user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

jjmcv wrote:
That's what real estate companies are calling the area, doesn't carry the stigma of "Greenville".

And from what I saw, some properties in Country Village got hit pretty hard during Sandy.

No doubt. Some people are surprised when I tell them that the neighborhood east of Garfield and south of Danforth is one of the more peaceful areas in Jersey City.

I love that area, I was interested in a house there on Princeton but decided to walk away due to no parking. Its like the country over there.

However, That area is also a part of GV but I hear it might be in for a name change as well with all the new development behind the Richard street station. My area is slowly loosing its GV name due to the park.

Soon GV we will be a 4 block radius with all the name changing. sigh.. Too bad, I actually like the name.

jjmcv wrote:
That's what real estate companies are calling the area, doesn't carry the stigma of "Greenville".

And from what I saw, some properties in Country Village got hit pretty hard during Sandy.

brewster wrote:
I'm surprised such an experienced criminal made the mistake of boarding a city bus with the expectation of a quick getaway. One can often walk faster.

When the English arrived in 1664 they found a place that was already relatively diverse in its inhabitants. In addition to Native American populations, Swedish and Dutch settlers had already made the arduous journey to what would become the Garden State. This characteristic of diversity continues to be a hallmark of New Jersey today.

Toonces wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:

Again: If that is your concern, look at his donor list. I even gave you a link right to it.

If you do, you'll see that the single biggest donor to the Fulop campaign is... Steven Fulop. By a huge margin. Go figure.

Interesting, though, that his personal contributions are listed as "loans". I guess this is normal...? I can't say I've ever looked at this sort of list before...

Anyway, regarding this whole issue with redacting the calendar entries - it could very easily be resolved if they were simply redacted with a side-note along the lines of "met with private citizen, name redacted for confidentiality". Heck, I'll pay for the rubber stamp that says it. The problem I have is that when so MUCH is redacted, it's easy (normal?) to assume that there are a lot of other things going on, besides individual meetings. Redactions, as potentially innocuous as they may be, obviously inspire conspiracy theories.

On a side note, the constant "my guy does this, but YOUR guy is much worse!" claims and deflections do absolutely nothing to advance an intelligent discourse. We should be able to have an intelligent discussion about the present and this specific issue without constantly drudging up the past (or current, ancillary distractions). Do we all really need to constantly be flame-bating, internet tough guys?

MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:

by Br6dR on 2014/3/17 8:04:47

Give me one scenario where someone needs confidentiality when speaking to a mayor.

Hypothetically:

Let's say a home or business owner is trying to get a permit for improvements to their property or business and they feel they are not getting a fair shake from the building dept. So they schedule a meeting with the mayor or their ward council representative to discuss it. They are then told that their name and meeting date/time are subject to public disclosure. They might be wary of having this meeting for fear the building dept will get wind of it and make the situation more difficult.

A more critical situation would exist where a person wanted to discuss accusations of malfeasance within the police dept or prosecutor's office.

To be clear, I have not had these types of concerns and I am not a conspiracy theorist so would not be compelled by public disclosure either way. But good governance requires that all citizens feel safe when communicating with their elected officials.

Citizens should have this right to privacy whatever the reason. For those wishing a public audience, they may always avail themselves of our open-to-the-public, televised city council meetings.

Kudos to the administration for adhering to this.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Amazing, Brian Stack, ignore this rule when he meets with the public.

We're supposed to believe Stack -- who has been running a solid political machine in Union City for years -- is as transparent as glass, because someone you know said he meets people in the street?

Do you genuinely believe that if you put in a FOIA request for his schedule from the past 6 months, he would give you the names of the people he talked to on the street? That he talks to people in the street specifically so he can record and report his schedule?

Even under the most charitable interpretation possible, I'd say you are confusing transparency with good ol' fashioned retail politics.

RebeccaS wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
It's a hellish war zone. If you like falling asleep to the sound of gunfire and explosions this is the neighborhood for you. The choice can be between hunger and running the gauntlet to Pathmark. Sometimes the bodies bake for hours in the noontime sun.

Don't forget the scenes evocative of "28 Days Later."

This film is about a virus that makes the infected person mad with extreme rage and hungry for blood.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
NONE of Fulop's meetings should be hidden from the public. None. 0.

For at least the 3rd time....

They cannot release the names of private individuals. That would be a violation of state law.

You wanna know his entire schedule? Change the law.

Yvonne wrote:
What about developers who meet and ask for favors? Are they considered private people? Anyone who walks into a public building should not expect privacy. Granted the public may not be privilege to the content of the information but that is not the same as an individual or groups who enter city hall. The public should know.

user1111 wrote:
Some meetings have to be private in order for things like this to happen.

Many of us who pay taxes have met with the mayor, council president, and chief of police to discuss quality of life issues.. It is done in private to protect one's identity and safety.

PathH8Tr wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

Nori wrote:
Who do you contact to report someone who is doing work w/o permits?

How does this affect you?

It all matters to everybody pal. Your wall is their wall, your roof is connected to their roof, their porch could connect to your fence, if I do sh*t with a permit, they should do sh*t with a permit.

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:



The horror!

Decks have rules too. How close they can be to the building next door, for example, or how much land they cover. Collapsing isn't a joke either - particularly if it's higher up or people are injured.

bodhipooh wrote:
Really?! So your attitude is that people should do whatever they want without the requisite permits? What if they are making serious work and burst a gas line? Or, maybe they are doing electrical work and cause an electrical fire. Yes, it IS their property, but given the density around this area, any such "mishap" can have SERIOUS consequences for neighbors.

Nori wrote:
Who do you contact to report someone who is doing work w/o permits?

user1111 wrote:
Neat, I guess we are living on one of those old farms.?





1926 Bayside Park, when it was first being developed.

Monroe wrote:
Weren't films being made a decade earlier by Edison in West Orange?

Today Bayonne seems an unlikely setting for cowboys and Indians, surrounded as it is by urban dewellings, industries and the waters of both Newark and New York bays. In 1908, there were still two farms which formed a boundry between Bayonne and Jersey City. Both bays were less industrial and there were yacht clubs and summer resorts in Bayonne. Where the Palisades ended there was a clump of woodland which, for a few years, was peopled with adventuresome actors in greasepaint and chaps.