asny10011 wrote:
Either way you look at it, LHS's services to protect and rescue is diminished.




Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

jbat wrote:
Emailed Councilwoman Osborne about this and was happy to get a quick response and some clarification from her and HHS. Hopefully there are other ways to secure funding moving forward:

"Per an email I just got from HHS here are some more details (in italics) - essentially the impoundment is what HHS pays for with tax dollars and the contract reflects that. There are additional opportunities for grant funding, but it shouldn't be done via the contract for a specific service.:

Now to address the conversation, and the passage of the contract: The funding we provide LHS is specific to the State- Mandated impoundment of $300k annually. This is to impound animals we find or receive from our Animal Control Unit.

Over the past year, we have seen reduced services and hours, for our impoundment, and the contract reflects this.

We have offered many other funding opportunities and these funds come through other dollars, such as CSBG and CDBG.

As a reminder, HHS does not fund nonprofit efforts of any organization, if provides contracts for service. "

This text implies that funding was reduced because hours were reduced, rather than reduced funding is causing reduced hours. Anyone know what the real driver here is?

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:

Quote:

Br6dR wrote:

He's knows who you are. You're NONdowntown. Your boyfriend posted her as chickenfliedlice or something racist like that.

Ok, now I'm curious. Describe NONdowntown. Who was he, what did he do, where was he from, what were his core beliefs, where did he live?

A weasel.
Don't know.
Don't care.
Don't care.
Never told me to my face. (Which is #1 on my how to spot a weasel list.)
Don't know, don't care.

sp2xs wrote:
Quote:

maybeMoving wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
From drab to fab, Jersey City's alluring architecture is making "Chilltown" hot

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style ... e-1.1713502#ixzz2vJ3Kjo88

Weird article and an obvious developer paid fluff piece. They're decrying the drab, characterless developments of 20 years ago while pumping the new characterless developments.

Perhaps, but I find this quote encouraging:

Quote:

The LeFrak team is now hard at work reversing missteps of earlier decades. Many of the older buildings are being revamped with new storefronts and amenities to make them more attractive inside and out. New landscaping and public programming is also trying to enliven the streetscape, which had been more driven by cars.

Any attempt to integrate the Newport neighborhood into the surrounding communities is a nice step forward. I know it will take a while, but still...

jbat wrote:
Emailed Councilwoman Osborne about this and was happy to get a quick response and some clarification from her and HHS. Hopefully there are other ways to secure funding moving forward:

"Per an email I just got from HHS here are some more details (in italics) - essentially the impoundment is what HHS pays for with tax dollars and the contract reflects that. There are additional opportunities for grant funding, but it shouldn't be done via the contract for a specific service.:

Now to address the conversation, and the passage of the contract: The funding we provide LHS is specific to the State- Mandated impoundment of $300k annually. This is to impound animals we find or receive from our Animal Control Unit.

Over the past year, we have seen reduced services and hours, for our impoundment, and the contract reflects this.

We have offered many other funding opportunities and these funds come through other dollars, such as CSBG and CDBG.

As a reminder, HHS does not fund nonprofit efforts of any organization, if provides contracts for service. "

borisp wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage

Argument for gay marriage: "If you don't like gay marriage then don't get gay married."

Argument for CCW: "If you don't like CCW, then don't get a CCW permit."

I have nothing against gay marriages. In fact, I have nothing against marriages at all.

What I am against is government regulating marriages, recording marriages, and treating people differently based on their married status. And if you thought of marriage as a right, - you would have been against it too. Just like you are against government regulating press, or recording abortions, or treating people differently on the basis of their religion.

Problem is, - while you pose as the defenders of rights, you do not think of marriage as a right. You are not against government regulating marriages. You are not against government recording marriages. You are not against government deciding who can and cannot marry, - as a matter of principle. You treat marriage as a privilege not right.

Who's a hypocrite now, eh?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because I like to show hypocrisy, that's why. It amuses me.

Since the two have noting to do with each other, I'm not seeing any hypocrisy regardless of how one feels on gay marriage.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

The two issues have nothing to do with each other. And "wrong side of history" is not an argument by itself. It's used after you make your real points. And it isn't really mentioned with CCW anyway, I just did because it seemed appropriate.

Of course they don't have anything to do with each other, did I say otherwise?

Why bring it up then?

Pebble wrote:
CA Police Chief: Guns are Not a Defensive Weapon

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Dullard wrote:
Quote:

Great idea! Go off shooting in a mall parking lot with lots of other families around.

And if you see ?a drugged out guy walking towards you aggressively? why are you still walking in that same direction?!

Oh wait, you?re walking towards them because you have a gun and are willing to allow a situation to escalate where a confrontation could be avoided?

Better than being "bravely" shot in a parking lot with no recourse.

Oh, you mean why can't I just bravely run away from someone swiftly coming at me? Well, maybe I have a significant other with me who isn't so agile, or children or an elderly parent or my old dog or am carrying things (I guess I should bravely drop them and run, just in case).

Retard wrote:
Quote:

Seatbelt laws exist because most people don?t wear them. The existence of a seatbelt could negate healthcare costs in situations where they are used. Your strawman is absurd.

I don?t recall stating that I walked into ?the projects at night?. Find my quote where I said as much. My guess is that your reading comprehension is just very poor?

Most people don't wear seatbelts? What? What kind of moron doesn't wear a seatbelt? And what do seatbelt laws have to do with anything? And why would their existence indicate that a majority don't wear seatbelts? Do laws against murder indicate that most people would commit murder without them? Ugh...

I like how you went with a slur used against the mentally handicapped. Kind of shows your level of maturity?

CDC has statistics on how states where seatbelt laws do not exist their use is far lower. This is the dominating reason for the laws being enacted in multiple states. I?m sorry you were not informed enough to understand this.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Imbecile wrote:
Quote:

Reading comprehension again? ?A timid or easily intimidated person.? That absolutely describes you! ?A person that lacks courage in facing difficulty.? Yup, that?s also you! Tell me where I?m wrong.

The rest, well, I?ve no interest in your dick measuring contest. I know my lifestyle?

Timid or easily intimidated people don't grab weapons, they run away or avoid any potential for confrontation. Same with someone "lacking courage." You on one hand decry the concept of people reaching for a handgun if they might not survive, yet also complain that the person that would do that is also a coward. Based on this you declare that my reading comprehension is deficient. There is something deficient here and it isn't my reading comp.

Re part 2: Go ahead and snap your fingers and yell "you don't know me!" you lower class fool.

Ah yes, you completely ignore the part where your reading comprehension skills threw you under a bus?

Yes, easily intimidated people do grab weapons. It is like the blanket little children grab when they are afraid of the dark. They grab that gun to feel less timid because in the end they truly are cowards.

Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Guns, guns, guns. I get the civil libertarian side of the argument, I just cringe when people start using phrases like "real Americans" and describing situations in which they'll draw down on a pack of marauding drug-crazed perps. I'm in my 50s and spent the first two-thirds of my life in very sketchy places doing fairly sketchy things (coke-buying on the LES, circa 1979, anyone?). Not once have I felt the need for a gun. The whole "I need to carry a gun" thing feels like carrying around a fire extinguisher in case you see a burning building. Or wishful hoping that you'll get a chance to shoot one of those drug-crazed perps.

I think I'll go with the odds and remain gun-less.

I?d lean more on the ?wishful hoping? portion. It helps the cowards feel like men.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Access to transit was not my concern. Access to the JC nightlife was what I referenced. Around Grove street exists restaurant row on Newark Ave. There are also a few nice places on Manilla and Grove. Thus, I was pointing out the distance to socializing. I assumed this was obvious based on my subsequent statement that Newport is boring and vanilla...

You mentioned the walk to the PATH as opposed to the JSQ projects. That's not right.

As to nightlife, Newport is right by the Hoboken spots.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Where in here does PATH get mentioned:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Newport is not much closer to Grove than Journal Square is. Think about restaurant row on Newark Ave. Do a simple Google Map of it and you?re looking at a 5 minute difference walking to Barcade, or a dollar or two price difference in a cab.

Anyone with half an ounce of reading comprehension could follow the two sentences and realize that I was talking about food and nightlife.

As for Hoboken, it's a mile and a half walk to get to there. That is a further distance than Grove Street area.

Are you serious? Here's what you wrote:

Quote:

I won?t argue that the prices should be the same, but Newport condos do have a walk to the PATH. From my understanding, these buildings will basically have a PATH entrance inside them.

Clearly this had nothing to do with the PATH.

As to distance, it is under a mile along the river with no traffic stops. One can make it in under 10 minutes. Granted, Grove is roughly the same in terms of distance, but because you cross traffic lights it takes longer. Journal Square really is 1.5 miles from Grove and over 2 miles from Hoboken. Let me point out again that you're a moron.

Yes the PATH was mentioned in reference to a walk. It was also in a completely different paragraph separated by another paragraph.

It really is simple reading comprehension...

hero69 wrote:
but there is so much more to do in Hoboken than jc

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Access to transit was not my concern. Access to the JC nightlife was what I referenced. Around Grove street exists restaurant row on Newark Ave. There are also a few nice places on Manilla and Grove. Thus, I was pointing out the distance to socializing. I assumed this was obvious based on my subsequent statement that Newport is boring and vanilla...

You mentioned the walk to the PATH as opposed to the JSQ projects. That's not right.

As to nightlife, Newport is right by the Hoboken spots.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Where in here does PATH get mentioned:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Newport is not much closer to Grove than Journal Square is. Think about restaurant row on Newark Ave. Do a simple Google Map of it and you?re looking at a 5 minute difference walking to Barcade, or a dollar or two price difference in a cab.

Anyone with half an ounce of reading comprehension could follow the two sentences and realize that I was talking about food and nightlife.

As for Hoboken, it's a mile and a half walk to get to there. That is a further distance than Grove Street area.

I won?t argue that the prices should be the same, but Newport condos do have a walk to the PATH. From my understanding, these buildings will basically have a PATH entrance inside them.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

AlexC wrote:
Okay I give up. You win the pissing contest. When the law comes down I will carry when I want.

Have a great weekend.

Although I don't own a gun and have no plans to I would support New Jersey's ridiculous CCW law to be overturned. In practice, the only people who get approved to carry are former LEOs and politicians.

With that said, this topic was created because people are trying to persuade the Supreme Court to take up the appeal. They typically take less than 1% of such cases. Granted the odds are slightly higher here due to other states also petitioning them, but I think some here have the mistaken impression that all we have to do is wait for the decision to come down.

In fact, the odds are overwhelmingly likely the status quo remains as is for many years to come.

Pebble wrote:
Access to transit was not my concern. Access to the JC nightlife was what I referenced. Around Grove street exists restaurant row on Newark Ave. There are also a few nice places on Manilla and Grove. Thus, I was pointing out the distance to socializing. I assumed this was obvious based on my subsequent statement that Newport is boring and vanilla...

AlexC wrote:
Okay I give up. You win the pissing contest. When the law comes down I will carry when I want.

Have a great weekend.

Great idea! Go off shooting in a mall parking lot with lots of other families around.

And if you see ?a drugged out guy walking towards you aggressively? why are you still walking in that same direction?!

Oh wait, you?re walking towards them because you have a gun and are willing to allow a situation to escalate where a confrontation could be avoided?

Seatbelt laws exist because most people don?t wear them. The existence of a seatbelt could negate healthcare costs in situations where they are used. Your strawman is absurd.

I don?t recall stating that I walked into ?the projects at night?. Find my quote where I said as much. My guess is that your reading comprehension is just very poor?

Reading comprehension again? ?A timid or easily intimidated person.? That absolutely describes you! ?A person that lacks courage in facing difficulty.? Yup, that?s also you! Tell me where I?m wrong.

The rest, well, I?ve no interest in your dick measuring contest. I know my lifestyle?

mrasg1 wrote:
Wow clearly someone that should be carrying
a gun in person-whoa.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
But JSQ vs. waterfront isn't that kind of question. Waterfront is just superior. It is like comparing 140th Street in NYC to W. 72nd Street on Central Park in Manhattan. Paying the same for both just doesn't make sense.

I won?t argue that the prices should be the same, but Newport condos do have a walk to the PATH. From my understanding, these buildings will basically have a PATH entrance inside them.

This project is part of a renaissance of the area (at least in theory). The towers will go up and the restaurants and eateries in the area should improve to service those paying luxury rental prices.

Newport is not much closer to Grove than Journal Square is. Think about restaurant row on Newark Ave. Do a simple Google Map of it and you?re looking at a 5 minute difference walking to Barcade, or a dollar or two price difference in a cab.

I personally find the Newport section very boring and vanilla. The restaurants over there are overpriced for average food or they are chains. I would take the Indian restaurants over them every day of the week.

In terms of safety, there really isn?t much of an argument. Newport does have that. This should be the price difference. I also expect it to be priced at a lower point than Newport when the project finally comes online.

Pebble wrote:

It?s simple: the only people, not in law enforcement, which want to carry a gun, are doing so out of fear. Guns serve one purpose and one purpose along: death. You can?t double it over as a means to travel to work. You can?t use it to cut your hair. You can?t use it to pay a parking meter. It?s design, it?s intent, it?s purpose is death.

Point a gun at someone?s face. Their response is fear, fear of death. Thus you?re saying that you need this ability because of a surprise situation in which your life or family?s is threatened. Somehow, your cat-like reflexes will remove a pistol from a concealed position in such a way that the criminal surprising you will be unable to actually create the situation of grave threat.

No. We both know that is BS. The only hope is that the situation calms enough to the point that the perpetrator is leaving so that the gun handler can extract street justice.

Think about it. If someone mugger comes up and points a gun at your wife, is your first reaction to pull out the gun or to try and calm the guy to the point that your wife is safe? You are smart enough to know that if you pull your gun while it is pointed at her head, the likely response by the criminal is her immediate death followed by your own. It is far easier for the person with the weapon already drawn to fire off rounds than it is for other opposition to even draw.

I?ve already given my story about a gun pointed in my face. I have no belief that people looking for trouble find it. Circumstances occur, just as that unfortunate man found when he died over a Land Rover.

The fact that you feel the need to walk around with a knife, shows that you are very much afraid of the dark. I?ve walked through the Montgomery Projects, granted it was early morning, and didn?t feel the need to have a weapon on me. I?ve walked into Crown Fried Chicken late on a Saturday night and didn?t feel the need to have a weapon on me.

On a regular basis, I deal with areas vastly more dangerous than you would ever venture into. I am no superman but I also don?t think there is some violent attacker at every turn. Considering all that, I?ve never been in a situation, including one where a gun was pointed between my eyes, in which I thought, ?If only I had gun, I would be safer.? Only fools and cowards think that.

Quote:

Seagull wrote:
I think Pebble just doesn't want to end up in the in morgue the next time he's trying to mug/rape/kill you. But in all seriousness, I don't understand your incessant need to call average citizens names for being prepared for a grave situation. It's childish and immature behavior on your part Pebble, like a spoiled kid that doesn't get their way.

Calling names? No. I?m calling it as it is.

People that hate others because of their race are racists. People that feel the need to walk down the street with a weapon of death are cowards. This is simply a fact.

boomer wrote:
We need to follow Florida's lead, become a shall carry state and pass a law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms. I need to carry my .357 to work, my kids school, to church, to Target and to the bar when I get my drink on. And I need to stay proficient by shooting targets in my backyard.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/0 ... ges-idUSBREA251JV20140306

/*sarcasm off*/

user1111 wrote:

People don't realize that criminals are more likely to arm themselves with firearms if they suspect that victims may also be armed. Felons report that they often carry firearms to deter victims from resisting. A victim drawing a gun during an attack sends a signal to the offender that more force must be used to overpower the victim during an attack.

Pebble wrote:

Fear of the dark is cowardice. Fear of walking down the street without a gun is the same.

You aren?t accurate about height, weight nor age. I just don?t walk around looking for trouble or decide that everyone I meet may be a gangster. I certainly think it is possible that there are certain thugs, quite a few of them given their rage and propensity for violence, that could dispatch with me easily. That doesn?t mean I?m going to run home crying at the sheer sight of them.

If you are afraid to walk down the street without a gun, why would you live in that area? If you are afraid to go to a certain restaurant in an area of town without a gun, why go to the restaurant?

I simply cannot comprehend this overwhelming fear that people have of the world.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Just curious why you hated Newport with such a passion. It's clean, has reasonable access to amenities, great views and commute to NY. I could see not liking it - it's not really my taste either - but HATING it and looking to move after a month?

Neighbor/management drama. I'll leave it at that.

But you're right about all of that. The thing to note though is that it has a very specific crowd that lives there. It is very different than say, downtown JC, or NYC, or pretty much anywhere else I have lived. It didn't mesh at all. I will also note that the construction quality is absolute crap. You can hear everything. Far too many people there tend to live in apartments and you have people quite literally renting beds in their hallways.

Moved after a few months and have been very happy in JC since.

I agree with you a 100% on this. I dated someone who lived there and hated the vibe of the area and the apartment had paper walls for all that $$$ did not make sense to me.

JCishome wrote:
Just curious why you hated Newport with such a passion. It's clean, has reasonable access to amenities, great views and commute to NY. I could see not liking it - it's not really my taste either - but HATING it and looking to move after a month?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

I have lived in over a dozen rentals and places and never once considered ditching the place and getting out. With Newport, we started listing the apartment on CL within a month of moving in.

A dozen rentals !

Boy thats a lot. I wonder who or what could possibly have caused you to continually keep moving ? Lets hope the 'we' didn't have to suffer too much stress with all the moves!

NewportNJ wrote:

I am from BK too, so dont think you are MisterBK know it all here. BK has some nice areas but those are few and far in between, of course the exact samething can be said of JC.

Up until I moved to Newport, I thought JC was shhit too, but boy was I wrong. Being merely 2-3 stops to Manhattan centers, with all the amenities you will ever want, where in nice parts of BK can you do that? Don't even try bringing Billyburg and Redhook or even LIC into the conversation, those places are shhit compared to Newport.

user1111 wrote:
[quote]
Well after I graduated, I lived in HK in Manhattan and did not like as much as my home town Williamsburg, BK.

If you are not from BK its hard to explain what Manhattan does not have that BK does.

I am hoping to sell my two homes in JC by 2016 and return back to BK. I like JC but it has too many issues that probably wont be resolve in the next four years.

Pebble wrote:
For all of the cowards, do you walk around with a knife now? You can certainly conceal one a lot easier than a gun. You would also be able to increase your defense abilities with one than without. After all, the entire need of a gun is to increase your abilities to defend yourself given your fear of walking down the street.

Quote:

AlexC wrote:
you can call it anything you want, but for me it's Insurance - just in case. in that one event where there is no other recourse. and I will train at the range and compete in IDPA as much as I can and practice with my firearm. I want to be able to shoot back if I have to. I don't think this is cowardice - it's being prepared.

It?s being prepared?because you are so very afraid that each and every day there might be a situation that you just can?t walk away from.

Yes, the underlying reason you want to carry a gun is fear.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
You can consider me a coward but I'll still happily take my gun, thank you very much. The fact that it can kill multiple people in seconds is what makes it so very fantastic. When I see several shady characters approaching me at night I certainly would feel far safer. But I'm sure you're such a strong, valiant man that when you'll be middle aged that you will beat the crap out of several thugs at the same time. Best of luck with that.

As for how someone is alive without this, that is neither here nor there. I have an acquaintance that was an ex-heroin user. The fact that he is alive doesn't in any way negate the fact that heroin addiction often ends with death.

You know nothing of my age. I?ve lived long enough and traveled well enough that I know third world conditions, I know ghettos and I know that the only people that feel the need to carry a gun every time they step out of the house is a coward.

The drug dealer is afraid that his stash will be stolen or that a rival will shoot him. You are afraid to walk down the street.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
KRE, Kushner says, plans to price its Journal Squared rentals at around $300 less per unit than its downtown Jersey City project, and at around $500 to $600 less per unit than its waterfront rentals. He expects rents will begin at roughly $1,500 a month for studios and go up to $3,500 for three-bedrooms.


Wow... I thought I was doing well getting $1,850 for a three bedroom. There is really that much demand for $3,500 per month three bedroom apartments?

These are projections, when the buildings are completed in a few years don't be surprised if the rents are closer to what is being charged on the waterfront for similar units. The cost of new construction which continues to rise and the marketplace will dictate the final rent levels.

Why would anyone pay waterfront prices to live in JSQ?

I ask myself regularly why would any one pay 2500 or more to rent anywhere in Jersey City, but folks do. I wouldn't, I would head back to Brooklyn.

Explain that for us. Your statement implies that Brooklyn is somehow superior, which I don't buy. I can buy that Manhattan is better but I draw the line at Brooklyn. In addition, luxury modern construction in Brooklyn is no cheaper, and many of us work in NJ, so commuting from Brooklyn to further out in NJ wouldn't work.

But JSQ vs. waterfront isn't that kind of question. Waterfront is just superior. It is like comparing 140th Street in NYC to W. 72nd Street on Central Park in Manhattan. Paying the same for both just doesn't make sense.

I am born in raised in Brooklyn and in my mind it will always be superior to JC, better schools, night life, culture, and 24 hr transportation... and in some ways even better than Manhattan.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

NewportNJ wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
KRE, Kushner says, plans to price its Journal Squared rentals at around $300 less per unit than its downtown Jersey City project, and at around $500 to $600 less per unit than its waterfront rentals. He expects rents will begin at roughly $1,500 a month for studios and go up to $3,500 for three-bedrooms.


Wow... I thought I was doing well getting $1,850 for a three bedroom. There is really that much demand for $3,500 per month three bedroom apartments?

These are projections, when the buildings are completed in a few years don't be surprised if the rents are closer to what is being charged on the waterfront for similar units. The cost of new construction which continues to rise and the marketplace will dictate the final rent levels.

Why would anyone pay waterfront prices to live in JSQ?

I ask myself regularly why would any one pay 2500 or more to rent anywhere in Jersey City, but folks do. I wouldn't, I would head back to Brooklyn.

Newport, Crystal Point, Trump?. ever heard of those?

Yes, and they all not worth it IMO.

they're not worth it or you can't afford it?

I guess I can't afford it due to the 4 mortgages I already have here in JC and Brooklyn.

Also I was not a fan of cookie cutter Apt's, I like Brownstones, Victorian homes, etc something with character. Thank Gd I am handy and don't need to hire contractors for anything.

I made one mistake by purchasing an apt downtown JC in the mid 90's and hated all the bullshit that came along with it.. . I prefer buying homes, not into an apartment building. To each his own.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
KRE, Kushner says, plans to price its Journal Squared rentals at around $300 less per unit than its downtown Jersey City project, and at around $500 to $600 less per unit than its waterfront rentals. He expects rents will begin at roughly $1,500 a month for studios and go up to $3,500 for three-bedrooms.


Wow... I thought I was doing well getting $1,850 for a three bedroom. There is really that much demand for $3,500 per month three bedroom apartments?

These are projections, when the buildings are completed in a few years don't be surprised if the rents are closer to what is being charged on the waterfront for similar units. The cost of new construction which continues to rise and the marketplace will dictate the final rent levels.

Why would anyone pay waterfront prices to live in JSQ?

I ask myself regularly why would any one pay 2500 or more to rent anywhere in Jersey City, but folks do. I wouldn't, I would head back to Brooklyn.