Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
79 user(s) are online (51 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 79

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Conformist)




Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
...it would be legally possible, which is the only point of my posts.


?Possible? wasn?t your only point. You wrote, ?It would probably be a good idea.?

Would that be your advice to a client?that an ostensibly unethical abuse of eminent domain?s intent, which would also be expensive, likely to fail, and most certainly harmful to your client?s public image, is a ?good idea??


I am making no pretensions of giving a legal opinion, which is obvious since the city isn't even here to receive one. It would be a good idea from a public policy perspective, from my view as a citizen, which includes a belief that your post's assumptions about the likelihood of failure and costs are incorrect. Lawyers are certainly allowed to opine on public policy. Also, from a citizen's perspective, I don't care a whit about the city's "public image" vis-a-vis policy. I want the city to carry out good policy whether it makes city government unpopular or not. Ideally good policy in the long run makes government popular, but the public certainly frequently doesn't know what's good for it in the short-term.

Posted on: 2014/10/27 22:53
 Top 


Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I love how there are some laymen who claim to know exactly how to interpret a series of laws and what is Constitutional and what isn't.

It's probably asking too much, but I'd love to hear from an actual lawyer who knows what they're talking about. For what it's worth, I've never heard of anything like this in NJ and suspect anyone who acts like condemning these buildings is a given has no clue about what they're talking about.


It's obviously not easy (or cheap!). But it would be legally possible, which is the only point of my posts.

Anyway, I actually am a NJ-qualified lawyer, though I practice in New York (and am not extraordinarily well-versed in eminent domain law--though one doesn't have to be to know that it is legally possible, which is quite a different question from feasible or advisable).

(Obviously, no legal advice to the city of Jersey City is intended.)

Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:59
 Top 


Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

craigslistdiva wrote:
Well, what about pulling eminent domain on 48 Montgomery Street and Paulus Hook Towers at 100 Montgomery Street? They seem to be taking a lot of the desired real estate downtown as well as the Metropolis Towers.

As for being the first few high rises in New Jersey, I meant Jersey City.

Either way, these buildings have the right to remain where they are, even though I don't agree with their location and aesthetic. Downtown would be much better if we developed those parking lots and would be a little more of a cohesive downtown.

In the meantime, I think the development/rehabilitation of Newark Ave and Grove Street that is currently being done is probably where the market is at.

Even though there are many people on this thread that want to expand the DT area, there are several store fronts that are empty and have been empty for a while (the former Pet Store on Newark Ave, the former MXYPLZYK store, A1 deli etc).


You mean 72 Montgomery? It's low-income senior supportive housing. It would be much harder to temporarily relocate the residents to knock down the building and replace it.

http://www.bvsch.com/

Agree on 100 Montgomery.

Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:58
 Top 


Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

LittleJimSheehy wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

LittleJimSheehy wrote:
Quote:

PotStirJC wrote:
Quote:

LittleJimSheehy wrote:
Please, please, please at least read a Wikipedia summary of Eminent Domain before posting on it.


I am familiar with eminent domain. And as your Wikipedia summary suggests, it can be used for economic development... Not sure what I missed.


Yes, eminent domain may be used for economic development. But, it could never be used in the way you suggest . Rather than go through every court case or state statute to prove this point -- as the governmental abuse of eminent domain has been extensively litigated and legislated against, especially in New Jersey - I will attempt to explain this by way of example:

Let's say the Mayor hated brownstones. After all, they are relics of a bygone era, and do not fit into Jersey City's modern, increasingly vertical aesthetic.To this end, City planners would say, in an area as "transit-oriented" as Jersey City, property density should be maximized, meaning single-family brownstones are truly out of place. Moreover, even the best-kept brownstones cannot hide their age entirely -- tiles crack, roofs leak, difficult to retrofit for modern conveniences like air conditioning, etc., meaning some people might consider them "dumpy."

Further, removing every brownstone in favor of higher-density development fits your economic development standard: While brownstones (and the 1/4-acre or so of land on which they sit) are generally assessed between $500K and $1M, buildings like 50 Columbus and Grove Pointe are assessed at between $20M and $30M - just for the building(s). Add in the first-floor retail that high-rises provide (and brownstones generally cannot), and high-rises are nearly infinitely more valuable to Jersey City. That means, every brownstone we allow to stand is sitting on a "goldmine" that would be more productive as a high-rise.

Given all this, per the theory of Eminent Domain espoused in this thread, the Mayor should take via Eminent Domain every brownstone in Paulus Hook and Van Vorst park, raze them all, and erect huge high-rise residences in their place(s).

Of course, this is ridiculous - and clearly unlawful. That's why doing the same thing vis-a-vis Metropolis Towers is ludicrous.


Terrible idea is not the same thing as illegal. As long as the city could present a rational argument to why seizing and destroying brownstones was good public policy (which you have just provided--it doesn't even need to be particularly convincing), the constitution would allow it.


Based solely on Kelo, you may have a point - though, even this is highly debatable. But, several states, including New Jersey, passed stringent statutory restraints on Eminent Domain in the wake of - and as a result of - that SCOTUS disaster. Point is, New Jersey state law makes the "taking" proposed here virtually impossible (where virtually means 99.99999% impossible). New London, CT (the site of the Kelo case) fell so badly on its face (after taking homes in the name of subjective "economic development" -- in that case, the construction of a drug manufacturing facility and offices), other states (like NJ) fell over themselves to ensure their municipalities wouldn't make the same mistake. Kelo and its practical results were seen as so awful that even particularly conservative leaders -- like Chris Christie -- championed strict limits on Eminent Domain. Bottom line: There is zero chance Eminent Domain could ever be used at Metropolis Towers, however difficult they may be on the eye.


For what it's worth, support for eminent domain is usually seen as a "liberal" cause--conservatives have mostly always looked at it askance, and Kelo was a 5-4 case of the liberal judges plus O'Connor in favor and the conservatives against. Kelo was clearly the correct decision, and eminent domain is a good thing, but don't mix up who favors and who opposes it.

Anyway, NJ's statutory rules are solely procedural and certainly do not present a legal barrier to seizure of Metropolis Towers by eminent domain, though they would make the process slightly more costly than previous due to more hoops to jump through. In fact, sites like Metropolis Towers are more or less tailor-made for New Jersey's eminent domain rules, which were designed primarily to protect single-family, owner-occupied homes.

Posted on: 2014/10/27 19:46
 Top 


Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
I found this video over on the thread about the "Make it Yours" marketing campaign (courtesy of neverleft). Fast forward to minute 14.00. It seems that in the 1960s, Metropolis Towers was the gleaming new image of JC that the city was promoting to entice folks to move to town.

After all this back and forth, it seems amazing that 50 years ago those hideous edifices were regarded as the JC of the future...


The 1960s were not exactly a shining beacon of urban planning, that's for sure.

Posted on: 2014/10/27 18:01
 Top 


Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

LittleJimSheehy wrote:
Quote:

PotStirJC wrote:
Quote:

LittleJimSheehy wrote:
Please, please, please at least read a Wikipedia summary of Eminent Domain before posting on it.


I am familiar with eminent domain. And as your Wikipedia summary suggests, it can be used for economic development... Not sure what I missed.


Yes, eminent domain may be used for economic development. But, it could never be used in the way you suggest . Rather than go through every court case or state statute to prove this point -- as the governmental abuse of eminent domain has been extensively litigated and legislated against, especially in New Jersey - I will attempt to explain this by way of example:

Let's say the Mayor hated brownstones. After all, they are relics of a bygone era, and do not fit into Jersey City's modern, increasingly vertical aesthetic.To this end, City planners would say, in an area as "transit-oriented" as Jersey City, property density should be maximized, meaning single-family brownstones are truly out of place. Moreover, even the best-kept brownstones cannot hide their age entirely -- tiles crack, roofs leak, difficult to retrofit for modern conveniences like air conditioning, etc., meaning some people might consider them "dumpy."

Further, removing every brownstone in favor of higher-density development fits your economic development standard: While brownstones (and the 1/4-acre or so of land on which they sit) are generally assessed between $500K and $1M, buildings like 50 Columbus and Grove Pointe are assessed at between $20M and $30M - just for the building(s). Add in the first-floor retail that high-rises provide (and brownstones generally cannot), and high-rises are nearly infinitely more valuable to Jersey City. That means, every brownstone we allow to stand is sitting on a "goldmine" that would be more productive as a high-rise.

Given all this, per the theory of Eminent Domain espoused in this thread, the Mayor should take via Eminent Domain every brownstone in Paulus Hook and Van Vorst park, raze them all, and erect huge high-rise residences in their place(s).

Of course, this is ridiculous - and clearly unlawful. That's why doing the same thing vis-a-vis Metropolis Towers is ludicrous.


Terrible idea is not the same thing as illegal. As long as the city could present a rational argument to why seizing and destroying brownstones was good public policy (which you have just provided--it doesn't even need to be particularly convincing), the constitution would allow it.

Posted on: 2014/10/27 17:58
 Top 


Re: Jersey City Board of Education Election- The Children First Team
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Are these paid positions? I can't shake the feeling that the BOE is run by a bunch of well-intentioned but frankly amateur parents - owning a $600 million budget - bigger than the city's budget.

Perhaps a decent salary might attract candidates who can think beyond their kid's peanut allergy.


The real problem is elected school boards. Things were much more accountable back when the mayor appointed school board members. The mayor would be held responsible for the school board's performance. Now, no one is held responsible because no one really knows what the essentially anonymous school board candidates really support--or, for that matter, whether they will adhere to their stated positions once in office.

Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:47
 Top 


Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCishome wrote:
I'm rarely stupefied by anything I read on here. You, sir, have managed to do it. As a bunch of people have pointed out, the buildings are a lot older than 15 years. If you've bothered to look at them, you'd know that. And your argument just goes downhill from there.

As for what they're like inside...the previous poster really exaggerates, or maybe things have taken a turn for the better. Yes, the buildings are dated. Yes, many of the residents enjoy curry. But the management addresses repairs pretty promptly, and exterminators service the building every month. Given that it has fairly reasonable rents and killer views, there are lots of worse places.

And the parking lots...if you paid attention, you'd know that they just completed a huge chromium mitigation project. That was the first step in a redevelopment of the lots. So, relax. You'll have your overpriced pet-food stores and soulless bars on that property soon.


I'm not sure what "soul" the buildings have now...

Anyway, eminent domain is politically infeasible (as you can see from the comments, the general public is irrationally and angrily opposed even to its mention) even though it would probably be a good idea for the city.

The project to develop the parking lots is by necessity only a half-measure that will not accomplish all it could because the existing buildings are to be preserved. This isn't a knock against the residents, only the buildings themselves, which simply cannot be integrated into a decent streetscape no matter what is built on the parking lots. It's possible that a private developer will come along one day and purchase the buildings and knock them down, but the cost-prohibitive nature of demolition means that is unlikely to happen for at least a couple of decades, and, if the parking lot project is ever actually built, probably will never happen.

Posted on: 2014/10/27 15:39
 Top 


Re: PATH (pathetic attempt at transporting humans)
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

thirstyquaker wrote:
Finally figured it out
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s_closed_for_weekend.html

JSQ - 33rd is being slowed down to 12 minutes from 10 minutes
NWK - JSQ is being slowed down from 10-15 minutes all the way to 20 minutes.

So yeah, more cuts to service. I expect by this time next year they will just shut the entire system down and put locks on the entrance. But you will have to pay $5 to look at the entranceway.

edit: actually, it's not clear if this is just for weekends, or weekdays too? I think it's just weekends, in which case it might be a service increase? Someone needs to grab one of the actual physical schedules in the station and report back.


I think it's just Sundays, in which case it is an increase in service, bringing Sunday service in line with Saturday. I checked the pamphlets in the WTC station today, but of course they are not updated.

Posted on: 2014/10/24 20:26
 Top 


Re: Area between Tunnel and Hoboken
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

07310 wrote:
Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
There's going to be buildings where those tracks are now.


Hoboken has decided to never build over the rail yards.

http://hoboken411.com/archives/50684


That's just some lone whackjob who sounds like Hoboken's Yvonne. I agree that decking over the railyards won't happen soon, but it will happen eventually.

Posted on: 2014/10/16 18:06
 Top 


Re: Jersey City seeks 20-year tax break for hotel outside Grove Street PATH station
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Is there any acceptable reason why Fulop wants a big hotel built in a prime location to receive 20 year tax break?

Is there some kind of arrangement where the hotel takes some of its massive savings and contributes it to Fulop's governor run that I don't know about?

I just can't understand why he would be seeking this, especially when the article says he voted against an abatement in this exact location for the accompanying residential tower as Councilman.


The stated rationale is right there in the article. Hotels (i) are cheaper than residential buildings from a city-services perspective (true, as hotels do not result in more children in public schools, for example) and (ii) provide significantly more employment opportunities than residential buildings (also true, as residential buildings will employ maybe 15-20 staff maximum, while a hotel will have at least 100-200 staff).

Whether that's enough of a rationale to justify treating hotels differently from residential is a harder declaration to make. Hotels have their own social costs as well, and I worry that offering abatements to hotels but not residential developments will result in hotels crowding out residential development downtown, which would be bad for those of us who actually live here.

Posted on: 2014/10/8 23:51
 Top 


Re: Area between Tunnel and Hoboken
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:
bill wrote: Quote:
honeycat wrote: The A&P, BestBuy and Target is less than a 2 min walk. And a 10 min walk to the Newport Path Station. I bike to hoboken which is right down the block as well.
1 post potential shill that is completely lying to the world with this statement. As usual, multiply time by at least 2. In this instance , it is about a mile from 700 Grove to the Newporth Path. Lots of people can't even run there in 10 minutes let alone walk. <2 minute walk to A&P, Best Buy and Target? LOL Mulptiply by 4. NEXT!
Honeycat just said Grove between the Tunnel and Hoboken. Could be at Grove and 15th or something, which is indeed two minutes from A&P and Best Buy and only a little bit further to Target. There's some housing there.

Posted on: 2014/10/2 21:20
 Top 


Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jcman420 wrote:


Though, come to think of it, I actually haven't seen you or anyone else mention any of the "pluses." Other than helping the bottom line of the development company, which is certainly quite nice for them. I'd love to hear them.


More people = more customers = better retail options and more vibrant street life. Also, development is (most of the time, anyway) visually much more appealing than vacant lots and parking lots.

Posted on: 2014/9/25 21:45
 Top 


Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

CandiceOsborne wrote:
Quote:

jcman420 wrote:
As a point of clarification, I understand that this change *was* made with some opportunity for feedback at neighborhood meetings, etc. However, it is unclear to me when, exactly, the developer was approved for a variance from the height restrictions and what public dialogue occurred before that decision was made.


There is no approval at this point. Planning recommended approval to the city council, but council has not voted. Please give me any feedback you have. You can email or fill out my survey.


Please don't let the NIMBYs ruin our city, Candice.

Posted on: 2014/9/25 19:56
 Top 


Re: Record level of new apartments for Jersey City: report
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

cancoloftyesno wrote:
where is the location exactly?


Of the Journal Squared project? West of Summit Ave, south of Pavonia Ave, north of the entrance to the Journal Square station that's directly opposite Magnolia Ave.

Posted on: 2014/9/25 19:52
 Top 


Re: Embankment- Update Thread
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

hero69 wrote:
can't jc invoke eminent domain? if so, why not? if not, why not?


It would be very expensive. Eminent domain still requires "just compensation", which theoretically is market price but in practice is often well above market prices. Either way, a lot more expensive than the current method of making rather dubious but apparently judicially accepted legal claims to invalidate the prior sale.

Posted on: 2014/9/24 23:53
 Top 


Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jcman420 wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:

I always find it amusing the way people panic at the thought of change.


And I am equally amused when people make grand, sweeping statements with a small percentage of the details.


Well-said. It's as if anyone who doesn't have an "anything goes" attitude toward development in their neighborhood is somehow anti-development.

Hey, there's a nice plot of land situated right next to Paulus Hook Park that is currently being wasted as a parking lot. I bet we could squeeze a 9 or 10 story apartment building there, too. They could even put a Jersey Shore-style nightclub on the ground level.

No? What are you, anti-development?


I don't see why it would do any harm, provided that the building was not ugly, the street level interfaced with the neighborhood, etc. The idea that *height* is the main issue in whether a development is good for a neighborhood is frankly bizarre and seems to result from a sort of small-town fetishism. That isn't to say that the belief that height is bad isn't widespread--it is. But, when asked for explanation as to why, the anti-height crowd isn't very good at explaining (no, "out of context", whatever that means, isn't an inherently bad thing).

Posted on: 2014/9/23 0:21
 Top 


Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
My understanding is that the Paulus Hook Neighborhood Association blessed this. My complaint is that if you don't live in Paulus Hook, you wouldn't have had any way of knowing about this until now - after it has been introduced to the council and only a couple of days before the vote for final adoption occurs.

I live in Gull's Cove (which is closer to the proposed building than at least half of Paulus Hook), on the 10th floor. I bought my home based on the previously approved zoning and the views it accorded. With a capricious wave of a wand (and a developer's check book for something called the "Four Corners Park" - how you can have a park with two major streets comprising at least half the space is beyond me), that is gone. I can live without seeing the Freedom Tower, but it certainly has a potential impact on my resale value.


You live many, many blocks away from the waterfront. Of course your views aren't guaranteed or protected, and it's ridiculous to expect otherwise. Zoning is not forever, and shouldn't be.

Posted on: 2014/9/22 21:04
 Top 


Re: Some experts fear end of rental market boom
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
As much as I want this to be true it just isn't going to happen in Paulus Hook. Buildings here are at 99% occupancy. It's crazy!


This. Exactly. Housing in DTJC is insane. York at Warren was almost fully leased in a month. The Art House is selling like crazy and will be fully leased in what is essentially a month. And, these places are NOT cheap. Rents in DTJC for new construction are surpassing four and five thousands dollars. It is really crazy.


I think what the article is basically saying is that construction is relying on rents continuing to move upwards rapidly, whereas we're probably headed towards a period where rents don't rise much if at all for a few years as all of the new towers are absorbed into the market. "Cooling off" in this sense doesn't mean that rents will drop, only that the massive increases we've seen recently will slow down a bit. That's probably a fair assessment, but I think there's plenty of room for developers to make money even if rents are flat for a few years--provided they already own the land they're building on rather than having to buy land at current land prices.

Jersey City could also use a new condo building. There's a lot of pent-up demand for new condos and no serious supply. Just one large condo building could do extremely well if it opened in, say, 2017. Not sure the market could support more than two or so, though.

Posted on: 2014/9/22 2:32
 Top 


Re: Connect PATH to 6 train, or $4 billion MALL?
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Amusing that the Port Authority at once hates the PATH for being a money-loser but refuses to surrender authority over PATH as it would have had to do for PATH-Lex to work.

I do question whether there would have been adequate capacity on the Lex Ave Local to support an extension to Newark, however--it's already the busiest transit line in the country (the world?), and extending the line would decrease capacity due to more delays, etc. I'm sure it could have been done, but that would have been a bigger concern than the costs of connecting the lines.

Posted on: 2014/9/15 14:25
 Top 


Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCishome wrote:
This "property" argument is kind of silly. I like to sit at those tables in Grove Plaza and eat lunch. Should I pay rent? I also take my dog to the dog run at VVP - should he kick in a few bucks? I warn you, Henry is a notoriously bad tipper.

Cities provide public services like streets, stoplights, fire departments. And yeah, parking. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be some permits required to keep commuters from grabbing the free spots, or that people who want free parking shouldn't have to search for it, but this argument that street parking should be sold to the highest bidder is kind of dumb.


We provide services because they are good for the public. A fire department is good for everyone. A police department is good for everyone. A park is good for everyone. But parking spaces? It's an outdated perspective to say that parking is good for everyone. Most cities should be discouraging driving and car ownership, not encouraging it. I mean, by that argument, why doesn't the city provide free food for everyone, or free housing, or other services? Surely food and housing are more essential than parking.

Posted on: 2014/9/12 17:48
 Top 


Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
If you truly believe there are plenty of parking spaces in this city since the population boom you either do not drive a car or you are doing what you do best... trolling!


There are spaces.. you just have to pay for them. How is paying for property that you use unfair?

No, there are not if you read my post below... there are no spaces to rent for a few hours in GV, Lincoln Park, The Heights, Bergen Hill, West Side and SGV the only areas that provide valet parking or hourly parking is Journal Square and DTJC.


Except the complainers like you just want to add more parking to Journal Square and DJTC, the only places where major new construction is happening where more spaces could be mandated. So, what's your point?

Posted on: 2014/9/12 17:45
 Top 


Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
... Cities provide public services like streets, stoplights, fire departments. And yeah, parking. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be some permits required to keep commuters from grabbing the free spots, or that people who want free parking shouldn't have to search for it, but this argument that street parking should be sold to the highest bidder is kind of dumb.


They shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder--some subsidization is fair and no doubt necessary for a functioning economy and society in a still-car-centric state.

But they shouldn't be free (or 1% of true value) either. Unlike firefighting or dog runs, street parking is a commodity for which demand exceeds supply; charging a higher fee can reduce that demand, making it easier to obtain for people who need it most. And reducing that demand also carries myriad other benefits to the city, from less pollution to less road wear and less competition for driving space.


I think many people are improperly conflating the concept of "permanent" parking for residents (whether in a garage or on the street) with "temporary" parking you'd need if you were driving to a store and needed to park your car.

Seems like most people agree that free "permanent" parking is not some absolute right. You either get a permanent spot as part of buying your residence, you pay for a garage, or you drive around every night looking for street parking.

But the problem seems to be the lack of temporary parking if you needed to drive somewhere. Seems like some say there is nowhere near enough parking and more spaces must be added while others think there's plenty of temporary parking. Might want to focus the discussion on that, because I agree that cities should be required to provide enough temporary parking spots to accommodate most. Shouldn't have to drive around 20 min looking for a spot if you need to drive somewhere.


Depends where. We shouldn't be encouraging anyone to drive anywhere in downtown. There's plenty of public transit for that.

Posted on: 2014/9/12 17:43
 Top 


Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The Mayor via the Planning Dept of Hoboken and even JC is at fault for parking issues - Planning should have mandated with every building permit (especially multi-level high rise apartments] that they must provide for off-street parking with a percentage for visitors to their buildings.

Hoboken and JC should have also mandated with permits that multi level buildings also provide off-street parking for courier and parcel deliveries to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow.



They DO, and they are REQUIRED to do so. Those parking garages sit empty because people feel entitled to their free or near-free subsidized street parking. Guess what! The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for YOUR car, moochers! Buck up the $150/month to park your car in a garage. There's plenty of space.


I agree, all newer multi-level buildings should not be given parking permits and only those 'older' buildings with no off-street parking be provided with parking permits (with conditions).
I also believe that the space in front of your property is the amount of parking permits that property receives.
The only remedy I can think of, is to create more permit zones to on street parking.


Why do the long-term residents get special treatment? Maybe we should get rid of all parking permits and abolish subsidized on-street parking entirely. Every street could have a nice green strip on the edges instead!

(Obvious hyperbole, though on-street parking should be reduced or eliminated in a lot of places, but there's no reason to discriminate against residents of new buildings--whether you live in a new building or not shouldn't determine whether you can get a parking permit.)

Posted on: 2014/9/12 17:41
 Top 


Re: 30 Children at 5th Street Daycare drank bleach!
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


You people with your holier than thou outrage are hilarious and pathetic. This is a mistake that could have happened to anyone. No harm happened, and no harm could have realistically happened. If there had been more than trace amounts of bleach, it would have been detectable by scent. As is, water with trace amounts of bleach is not going to be obviously different from regular water. Get over it.

Posted on: 2014/9/12 14:44
 Top 


Re: Isn't enough space' on street, so park in garages
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The Mayor via the Planning Dept of Hoboken and even JC is at fault for parking issues - Planning should have mandated with every building permit (especially multi-level high rise apartments] that they must provide for off-street parking with a percentage for visitors to their buildings.

Hoboken and JC should have also mandated with permits that multi level buildings also provide off-street parking for courier and parcel deliveries to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow.



They DO, and they are REQUIRED to do so. Those parking garages sit empty because people feel entitled to their free or near-free subsidized street parking. Guess what! The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for YOUR car, moochers! Buck up the $150/month to park your car in a garage. There's plenty of space.

Posted on: 2014/9/10 22:50
 Top 


Re: Trump Plaza - Jersey City
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCishome wrote:

TODAY?S DEALS: Kushner, KABR Land $140M from CIT for Jersey City?s Tallest Apartment Tower

They're calling it the tallest apartment tower, but its neighboring building is 5 stories taller. Is that sloppy journalism, marketing hype or the detail that this will be the tallest rental building (the other one is condos)?



"Apartment" means rentals. If it's taller than 70 Greene, it's the tallest apartment building, even if it isn't the tallest residential building.

Either way, URL Harborside will be taller and is a few months ahead on construction.

Posted on: 2014/9/10 14:16
 Top 


Re: Would 'bus rapid transit' help spur development in JC outside of DT?
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Yup. There's no lack of bus service to/from the Heights currently. BRT wouldn't be any faster unless you actually got a designated lane through the Lincoln Tunnel (yeah, right!) and also didn't have to cross traffic at most intersections. It's just not workable when converting ordinary street grids rather than building entirely new BRT highways; BRT still has to stop at all of the lights and gets ensnared in traffic nearly as badly as other buses. And, although it's mildly more permanent than regular buses, it still doesn't give the permanence that real development needs. BRT is a waste of time and political effort.


You don't know enough about BRT. The lights change for the bus same as for the HBLR, so it's a smooth sail in it's own lane. And don't JC originating buses use the designated bus lane through the tunnel at rush? Not my route so I don't know.


That's not how it works in practice. Priority lights are (1) strongly political resisted by the car lobby and (2) mostly infeasible as a way of preventing the buses from stopping, even if they actually slow down a bit. Plus, they actually do cause huge traffic problems when they result in a lot of lights changing for BRT priority. This is also a problem with street-running light rails, of course, but that's not what I'm advocating.

Quote:
They also don't stop every 2 blocks, but further apart like a rail. The idea is to avoid the slow crawl of jitneys and buses up and down roads like Palisade, where one stop stops all traffic.


The difference is pretty damned small. It's not that far from the Heights to the Lincoln Tunnel. Five stops versus one stop makes minimal difference, especially when there are still a bunch of stops for traffic lights, blocked intersections, etc. anyway.

Quote:
Comparisons to heavier infrastructure are pointless, BRT is actually possible, but rail above or below ground is simply monetarily unfeasible, unless you've got the billions personally. Wishing for it is only one step less silly than those perennially wishing for a footbridge over the Hudson.


Only because we lack the political will to stand up to the car lobby and demand real money from transit and instead settle for pathetic half-measures like BRT. The footbridge is a dumb idea for entirely unrelated reasons.

Posted on: 2014/9/8 23:11
 Top 


Re: Nu Bar
#89
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
On the salad entry on the menu, put a comma after tomatoes and correct chicpeas to chickpeas-I'm a human spell check on menus sometimes.


Maybe they're just very fashionable peas?

Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:36
 Top 


Re: Would 'bus rapid transit' help spur development in JC outside of DT?
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yup. There's no lack of bus service to/from the Heights currently. BRT wouldn't be any faster unless you actually got a designated lane through the Lincoln Tunnel (yeah, right!) and also didn't have to cross traffic at most intersections. It's just not workable when converting ordinary street grids rather than building entirely new BRT highways; BRT still has to stop at all of the lights and gets ensnared in traffic nearly as badly as other buses. And, although it's mildly more permanent than regular buses, it still doesn't give the permanence that real development needs. BRT is a waste of time and political effort.

Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:45
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 »






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