Area_Man wrote:
Are you seriously criticizing people for the kind of dogs they own?

Please, tell us which breeds you approve for urban living.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Correct djjcview. Asking an owner of an active dog why they bought an active dog in a cramped city with no official resources for them to utilize would be a much, much better question.

No one wants to answer that question, though. The usual answers are "who are you tell me what I can own" or something more rude to that effect. It's a reasonable question to ask to someone older than 5 years old, who, one would hope, operates on more than the id.

downright wrote:
Was planning on renewing my permit next week. How long has this policy been in effect?

Being denied a permit just because you have the option of paying for a private spot is absolutely ridiculous.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Are you slow, or just willfully ignorant? I said "guys like you", not people like you. You're implying a racist comment, when I clearly was referring to those who spew bullshit.

I don't even know or care what color you are, so you keep your assumptions to your yourself buddy.

Defensive much? That?s a serious accusation and I implied no such thing. Point is, guys are people too, and if you want to talk about ?guys like me,? you must think you know a lot about me. That takes more than a few assumptions, making your objection about my assumptions all the more hypocritical. That?s all, but thanks for jumping straight to racism.

scubachris wrote:
So I went into the Jersey City Parking Authority yesterday to transfer my parking permit to my new car and the lady there informed me of a new ordinance. Apparently, you can no longer get a street parking permit if you live in a building that offers you parking. Has anyone else heard anything about this?

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about someone you don't know.

A lot of assumptions? I?ve certainly made a few obvious ones?after all, you?ve expressed yourself quite candidly in the past month?but it?s funny you should take exception after leveling criticism against me using the words, ?People like you.? Now if you don't mind, I think that's enough.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about someone you don't know.

A lot of assumptions? I?ve certainly made a few obvious ones?after all, you?ve expressed yourself quite candidly in the past month?but it?s funny you should take exception after leveling criticism against me using the words, ?People like you.? Now if you don't mind, I think that's enough.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:

I, for one, would rather submit to a stop and frisk search than an armed robbery. Maybe you feel differently.

It's generous of you to be so hypothetically cooperative, but innocent victims of unconstitutionally overzealous police work don?t seem to agree.

You?re ?here to weave through the bullshit,? huh? You might want to start weaving your way through the perspectives of your fellow countrymen and women who aren?t members of a privileged demographic group.

Vigilante wrote:
Yes, all those things will happen. HAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mdips wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
DTJC, I am on the yahoo group too and have made my points there as well. I'm hitting all fronts on this issue.

However, I feel the idea of off leash hours is a terrible one...in the beginning. It's bad enough people treat the parking lot in front of the park as a parking lot (it's not, and you can and will eventually get towed for being there) to visit the park.

Lately we've had problems of people speeding into that lot to get to the "dog park" and have almost hit people (people with baby carriages mind you)...many times. It's only a matter of time until a fight breaks out. I'm not kidding.

That said, we're already having a hard enough time dispelling the notion that it's a dog park. That will change in time as we fight for increased enforcement with fines, as well as get increased signage.

Once the overall mentality has changed, signs have been put up and enforcement is assured (for clean up and leash laws), then yes, it might be a good idea to implement off leash hours.

Until those things have happened, I don't see that compromise even being considered.

I think your logic is actually reversed in this thought. In my opinion it would be much easier to transition from the parks current state to limiting it to off leash hours. Telling people they can use the park on a limited basis seems like it could be much better received than asking them to cut out completely.

Also, be careful again with the generalizations. Not all the people that park in that area are dog owners. A number of people park there for various reasons. There are a couple that park there every morning to work in the towers. Some people park there to fish and a number are also there to bring their children to come play at the park. Not to mention the ones that park their late at night and hang out in the park and their cars after hours. Or the occasional car/bike meetup groups that like use it as a meeting place to show off their cars on the weekends.

Again, I'm not saying dog owners don't do it but it's not the group solely responsible for the problem.

And lets not forget that the only reported incident I can recall at the park of a fight was a non-dog owner attacking and beating a woman because her dog was off leash.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:

It's not semantics Frank, you can't bend facts and quotes to make them fit your narrative. If public consensus was that the earth was flat, it doesn't change the objective truth that it's not.

All of your fancy SAT words (more like hyperbole) can't correct the fact that you're wrong.

The popular consensus regarding Benjamin Franklin's statement involves the potential of security to cost us the price of liberty, the validity of which has been confirmed by millions of people worldwide. I'm not claiming that's what he meant, but that is the primary reason people invoke his words. Again, the public may be incorrect in the translation, and I'm willing to accept that, but the consensual implication regarding the nature of security and liberty has striking validity. That isn't wrong, you're just making the only argument that allows you to dismiss the subject. Apparently that works for you, but I can't bullshit myself that conveniently.

Fancy SAT words? Really? Got a date for the prom yet?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

MDips - Bubble has a point. Many times in this thread people have expressed they refuse to have a designated dog park because, in their opinion, it would be too small, no matter big they make it (see criticism of VV and HP dog runs).

Exactly.

MDips, I previously asked you how big the dog run would need to be for you to be okay with it and you did not respond to the question. So, how big is big enough?

And let me ask you about the issue we are now discussing directly: Would you support development of the park if it meant construction of a dog run that you felt was "too small" and strict enforcement of leash laws?

Can you please give straight answers to these questions? If you dodge them I think it will be clear to everyone why you are doing so.

For an active dog, I'd say a run the size of the one in Lincoln Park is ideal. HP and VVP dog runs are OK sizes for smaller, less active dogs, and people generally take their dogs there for socializing, not exercise. In figuring minimum size for an active dog run, I'd suggest the space would you need for 3 dog owners to play fetch, without creating a swarm of pets fighting over the same toys - which is about as far as you can throw a ball in 3 different directions.

Interestingly enough, some of the early HP dog run proposals allocated a larger area (2 segments) of the park, but the final design chosen by vote, crammed sports areas into these segments, rendering the dog runs useless for exercising active dogs. Perhaps that's why dog owners let their dogs off leash on the grass when they can get away with it...which is what dog owners did before the dog runs were built.

Lincoln park is a dog run. HP and VVP are dog pens.

Asking an owner of an active dog whether they would support building something useless to them, isn't really much of a question, is it?

Crazy_Chester wrote:
"Stop and Frisk" and "Terry Stops" were not ruled unconstitutional. The way NYC went about them was.

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

It may not seem like it because you're focused solely on Morris Canal park but the city has done a pretty impressive job of developing the waterfront despite a difficult economic and political situation.

I agree 100%. That doesn't change the view held by me, and I'm sure many JC residents, that it would be great to see Morris Canal Park be something other than a glorified dog park.

Quote:

Bubble Tea, has anyone on this board said they would be opposed to development of that park?

I think lots of dog owners would prefer no development of the park if it meant that their dogs would be limited to a dog run and leash rules were enforced. That's pretty obvious.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
No, sir, that's not how it works. You don't just take quotes out of context, and bend them to make them fir your narrative. The person previously quoted Ben Franklin to gain validity behind his/her argument, and it's not valid, and neither is that person's argument.

No, that IS how it works in this case. The only reason that quotation usually enters into a discussion is because it is widely believed to mean that the nature of certain types of security are counterproductive to the goal of liberty. Perhaps that?s not what Mr. Franklin meant, but that?s what it means to Americans today.

Likewise, the Theory of Relativity isn't E=MxC^2 but that's the association that stuck.

And again no, you illustration is not helpful. Terry stops could net a truckload of Schedule II drug possession arrests in the Financial District every day, but there?s a powerful double-standard in place that would never let it happen. It's not hard to spot a coked-up asshole, whether he's wearing a suit or not.

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Just saw this sad but true quote in an article:

"Peninsula Park is a great parcel of land that has unfortunately been deteriorating for years and acts solely as a local non-fenced dog park these days. "

Link: http://thejerseycitylife.com/?p=384

We have a glorified dog park in one of the best locations for a beautiful park imaginable that actual PEOPLE could be enjoying.

It's a park that no one would want to picnic or relax in because dogs would be racing by and over you and because you would be would eating on top of a dog toilet.

And we have dog owners that would literally oppose development of the park if it meant that the construction of a fenced in dog run area.

Area_Man wrote:
Since you have all the answers have you considered running for office?

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Everyone quotes this Ben Franklin line as if they actually understand it.

Yeah yeah, everybody knows a guy who?s the first to say, ?Well, actually,? no matter the topic, but whatever Bonhomme Richard meant, the popular meaning holds water. Sure it?s good to be historically accurate, but the point is the point.

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly?s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the ?essential liberty? to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

What?s more the ?purchase [of] a little temporary safety? of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin?s letter, the word ?purchase? does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes?and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier?as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family?s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance?and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned.
Quote:

[quote]
VA2015 wrote:
[quote]
JC_Man wrote:
Please read Wednesday Aug 13 WSJ editorial on this to see how the wacko judge arrived at her ruling.

The same minorities that are "hurt" and "violated" by this policy will now be getting killed and shot even more.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin

VA2015 wrote:
Quote:

JC_Man wrote:
Please read Wednesday Aug 13 WSJ editorial on this to see how the wacko judge arrived at her ruling.

The same minorities that are "hurt" and "violated" by this policy will now be getting killed and shot even more.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" - Ben Franklin