JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

EasyGibson wrote:
I don't think any of us here know exactly what their plans looked like when they filed or if there was even a need for a variance for the indoor seats.

It's just upsetting that such a simple thing can't be easily resolved.

Like I said, I can understand an issue with outdoor seating, especially if it wasn't in the plans, but the indoor stuff? Stop it. We should be able to deal with this.

Unfortunately, some people believe the Rules are the Rules, and absolutely refuse to apply common sense. What problems could indoor seating cause for any neighbor? Seems like a technical violation.

But because even a technicality violates the sacred Rules, don't expect much sympathy.

third_street_hats wrote:
Anyone have any info on where the white star folks are opening their next location?

They've teased a few photos on instagram, but they look like they could just be concept renderings:

https://instagram.com/p/2qiYVkoaJZ

https://instagram.com/p/2qx7uFIaFI

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Affordable housing, and rent control, should come with certain income requirements that should be verified continually. Otherwise, you get the scams and abuses you see now.

What, and have the wealthy & middle class cutout of the deal? Politically that would be the end of it. I especially love the arguments I've seen over the years that if the middle class lost their rent stabilized units they wouldn't be able to afford the private schools and weekend houses that make city life possible, and then they'd HAVE to move out to Teaneck.

My other favorite story was the couple who were so sure of stabilization=owning that they spent hundreds of thousands combining 2 units into one fabulous place only to find that they ran afoul of the then new decontrol parameters.

Poncho11 wrote:
I could care less about what the final outcome is, but because of the lousy attitude of the posters I hope Aaron wins. He has not put anyone down, or threatened anyone. He has his opinion and an invested one, same as the other stores. They should put the trucks in another location ( close) . And if you want to confront the store owners, go to their stores and do so. I believe that non of you will. I also believe that the trucks aren't worried as much as you are.

Christine wrote:
Question:

Why does a councilman have a vehicle with emergency lights and sirens?!

Am I missing something here in their job description?

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
The nice Milburn couple can add $10 to their night out and use the freaking deck that is open to the public, right next to the main business district, and never ever full.

Why is this even a discussion. We have decks. They are open to the public and they are half used. So the solution is to build more decks? How does that make sense?

These decks you talk about are not close enough for people to use. It is difficult to get around in the snow/ice, plus slush. Now you expect people to walk blocks in this weather to go an event. Another night of snow is expected to come which will hide the ice and uneven sidewalk.

Yvonne wrote:
A parking garage is not a misuse of land. Your car is your second most valuable piece of property a person's own after their home.

itgirl wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
I wonder if the farmers have a concern about less prepared food cutting down on the people coming to the market. What if empanadas are the draw and kale an afterthought? I'm usually there by 6, are they mostly sold out by closing?

I also wonder if the non-food related businesses who also, presumably, pay fees to the SID, taxes, etc., were consulted about the actions against the food trucks.


My PATH stop is JSQ, but if I know the trucks and other prepared food are at the market, I'll sometimes pop out on my way home just to pick up something quick and cheap. Since I'm already there, I'll usually pick up a book or gift at Word, or some pet food at Fussy Friends, browse at Another Man's Treasure, etc. I wonder how other businesses in the area feel about cutting something that promotes that kind of foot traffic.

CandiceOsborne wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

CandiceOsborne wrote:
...
2 - Legislation doesn't solve the problem of where food trucks CAN park in a way that at all helps the entreprenuers who start them. Food truck operators feel like they never know when/where they will get a ticket and they have to move the food truck every 2 hours.

3 - Legislation doesn't solve the problem of the fact that the food truck operators are getting a free ride by way of using city land (parking space) for commercial purpose without paying the equivalent of a rent for that space. Brick and mortar feel like they are operating on an un-level playing field as they have to pay rents which roll up to include both land use as well as property tax and the food truck operators do not.

...

There's already a model in place for parking on Columbus - why not just extend that to food trucks - have them pay $200/month or so for parking. In fact Columbus just south of Marin hits most of the criteria and it's a short move from Grove plaza.

Pretty much in alignment with my thoughts. Not sure it should be purchased monthly versus daily or block of hours and some other operational things like that, but in terms of high level approach I agree.

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Law firm for Jersey City agency charged nearly 70% more in its first year than previous legal counsel

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal

JERSEY CITY ? In its first year providing legal services to the Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority, politically connected law firm DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick & Cole charged taxpayers nearly 70 percent more than the amount billed during the previous year by the agency's prior legal counsel.

DeCotiis, which was appointed the autonomous MUA's outside law firm one month after Steve Fulop became mayor last year, billed the MUA $655,673 in its first year representing the agency, according to documents reviewed by The Jersey Journal.

Genova Burns Giantomasi Webster, the MUA's prior outside legal counsel, billed taxpayers $386,192 in its final year representing the agency, the records show. Like DeCotiis, Genova Burns is among the most powerful law firms in the state.

READ MORE

Was this also a no-bid contract like the city had with Werner Lesniak? Because if it is, the administration is once again breaking the law (Healy did the same thing). Feast your eyes on

Jersey City Municipal Code sec. 3-51(E):

Awarding of contracts for professional and extraordinary unspecifiable services.

(1)

Subject to Subsection E(2), before submitting any proposed contract for professional or extraordinary unspecifiable services to the Council for approval, a Department Director shall solicit quotations, whenever practicable, for any contract of $7,500 or more. If a Department Director recommends that the contract be awarded on the basis of other than the lowest quotation received or considers it impracticable to solicit quotations, he or she shall file a statement of explanation of the reason or reasons why competitive quotations are considered impracticable.

(2)

There shall be exempted from the procedures established under Subsection E(1) any contract submitted by the Corporation Counsel for the appointment of special counsel to represent any officers or employees of the city in any legal proceeding or to represent the Jersey City Medical Center or its agents, servants and employees.


Last I checked, $ 655,673 is more than $ 7500. Never mind that the firm is not a Jersey City firm employing Jersey City people, which would be nice but is not required, but the city can't even bother to put these legal services out for a competitive bid when it is required to do so, it is downright criminal.

papadage wrote:
Why would the board and other owners only want that piddling payoff when you stand to gain so much from their agreement?