Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
47 user(s) are online (27 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 47

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (brewster)




Re: Do we have a dog leash ordinance in JC?
Home away from home
Home away from home


I've posted this anecdote before, but with the ephemeral archives of JCList, I'll repeat it.

A year or so ago I was walking through the park and I see the dog owners scrambling to get their dogs on leash. I look around and here comes 2 bike cops. Do they ticket? No. What they do is verbally reassure the dog owners that they are NOT going to ticket them!

Hows that for going from turning a blind eye to actually condoning lawbreaking!

Any questioning of the PD brass about "quality of life" enforcement simply gets you the standard "undermanned force" speech. So simple it's beautiful.

Posted on: 2007/6/5 13:02
Top


Re: So much for all of you folks who predicted a JC/NYC RE Crash
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JSalt wrote:
Is our economy really booming though? Other than the stock market, I don't see much evidence that it is, but I defer to better informed people on this matter.


Exactly. What's booming is the transfer of wealth to the wealthy. Everyone else is trying to keep their heads above water.

Posted on: 2007/6/1 1:24
Top


Re: Studio seeks extras for new baseball movie being filmed in Jersey City
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Woodsy wrote:
So they want me to hang around for 12-14 hours on a week day (i.e. taking of work) and to compensate me they'll give me free food and "prizes". What kind of "prizes" are we talking about? Does everyone get a "prize" or is it a drawing? They'd better be really nice prizes and not some crappy "Diminished Capacity" ball cap or a Matthew Broderick autograph.

On second thought, I've got better things to do.


Paid extra work ain't much better, I got $50 when I appeared as an extra in a film I was crew on in 99. At least I was prominent and identifiable in the background of a shot that was in the final cut.

Posted on: 2007/5/31 17:29
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

nugnfutz wrote:
2. The city's designers didn't clearly agree or disagree with the size of the dog run. Disingenious statements like that don't help the discussion neither.


They were given a copy of the HPNA survey report, and included in their designs most of the features we said we wanted. Except a 2 tennis court run. How much clearer do you need?

"Opt-out" is not a legitimate alternative, not least because when there's a dog run community tolerance of dogs off leash will escalate.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 10:05
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

nugnfutz wrote:
THE VOTE FOR A DOG RUN THE SIZE OF 2 TENNIS COURTS WAS UP THERE ....TOP3. I WONT SETTLE FOR LESS!

Well - based on this discussion ive decided the entire process is meaningless. The vote A, B C D on the "concepts" aint worth my time and aggro given views expressed here. Gonna execise my dogs where i see fit in the park. An occassional ticket..meh! Worth it. JC have never enforced dog laws anyways. JC have decided to ignore the community vote....im gonna ignore JC.


Sweet. After all your careful analysis of the tort risks of walking a leashed dog past a fenced playground, you're going to turn yours loose wherever. Keep your liability insurance paid up.

Look, the city's designers clearly disagree with the size of the dog run we voted for, and we got half in every design. Let's work to expand the run what we can in whatever design is picked rather than make destructive "opt out" comments like you have.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 0:11
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

parkman wrote:
5. It seems that in order to “bump out” the tennis courts, as per brewster, you would have to remove a number of very large trees and lose shade for the courts.


I see 1 tree between the north court and McWilliams, on the north end where it's shade effect is minimal. It's canopy does not extend over the actual play court, just the out of bounds.

As for the rest of the post, Steve has made pretty clear we're voting on where things go as presented. What's negotiable is size & shape. Tell me, since you're the dog run expert, can the dog run go right up against a tennis court fence, and would it be significantly different than the 15 ft distance as drawn?

Posted on: 2007/5/29 19:20
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

4bailey wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

…the dog people won't support D since it is slightly worse than ABC in the allocation of space between large & small run, though the playgrounds in ABC are MUCH worse than D for the reasons you state…



brewster – great use of "slightly" and "MUCH". Not as creative as “aggressive dog barking at the fence”, but fine fiction nonetheless. Editorial opinion stated as fact with the bonus of putting dog-owners in the worse possible light - I’ll say this for you,… at least you’re consistent.


How could you construe my reply to Althea as claiming to be anything other than editorial opinion? "Facts" can be quantified & verified, like my measurements, "better" & "worse" are opinions. Get over trying to make me evil because I have a different opinion than you.

As for the rest, Althea & Phillygirl are all over it.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 14:44
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Althea wrote:
Is there anyway to fight (meaning dog and kids people) for a larger dog run in plan D? Anyway? Because if we are able to get plan D that keeps the playground together, then I'm going to fight really hard to make sure the large dog run is as large as possible.


yes, 2 ways:

The tennis court "bump over" I described earlier in the thread (post 233), or take the spoke as the playground does in ABC. Neither will give Nug the 14k he wants, but both give more than the ABC as on the plans.

The problem is that since we're voting for the plans as drawn not as tweaked, the dog people won't support D since it is slightly worse than ABC in the allocation of space between large & small run, though the playgrounds in ABC are MUCH worse than D for the reasons you state.

It's an impasse, and the victory goes to who has the most troops. Unfairly, if D wins, the dog runs can still be expanded through advocacy, but the ABC playgrounds can't be combined in the spot voted on if those plans win.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 12:06
Top


Re: So much for all of you folks who predicted a JC/NYC RE Crash
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

longtimeJC wrote:
So what will happen to Jersey City real estate after wall st. slows down a bit??? With this likely to happen in the next 2 years (possibly after a new president takes office who will possibly be a democrat) what will happen then? Any thoughts?


Why, after 8 great years of a Democratic Clinton economy in the 90's, is the party still labeled anti-business? Are you "anti-business" unless your administration is actually run by corporate interests like the current one?

Posted on: 2007/5/28 16:37
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

4bailey wrote:
brewster – are you the parent who originally suggested this at the meeting?... Here on jclist, you seem to be the only poster I see making a full-court-press for Concept D. If not, does anyone know the parent that that suggested this to the planners?...


I am not, though I do know who did. I don't see the origin as relevant, though they do have a dog as well. I'm probably the only vocal advocate because other people are being watched by their bosses, and I'm free to avoid all the work I need to do by pissing away time online. Which I did way too much last week and now have to jam.

We've all had our say here, we'll vote soon, and have a new park. either way, I'm okay with it, even though I think D is better for the reasons I've said.

Posted on: 2007/5/28 16:32
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

4bailey wrote:

5 - Introduces an unworkable 60:40 ratio between large and small dog runs.
**** - enacts a “Medium/Large Dog Penalty” for dog-owners on legal, off-leash park space
********o Small Dog (owner can elect to use either run) – 7,324 sq. feet is available – 49% of HPNA survey target total
********o All dogs over 23 lbs. - 4,391 sq. feet is available – 29% of HPNA survey target total!
****- Ratio dictated by Schorr Depalma – no input from community dog owners.
****- 60:40 Ratio set in stone (concrete form): In the future, the community could need *****to change the
Large:small ratio. To do this in Concepts A, B, and C, you’d just need to reposition the divider fence.


All fair, but I would have simply said " large dog run is too small relative to published standards and community survey results, with limited opportunity for expansion." But it's your bullet, hit your target.

Posted on: 2007/5/24 18:00
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

4bailey wrote:
Allright,… if you’re really sincere about keeping the signal/noise ratio down, l’ll play the PowerPoint game on a trial basis and we’ll see where this takes us.


Concept D large dog run=4391
Concept D Small dog run=2933
concept A,B & C=7733

I've described my methodology, I would guess the margin for error of sizes relative to each other to be under 3%. The actual sizes depends on whether Schorr Depalma drew the tennis court to scale properly, but that doesn't affect the relative sizes. You've correctly summed up what I think the pro/con should be.

I don't know what to make of your request for an affidavit of my honesty. Either you're honest or not, saying you are if you're not is a natural, no? Remember Mr. Spock: "everything I tell you is a lie, I'm lying now". Well, I haven't groomed the numbers, I value my credibility. And I don't use AutoCad, they're the evil empire of the CAD world.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 23:31
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

nugnfutz wrote:
Believe me...I dont want to hold back the process. The process itself needs to not only to be fair, but needs to be seen to be fair. I see a refusal to recognise there are issues with the vote potentially dangerous. If we have a commitment to address security and safety concerns with any of the options that win, then I'm cool. Hope that's constructive :)


The ballot is what it is, now. I haven't a clue how it got this way. Your security concerns can be presented to Councilman Fulop to pass on to Schorr DePalma. Personally, I find the risks you list very small and/or not much different from plan to plan, but I'm not the safety paranoid type. I know this from how much more safety obsessed some other parents are. They're appalled we let our 8 year old son use the stair banisters as his monkey bars, some of them would probably agree with your risk analysis. I'm sure the city is all aboard with listening to safety suggestions to minimize their liability, but we will have no opportunity for dialog about this before the ballot that I've heard about. Vote how you gotta.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 21:55
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
So why then are there concepts so seemingly inconsistent with previous ballots? Why does only one plan contain a multi-use court? Why do three interrupt the pathways?


I can't explain the designs presented, because (I repeat), they made no commitment to follow HPNA's survey. I can only be confident that the park will resemble the design voted on now, because this ballot is commissioned by the city, and thus they can be held liable by voters if they ignore the results.

Complaining about the content & structure of this ballot is probably the least constructive thing to be done, yet it preoccupies several of you. To move forward you've got to start from where you are and don't look back.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 20:31
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Two points: First, making a pro / con list is silly in light of the fact that this ultimately is a referendum on multi-use court vs. a large dog run. Either voters want a large dog run or they want a multi-use court.


Does the playground not count? Or people who want a separate and larger small dog run? (a small dog run isn't even indicated in ABC, though we all assume it's there)

Quote:
Second, the fact that all of this is non-binding pretty much means the city will go ahead and do whatever they damn well please anyway.


possibly, but I think Steve Fulop is too ambitious to leave that kind of turd in the road to be thrown at him.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 17:44
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


3 more cons!!

I would prefer if con #5 were rewritten relative to size rather than ratio. the ratio could be fixed in D by reducing the size of the small run, but that clearly isn't the point. Who cares if the small dog run is too big, isn't it all about whether the large dog run is large enough?

Con #6 I don't get, the ice cream trucks stop on 9th now.

Pros:

1 - The dog runs are physically separated, which Parkman say reduces aggressive barking through the fence of a divided run.

2 - reopens the northeast spoke path, restoring the historic walkways.

3 - Retains 2 tennis courts, making one multiuse.

4 - creates bigger more consolidated playground, which makes it easier for parents (and preschool teachers) to watch kids of multiple ages.

5 - Playground area has larger trees well placed for shade in playground, a perennial complaint about the existing one.

6 -water play area is better placed for monitoring multiple kids there as well as in the playground.

7 - because of actually moving the playground there\'s a possibility of the new one being built before demo-ing the old one, thus not being without for many months.

8 - Brings the playground further away from the basketball court and it\'s loud, often foul voices.

Cons:

1 -Dog runs in total together are 5% smaller than the run in A,B,C. This is without any tweaks to either design.

2 - No putting green

3 - No community garden replacing ball court.

4 - Dogs must be walked past other active features to get to run, possibly leading to negative interactions.

5 - introduces an undesirable 50-50 split between large and small dog runs.

6 - Traffic on 9th street is higher than that on McWilliams Place. For example, ice cream trucks will become a more regular feature on 9th.

7 - Even with the larger trees, the north side of the park is more exposed to direct sunlight than most other areas. It's also closer to the Holland tunnel traffic.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 14:20
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Since all of these plans blatantly disregard the previous votes, why not present a plan without a playground? Too many pesky kids running around anyway.


Is that you, Minnie?

The HPNA survey was to tell the city what we think, it was not binding upon them and their designers. Personally, I choose not to argue against our findings within the choices we have been given. Had we been given an option for a 2 tennis court dog run not tied to losing an option or feature we voted for, I would vote for it. The format of the current ballot is unfortunate, but it's what we have, and we must move forward if the park is to be renovated at all.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 14:08
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

4bailey wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
...Can you boil down your "cons" to add to that list so the signal/noise of the thread is reduced?...

So, you want me to play your game, where you get to make the rules and you’re the editor-in-chief…

It’s been 2-days and I still can’t agree with you about the wording of Pro #1.

You so generously write:

“1 - The dog runs are physically separated, which Parkman say reduces barking through the fence of a divided run.”

From reading Parkman’s posts, I got the impression that he sees the divider fence as one factor that might reduce barking among a host of other factors.

Look, you already have a ballot that has a big chance of distorting the will of those who vote via a split vote. How much real value is there in the exercise of reducing complex arguments to PowerPoint bullets that look simple but warp the realities?...


I guess the "wiki" idea hasn't penetrated very far around here. If you don't like the way I said it, correct it rather than bitch and moan about it, and the format of the ballot, of which we have no control. Powerpoint bullets got popular because they organize and transfer ideas easier than long rambling essays. LIke I said, signal/noise.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 13:52
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


4b,

I did open the can of "tweak worms", but then I made a cogent list of pro/cons for D, as is presented, since that is what we're voting on. We may be able to ask for minor size adjustments but locations are where they are in each choice. I didn't rank the points in importance, just a list of what the issues were, and then I asked for additions.

You make many arguments, some quite good like the survey result, and some not, like "why don't they walk to another park for the feature they want". That one was used against having a dog run in the park at all, which I vehemently disagreed with. Water play, B-ball courts etc were all supported by the vote, so if you want to use the vote as a reference, be as consistent as you asked me to be. I actually took a blood oath not to contradict the survey findings!

Can you boil down your "cons" to add to that list so the signal/noise of the thread is reduced? I took the liberty of adding one of Nug's as an example. Nug, don't pillory me if I got you wrong, just correct it with another brief "con".

As for area of playgrounds, it actually decreases with D from 8557 for ABC to 8343. Doesn't bother me.


Pros:

1 - The dog runs are physically separated, which Parkman say reduces aggressive barking through the fence of a divided run.

2 - reopens the northeast spoke path, restoring the historic walkways.

3 - Retains 2 tennis courts, making one multiuse.

4 - creates bigger more consolidated playground, which makes it easier for parents (and preschool teachers) to watch kids of multiple ages.

5 - Playground area has larger trees well placed for shade in playground, a perennial complaint about the existing one.

6 -water play area is better placed for monitoring multiple kids there as well as in the playground.

7 - because of actually moving the playground there\'s a possibility of the new one being built before demo-ing the old one, thus not being without for many months.

8 - Brings the playground further away from the basketball court and it\'s loud, often foul voices.

Cons:
1 -Dog runs in total together are 5% smaller than the run in A,B,C. This is without any tweaks to either design.

2 - No putting green

3 - No community garden replacing ball court.

4 - Dogs must be walked past other active features to get to run, possibly leading to negative interactions.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 12:57
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

parkman wrote:
I can tell you for a fact that their small run is only 500 sq. ft. and that WSP it is not twice the size of HP.


If you frame the Google satellite photo just right you can see HP and WSP at the same time and see how much larger WSP is.
Or just do the arithmetic: (51 x 51.8)/(100 x 50.5)=.52 otherwise known as 52%. Look at the size of the trees & cars if you think I'm fudging the relative scales.

I'm really sorry, I'm sure you mean well, but I hate arguments based on "I say so" not facts. I don't have the opportunity to rub truth in the face of our nations leaders, so I'm going overboard here on a surrogate.

Frankly, not that it's really important, but I seriously doubt the small run is 500', the size of a 25'x20' suburban living room, when the large is 4800', but I won't make broad claims till I measure it myself. Measuring just ain't your thing. I build stuff for a living, so it's real important to me.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Posted on: 2007/5/23 2:37
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

parkman wrote:
Take your satellite and point it back onto Washington sq. park and you will see that the small run is only 500 sq. ft. in a park that is “even larger, in a higher density area” than HP. In fact WSP is NOT that much bigger than HP; maybe 1/8 larger if that. It’s two blocks square, as is HP. We are talking ratio again.


Parky, I getting tired of doing your homework for you. If you had bothered to use google's map photos yourself you could have seen how wrong you are. But I did my magic and HP is 52% the size of WSP. I'm sure you've got plenty of wonderful skills and knowledge, but you've basically got no credibility when it comes to relative sizes of things.

Posted on: 2007/5/22 23:29
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

4bailey wrote:
From the HPNA survey:

..."The option of a dog run roughly the size of two tennis courts received the largest percent of the vote (44 percent) and the second largest vote was for a dog run roughly the size of three tennis courts (31 percent). In order for a dog run to be utilized (and thus effective in its intent), it “must be big enough to insure it will be used by all dog owners...”

By your own stats, square footage of a tennis court: 7,439 sq. ft

Two tennis courts make 14,878 square feet, using your numbers, right?!...

As a compromise to keep the dog-run within one segment and a concession to other HP interests, the 10,122 sq. ft. I propose (the full NNW segment with the tweak of ditching the game tables) seems fair to me even though it’s only 68% of the “2-tennis-court” area specified in the survey.


Wow, rock on 4b! Good point citing the survey, hard to argue with that. But, just like the contractor has ignored the survey results for the courts and spokes, they apparently decided on a run of roughly 7700 ft, and it'll be interesting whether getting their attention for something not in the choices as is will happen. To continue the fantasy that we can have a hand in planning, where do you stand on swapping the NNW segment for the run to bleed over the walkway spoke the way the ABC playground does?

Quote:

nugnfutz wrote:
San Fran have a recommended size of 30k square feet with absolute minimum of 10k square feet.


On page 18 of the SF doc (very interesting stuff) there's a list of their runs and the size of the park they're in. None are under 10 acres. I thought "how can they do that?". SF has slightly more than 3 times our population, almost the same density, and 3,400 acres of open space to our 1,550. To me the catch is that 1000 of that is LSP, remote from most neighborhoods and much of that count is water or toxic dump. Reading that list of 10-1000 acre parks made me drool.

Posted on: 2007/5/22 22:58
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

parkman wrote:
Brewster,

Since you like to use statistics, here’s one for you.

Based on the size of HP vs. VVP, four times the size, your dog run should be in total, 18,400 sq. ft. vs. VVP’s of 4,600.

Your perception that HP’s large run is in proportion does not compute


Hmm, I thought I've been careful NOT to ever say that a dog run should be proportional to a park's size. Where would that put LSP?!!

4bailey: The reasons to compare us to Manhattan is the size of our park, small for many an outer borough park. My point about Washing SQ Pk is that in a park even larger, in a higher density area (more demand on the run) they didn't make it substantially larger than D's large run. The critics about the size aren't citing other urban parks of similar size that that have substantially larger runs, they just say THEY want it bigger. I'd like to see more structured arguments for their case, as I have made for mine. Do your own googling.

Oh, and FWIW, VV is 36% the size of HP, not 25%. (source: satellite images & CAD)

Nug: Some of hose stats are like the stats used by the JC parks recreation survey which showed we needed to quadruple the number of baseball diamonds we have. They're for all residential areas nationwide, not taking into account density and available land at all. I got news for you: JC is not a small town or suburb. Have you ever been to Sacramento? It's not a "city" by a definition of a certain residential density. Like much of America, it's just an endless sprawl in ex-farmland. I don't know how SF, a compact city, supports that standard, but they probably do it by not letting smaller parks have dog runs. I'd like to know more about their code. It's nice to see someone besides me use the power of their broadband to support their statements.

Posted on: 2007/5/22 21:12
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Googling for urban dog run sizes for comparisons is rough going, but I found this page that cites the Washington Sq park run as being 4800 sq ft, only slightly bigger than D's large dog run, in a park nearly twice the size of HP and in area with much higher density. They have large/small runs there, but it's unclear whether the size refers to both or not. I assume not. I cite this to debate the description of 4391 sq ft for D’s large run as "too small".

The article also is vehemently in favor of separate large/small runs.

Quote:

parkman wrote:
Also, being an “overgenerous” small run does not make it a proper use of space.


I don't have an attitude towards you, but want rational reasons for repeatly stated opinions, not invalid comparisons and unsubstantiated descriptions of "D" being too small. As for the size of the small run, perhaps the reason the one in VV is underutilized (according to some) is that it is TOO SMALL!!

I'm not opposed to taking the spoke for the run, rather than plan ABC, but I simply have not been convinced it's necessary to have a viably sized pair of runs.

Posted on: 2007/5/22 18:51
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

parkman wrote:
It’s not whether or not I like the ratio. I’m just stating from experience in VV that, as drawn, “plan D” has a small run that is too large and a large run that is too small. If you are trying to accomplish what I think most residents want (to provide a large enough area for dogs to run off leash and thereby encourage owners to keep their dogs on leash elsewhere in the park), D as presented will not, in my opinion, make that happen.

Also, where are you coming up with the “4391” for D’s large run? I don’t see square footage anywhere on the plan.

I still like “D” if the large run can be expanded.



Parkman, I appreciate your sharing your experience with us, but where I can't follow your reasoning is the conclusion the "D" large dog run is too small just because Van Vorst's large run is, though ours is nearly half again as large. Why not think of the small dog run as "overgenerous" and get over it? The D locations make several other constituencies like parents and historic preservationists happy, the fact that similar total space in the ABC location "might" possibly be divided better seems slim reasoning to oppose D.

If tweaks happen, they can happen in either location. I've been told that they're more interested in nailing down features than exact sizes at this point. It is unfortunate that the contractor is not a profesional demographer like our Jen Greely, and the ballot is poorly designed and doesn't include options you like, such as a dog run spanning over a spoke, as separate questions that could be compiled to paint a picture of the park we want. But here we are now with this as it is, and lucky to be here we are, getting our park renovated!

What the HPNA ballot said on the subject of spokes was clear:

Would you like the pathways in the park returned to their original historic layout of a circle-and-spoke design, in which all park entrance pathways extend to the center of the park? If this change occurs, other features of the park may need to be repositioned slightly to accommodate the layout change.
A. Yes - 189 votes; 72%
B. No - 70 votes; 18%


I arrived at D's footage, as I explained in post #233, by importing the drawing into CAD and scaling it using the size of the tennis court, which is a standard. I could then draw a line around the run in the image and the program tells me the area of the polygon.

As for "aggressive", mea culpa. I misunderstood the meaning of the barking described. That doesn't change the fact that a certain constituency of dog owners believes separated runs are better than simply being split. It's a "pro" column item for them.

4bailey: you keep saying it's the "wrong shape". Can you enlighten us as to what the "right" shape is? An oval track perhaps?

Posted on: 2007/5/22 18:15
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

4bailey wrote:

Many dogs simply bark as a way to interact with each other or because they’re happy. One of my dog barks when she wants attention or when she wants to poop. brewster’s use of the term “aggressive barking” just shows he doesn’t have a clue on this.

brewster… I urge you to step away from the computer and the AutoCAD; take a walk to the VVP run and observe with an open mind first-hand. Otherwise, let’s take pro #1 off your list.


I thought I made clear I was compiling pros/cons of the plans as presented, and clearly attributed that opinion as not originating with myself.

Why don't you make a clearly written addition to the "cons" column instead of attacking me?

Posted on: 2007/5/22 10:39
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

parkman wrote:
I also stated that D works only if the large run can be extended. Two equal size runs will not accommodate the dog population of HP. The ratio should be closer to 3/4 large to 1/4 small. If the tennis court cannot be shifted to make this possible, you’re better off using B and eliminate the game tables in that location and utilize the entire quadrant for a split run.


The ratio on plan "D" appears to be 60:40, however, comparing ratios without size is not very scientific. Since the Van Vorst run is a total of 4600 sq ft according to a JJ article, then 2/3 of that is 3036. So our "plan D" run at 4391 is 44% larger than Van Vorst's 3036, and the many small dogs have plenty of room too.

What's your problem? Are you really saying to vote against "D" because the ratio isn't to your liking, though the run itself is much larger than Van Vorst's?

Posted on: 2007/5/21 23:36
Top


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Maybe a little focusing of this discussion could help.

Here's the plan D pro/con breakdown as I see it. Can anyone add to either list?

Pros:

1 - The dog runs are physically separated, which Parkman say reduces aggressive barking through the fence of a divided run.

2 - reopens the northeast spoke path, restoring the historic walkways.

3 - Retains 2 tennis courts, making one multiuse.

4 - creates bigger more consolidated playground, which makes it easier for parents (and preschool teachers) to watch kids of multiple ages.

5 - Playground area has larger trees well placed for shade in playground, a perennial complaint about the existing one.

6 -water play area is better placed for monitoring multiple kids there as well as in the playground.

7 - because of actually moving the playground there's a possibility of the new one being built before demo-ing the old one, thus not being without for many months.

8 - Brings the playground further away from the basketball court and it's loud, often foul voices.

Cons:
1 -Dog runs in total together are 5% smaller than the run in A,B,C. This is without any tweaks to either design.

2 - No putting green

3 - No community garden replacing ball court.

NOTE: I avoid listing whether the dog run is by 9th St or McWilliams as a pro or con since it depends on where you live or hang out in the park.

Posted on: 2007/5/21 22:20
Top


Re: So much for all of you folks who predicted a JC/NYC RE Crash
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if siht like this was happening here!


I would only be surprised if it wasn't. The article said they're attracted to areas with great price variation because it makes seeing fraud by comps harder.

Posted on: 2007/5/21 12:03
Top


Re: New York Times: Agency Might Replace Bridge and Tunnel Tollbooths With Cashless System
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Jangie wrote:
Wait a second, EZPass only costs $4/$5 per entry into holland tunnel? I was not aware of this, and I have EZPass. Saves me a bundle, I guess.


Yeah, I've always found the most annoying aspect of the system is they don't tell you what you've just paid. One assumes that the Turnpike Authority likes it that way. At a bridge you've got some idea of the cost but at a Tpk booth they make it pain free, till you get the statement!

Posted on: 2007/5/17 19:30
Top



TopTop
« 1 ... 165 166 167 (168) 169 170 171 ... 174 »






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