? It just doesn't make sense.

I love this map because it puts geography above politics.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

Plus, showing up to various community associations filled with obnoxious blowhards looking to whine about everything from dogs to bikes on sidewalks to all kinds of other things doesn't seem like a productive use of my time. Besides, you wouldn't like me there since my contribution would mainly be to tell everyone that they're pricks and recommending that people move to gated communities if they want to run every aspect of other people's lives. At least on here I type it out, click "Submit" and then go on with my day.

I never said treating your dogs well was sad. Treating your dogs like they are actually your children is very sad. But, as you said, to each their own.

However, contrary to your opinion, neighborhood associations get quite a great deal done for their communities, unbeknownst to their neighbors. Everything, ranging from quality of life, to parks and recreations, fund raising for local events, involvement and communication with local police/councilpersons/mayor, etc. is done by these associations. It's not a place where people go to just bitch about this and that.

I'm sorry you have such a negative attitude towards your community and what they do to maintain that sense of community with a high quality of life. But then again, given your statements, maybe it's a good thing you're NOT a member of your local association. So, in that regard, I thank you for not being involved and leaving it to those who actually care.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I don't like kids either and actually love dogs. Owned beagles for many years. Still treated them like pets and not children. That's just sad, my friend.

Either way, you work so hard that you spend quite a lot of time on here. That time could be spent actually doing something positive in your community. Even tiny efforts are always appreciated especially with neighborhood associations. But you just go right on ahead making yourself feel better insulting strangers alone with your dog-children.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Hey in the end you may be right. But, at least I get involved in my neighborhood and try to work to make changes on people's behalf unlike most of the pikers on here who just pontificate and contribute nothing but name calling and whatnot (a lot of brave people behind computer screens that's for sure). Win lose or draw most of you on here just complain and do nothing to try and change it. However, it was interesting/sad seeing how many dog owners there are in this town who use their dogs as proxies for not having children. It's almost scary how much some of you forget...it's an animal, not your child.

Like I said, no skin off my back either way. It was fun learning the process and subsequently seeing how truly inept some divisions of the city government are.

There are definitely more important issues to handle, I'll agree on that front. I sure hope all the go getters on here help to fight the McCabe bullsh*t, amongst other things. Unfortunately, most of you will probably just continue being the brave bloggers you are, shunning dissenting thought, pontificating your expert opinions and all that.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Hey no skin off my back. For the record I think the dog barking complaint is silly. Not much you can do there. People want the dogs to be in dog runs, yet dont expect them to bark? However, points of creativity to the bull horn guy (no, that's not me).

But it looks like we have to light a fire under ACs asses to get stuff done. I was under the impression they were enforcing the leash laws until I saw this thread.

Again, appreciate the help and feedback guys.

I'll tell you their answer right now: "Well, we sometimes patrol and when we see dogs offleash we deal with it, but we don't spend all of our time doing that because we have better things to do than worry if some little man is angry because some people choose to take their dogs off leash. Please GFY." Except the last 2 sentences will be replaced with something that means the same thing but will be less polite like "unfortunately, our resources do not permit us to fully resolve your concerns. But thank you for your feedback."

In reality, things will never change because dog owners want to give their dogs time to run free, so they simply adapt to new challenges. They learn enforcement techniques, change locations, give each other head's up, etc. See, thing is that we care a lot more because we do this because we love our dogs and you do this because you're a dick.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Hey no skin off my back. For the record I think the dog barking complaint is silly. Not much you can do there. People want the dogs to be in dog runs, yet dont expect them to bark? However, points of creativity to the bull horn guy (no, that's not me).

But it looks like we have to light a fire under ACs asses to get stuff done. I was under the impression they were enforcing the leash laws until I saw this thread.

Again, appreciate the help and feedback guys.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Well, the reason nothing has changed as of yet is because I (sadly) don't have the authority to go out there and write tickets. As such, we rely on the people who have the authority to do so, which sadly, they have not.

Paul Bellan Boyer the one running Animal Control and laid down assurances that tickets would be issued.

Thank you for letting us know this has not been the case. I'll be sure to forward along this thread to Candice and Paul and start cracking the whip.

Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Lima17 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Speaking of which, supposedly that was coming to an end after their insane lobbying, yet from what I see there has been absolutely no change.

There has been very little change. I walk my dog (on a leash) daily through that park. It seems like the Parks & Recreation people there more frequently (or at least it seems to me), and when they're there dogs are on leashes. But when they're not, game on. I don't care either way. I prefer to keep my dog on a leash, but I'm not concerned by those who don't.

That's what I was getting at. DTJC was SWEARING that he would put an end to offleash dogs there. I laughed at him and noted that it would never happen.

Actually, the guy who came on here and PROMISED, WARNED AND ASSURED everyone that a crackdown was coming was nyrgravey9. You can refer to this link: JCLIST Thread - An Open Letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC.

In any case, as many predicted, nothing changed and (sadly) nothing is likely to change or improve. This shows the lack of commitment and dedication on the part of the city, even with this new administration.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Lima17 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Speaking of which, supposedly that was coming to an end after their insane lobbying, yet from what I see there has been absolutely no change.

There has been very little change. I walk my dog (on a leash) daily through that park. It seems like the Parks & Recreation people there more frequently (or at least it seems to me), and when they're there dogs are on leashes. But when they're not, game on. I don't care either way. I prefer to keep my dog on a leash, but I'm not concerned by those who don't.

That's what I was getting at. DTJC was SWEARING that he would put an end to offleash dogs there. I laughed at him and noted that it would never happen.

Actually, the guy who came on here and PROMISED, WARNED AND ASSURED everyone that a crackdown was coming was nyrgravey9. You can refer to this link: JCLIST Thread - An Open Letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC.

In any case, as many predicted, nothing changed and (sadly) nothing is likely to change or improve. This shows the lack of commitment and dedication on the part of the city, even with this new administration.

Lima17 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Speaking of which, supposedly that was coming to an end after their insane lobbying, yet from what I see there has been absolutely no change.

There has been very little change. I walk my dog (on a leash) daily through that park. It seems like the Parks & Recreation people there more frequently (or at least it seems to me), and when they're there dogs are on leashes. But when they're not, game on. I don't care either way. I prefer to keep my dog on a leash, but I'm not concerned by those who don't.

Vigilante wrote:
Pretty sure it's illegal to leave dogs outside 24/7 if they don't have access to shelter. Call Animal Control. As far as dog-run barking? Well people wanted to pen them into small areas and this is the result.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I used to live in Manhattan - on paper I am comfortably middle class, own my own condo, etc. - and was priced out when it came time for my 'own' apartment. Is Manhattan better for pricing me out in favor of yet another parentally subsidized
20-something?

Quote:

That said, you have to have a city wealthy people want to live in first. Outside of downtown that doesn't exist and in downtown there's plenty of room for improvement. Developing the embankment into a Jersey City version of the High Line would be fantastic.

I completely agree - almost. In the Heights there is a push to make live/work spaces for artists, and a lot of condominiums affordable by younger people starting out, much as I expect there is in DTJC. We need the mix to keep things vibrant

Quote:

Oh yes, and we should work to end affordable housing programs. What is that nonsense anyway?

Agreed, if you mean Section 8, homeless shelters, etc. But they recently finished subsidized condos in the Heights for retired civil servants and it's really nice.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

Sorry, but no. Most of the "best" of anything is unaffordable for most people. That is life. When I say I want the "best" car or to ski at the "best" resort, I don't mean a car that maximally caters to the normal man or the ski resort that is most affordable to the average Joe. Similarly, when I say I want JC to be the "best" mid-sized city I don't mean one that is most affordable. I mean flat out the best which is inherently contrary to the notion of "cheap." And ask me how much most affluent people really care about "equality." Go on...

Sorry, but no. Your logic devilsadvocate of 'best' city is ass backwards.

http://livability.com/best-places-to-live-ranking-criteria