Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
96 user(s) are online (86 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 96

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Bubble_Tea)




Re: Waldo Lofts
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

NewportNJ wrote:
Waldo is getting surrounded as I type this.


I like the building.

Something to keep in mind, as the guy above mentioned, there is a lot of construction in the area right now. In the long term, I think this is great for the area. But the new buildings will block some of the views in Waldo lofts condos, depending on the location of the unit. And in the short term there will likely be a lot of construction noise, dust, etc.

Immediately south of Waldo Lofts, a 12 story building is being constructed with 120 rental units. (148 First St.)

One block to the east, a 35 story building is going up with 350 rental units (110 First St).

Also, near to the Grove path entrance closest to Waldo lofts, Provost Square will be 38 stories and 70 & 90 Columbus will be 50 stories.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 15:05
 Top 


Re: What do we think of Hamilton Square South?
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

RUrahrah wrote:
Per our last condo meeting in the HP-North its going to start next year. No time frame yet, but just next year. Will include retail and parking from what i remember too and also said its all rentals, though Silverman will be doing paperwork for condo too - depends on demand.


Thanks. Seems like all of the developers are planning rental with option for change to condo for some or all of the units, depending on changing market conditions.

Posted on: 2013/9/18 6:20
 Top 


Re: What do we think of Hamilton Square South?
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Anyone have an update for this project? Is it still on hold?

Posted on: 2013/9/16 18:28
 Top 


Re: The Bath House in Jersey City (Coles b/w Columbus and 1st) - HELP
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


Not sure about any issues or flooding. It's a fairly new condo conversion, as I am sure you are aware. Do you know the area well? Have you lived in downtown Jersey City before?

Posted on: 2013/9/16 15:49
 Top 


Re: Colgate Clock returning
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Awesome! It's taking a long time, but the development of the small park around that area seems to be coming along nicely

Posted on: 2013/9/16 15:40
 Top 


Re: Upscale ‘Madox’ Leased Up in Jersey City
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


True that Beacon is a different market even though it's part of the same city.

In Paulus Hook there are a lot more rental buildings going up. It should be interesting to see if they are as successful as the Madox and how they effect the rental market.

Here are the projects I know of in Paulus Hook and the immediately surrounding area (i.e. south of Montgomery). This list doesn't include the many other projects going on in the rest of the downtown area.

- Almost across the street from the Madox, the Lofts at Van Vorst will have 83 rental units.

- Near Gulls Cove, 18 Park will have 422 rental units.

- The Warren at York will have 139 rental units.

- I'm not sure what the status is of the 99 Hudson tower(s) or if the project will ever break ground. I read that the application was for 1,000 rental units and that it would be the tallest residential building in Jersey City.

- There are also a couple small condo projects in the works in the area

Posted on: 2013/9/6 15:56
 Top 


Re: MorrisCanal Park -- for dogs or kids?
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:

By that I don't just mean stricter enforcement of leash laws, but funding for cleaning, possibly a dog run, etc. The bottom line is that you'll see changes in the future, but it's going to take time, probably not until next spring.

In the meantime, when you see dogs off leash, you must call 201-547-5477 and they will dispatch animal control.



I did see the other thread but thought it was noteworthy that the issue was previously extensively discussed on a thread specifically about Morris Canal Park. It's a shame that this has been a problem for so long.

Your quoted comments above are great news. I'm really hoping for meaningful change.

I am concerned that many dog owners would prefer to see the park remain in bad shape to avoid having a dog run installed because that kind of mentality could hold up any plans to fix the problem.

Posted on: 2013/9/4 21:29
 Top 


Re: MorrisCanal Park -- for dogs or kids?
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Morris Canal Park desperately needs a dog run area and leash laws need to be enforced. I see from this thread that this problem goes back years. I am a dog lover and have owned dogs for most of my life, but it has now gotten to the point that the area is known as a "dog park" and people without dogs simply don't want to be there. That's wrong. It's such a beautiful area that people should be able to enjoy, even if it isn't developed any time soon.

Posted on: 2013/9/4 20:29
 Top 


Re: Upscale ‘Madox’ Leased Up in Jersey City
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


Pretty impressive considering the building is not right next to the path relative to some of the other rental buildings. It's a 10min walk to the Grove path according to Google Maps.

I think this shows that people really like the Paulus Hook neighborhood.

Posted on: 2013/9/4 18:37
 Top 


Re: NY TIMES: Have New Yorkers finally discovered Jersey City?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Dahood wrote:
Who wants the mega rich to live here. Educated White collar professionals are moving to the area. With all the violent crime that happens there, Greenville and Bergen Lafayette are closer to Newark and Irvington than DTJC.

Once again separating yourself from a neighborhood that is in your backyard shows me who you are and how pathetic your reality is. So you and your buddy can shit on Bushwick or East New York but guess what these places are in New York City with a NYC zip code, and the both of you are not LMAO.

When NYC local news reports a murder in Jersey City the reporter does not give a specific location of the area the reporter usually reports a murder happened in Jersey City not Greenville.

The only news source that does that is the Jersey Journal to keep scared white people interested in DTJC.
I have been a resident of Greenville for 3 years and love it. I don't buy into the idiotic scare tactics of the Jersey Journal or the Hating on my neighborhood by a$$holes because he fears his property values may go down. FYI the white collar workers are already flocking to GV and BL but the two of you have your head so far up your ass to know it. Have a great weekend shopping on Newark ave.


If the destiny of down town JC is linked to the rest of JC, then the down town area is doomed. Fortunately that is not at all the case.

Developers are once again developing in the down town area at rapid paces and more and more people are moving in despite the crime in other areas of the city.

I would like to point out again that Tribeca real estate prices aren't dropping just because there is crime in the Bronx or even in Harlem. And yet they are all part of the same city. user1111's analysis is completely flawed.

With that said, I would of course like to see less crime in the rest of JC! I just don't think it's linked in the way that user1111 thinks it is.

Posted on: 2013/8/19 18:10
 Top 


Re: Boy hit by car at Hamilton Park
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Agreed Leigh. So my question to everyone is: what are you going to do to help address this? Leave snarky comments on a message board or actually do something to help it?

Quote:

leigh13 wrote:
Let's see, so far we have blamed:

1. The driver
2. Cars parked too close to the corners
3. The boy's parents
4. SUVs
5. The city for its apathy toward pedestrian safety

Anything I missed? I would like to point out that the boy or driver might have been distracted by unleashed dogs in the park. Or by all the noise and trash from the basketball courts.


In all seriousness, that intersection is certainly in need of some added safety measures. A stop sign for drivers turning left from 8th St onto Jersey Ave would go a long way.


"2. Cars parked too close to the corners"

Is the one item that the City can immediately and easily fix!

Posted on: 2013/8/19 14:53
 Top 


Re: Boy hit by car at Hamilton Park
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Because of tight parking, people are parking closer to intersections, obstructing a clear view, especially those SUV's which are incredibly unnecessary. I have regularly noticed cars parking very close to the corner at the east, south corner of 8th and Jersey as well as many of the other local intersections. I'm not suggesting that parking caused the problem in this instance, but it certainly heightens the possibility of other similar incidents.


This is like a reflex to you, isn't it? The car was standing at a stop signal, preparing to turn left, - in order for it to be attributed to an obstruction by a parked car, it should have been parked not just way on the crosswalk, but double-parked too.


Not true at all. Take a walk around the area and look closely at how much vision is blocked, even by cars that are a car's length and more away from the corner. When combined with the fact that drivers speed through intersections it's extremely dangerous.

In one of the accidents I saw on the corner of Eerie and Third the car w/ the stop sign correctly stopped at the stop sign and they STILL hit each other!! No double parking. and the cars were parked legally. Both drivers said they couldn't see over parked SUVs!

Posted on: 2013/8/19 14:51
 Top 


Re: Boy hit by car at Hamilton Park
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Because of tight parking, people are parking closer to intersections, obstructing a clear view, especially those SUV's which are incredibly unnecessary. I have regularly noticed cars parking very close to the corner at the east, south corner of 8th and Jersey as well as many of the other local intersections. I'm not suggesting that parking caused the problem in this instance, but it certainly heightens the possibility of other similar incidents.


THIS is a huge problem. I witnessed two accidents near the Hamilton park area living there just 2 years. And in one of them, I was almost hit and the woman directly next to me did get hit. This parking issue was the cause in both cases.

It's extremely dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. I don't care if there is a shortage of parking spaces. I have a car too. People can pay to park in garages if they can't find a spot. Safety comes first. They absolutely need to move parking back even more from the corners.

Posted on: 2013/8/19 5:49
 Top 


Re: NY TIMES: Have New Yorkers finally discovered Jersey City?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

user1111 wrote:

Until people in JC considers all of JC as a region we will always be full of shit here. Most people who live dtjc disconnect themselves from the rest of the city.



I couldn't disagree with the first sentence more. People most certainly see Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens and even Manhattan in terms of regions and yet they are all part of NYC. Demand for real estate in Tribeca or the Upper East Side is not decreasing because of crime in Harlem or the Bronx.

Downtown is a totally different area than most of the rest of JC whether you like that or not. It has far less crime (especially violent), is much more developed in terms of building, has a different racial and cultural make-up and forms a different socio-economic class. Some people may dislike some of these differences, but they are facts of reality. So it's no wonder that people disconnect themselves between the two areas.

I understand the incentive to paint the picture of JC you're trying to create. You want to pull money and resources from one area of the city to another. That's understandable if you have some sort of connection to areas that will benefit from that. But let's be honest. Without the money coming into DTJC, there's no one to loot!

Posted on: 2013/8/16 20:46
 Top 


Re: NY TIMES: Have New Yorkers finally discovered Jersey City?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:


Our neighbors across the river are finally discovering what the Australians evidently figured out a few years ago



Not to mention, Asian immigrants!

How much did the Australians really buy? Are we talking numerous brownstones or is that just a hyped story?

Posted on: 2013/8/16 18:27
 Top 


Re: NY TIMES: Have New Yorkers finally discovered Jersey City?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:
Lastly, the very people that might be attracted to JC by an article like this are probably not going to be as affected by a reval as those long time residents whose homes are valued at a quarter of the market rate.


The JC down town area has a ton of development going on, which makes it newsworthy for those who live in the general NYC area. I don't think anyone is attracted to JC simply by a NYT article. But it's nice to see it show up on the media's radar from time to time, as it should. And giving it that well-deserved attention goes a long way over time in building a general positive reputation, which IS a reason that people move to a new area.

Posted on: 2013/8/16 17:16
 Top 


Re: NY TIMES: Have New Yorkers finally discovered Jersey City?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

No its shouldn't. This type of kiss-assery really needs to stop.


That's silly. Is all marketing "kiss-assery"?

Posted on: 2013/8/16 16:03
 Top 


Re: Fulton's Landing
Home away from home
Home away from home


I've been in the building and have talked to people who have lived there, but haven't lived in it myself.

I think the finishes and construction are on-par with the other nearby Paulus Hook mid-rise buildings built from 2000 to 2010. I guess Sugar House lofts and high rises like 77 Hudson would be an exception, but the prices reflect that and the fees are much higher in those buildings as well.

The prices seem a little higher at Pier House because it's right on the canal and has a nice swimming pool. I don't think that's related to construction quality. In fact, Pier House was constructed earlier and its original finishes are a bit dated, although I see that many owners have updated their units in that building.

I have heard some of the residents complain about the electric cooling and heating systems. I've dealt with them in rental buildings and was NOT a fan myself.

149 Essex is in a great spot near the end of Morris Canal and the immediate area is being built up even more with the Madox across the street (where the mayor is a current resident according to the NYT) Also, a new 8 story, 83 Unit residential building is going up very close by at 203-207 Van Vorst--almost across the street.

I can't speak to the flooding issues. But aside from that point, I think it offers great value for the price relative to some of the other options in the area. Although, I have seen recent listings for much higher amounts than what was previously available.

Posted on: 2013/8/16 15:56

Edited by Bubble_Tea on 2013/8/16 16:13:28
 Top 


Re: NY TIMES: Have New Yorkers finally discovered Jersey City?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Kind of silly that the author just throws in at the end of the article the massive amount of development going on within a relatively small area of downtown JC, almost as an afterthought. That's the big news and what makes the state of JC real estate newsworthy in the first place. It should have been near the top of the first page.

Here is the quote, near the bottom of the second page of the article:

"Developers are building, and not just along the waterfront. Citywide, 2,610 units of housing are under construction and 11,405 more have been given the green light, according to the mayor?s office. In fact, the city has enough developable land available to fill all of Hoboken, which is one square mile. But the construction is still not keeping pace with demand. In July there was only a two-month supply of available homes downtown, according to Liberty Realty."

Posted on: 2013/8/16 15:30
 Top 


Re: NY TIMES: Have New Yorkers finally discovered Jersey City?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
Taking the Path "train" implies distance. From a proximity standpoint just take the subway, the Path line, ok? Of course this simple marketing change may help some new yorkers break their neuronal barriers but the question is whether we would really want that many of them to settle here...


I totally agree with this. The Path should just be the "P" line or some other letter. It looks and functions just like the subway, although it's usually a bit cleaner. And you can use a metro card to get on. I think from a marketing standpoint that assigning it a letter would go a long way to undo the psychological barrier mentioned in the article that New Yorkers have of commuting to JC. Brooklyn'ers also cross a river to get home, so there's really no reason for it.

Posted on: 2013/8/16 15:22
 Top 


Re: An open letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC (brace yourselves)
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JerseyAveGirl wrote:
Quote:

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 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.


This may sound weird...but I think there is another park close by with the same view??? LIBERTY STATE PARK which is HUGE.


All the more reason why it makes so much more sense to have off-leash hours at LSP, NOT Morris Canal Park!

With all of that space they won't: (a) dominate the entire park, (b) give the community the sense that the park is for dogs, and (c) be far less likely to bother people.

Posted on: 2013/8/15 18:03
 Top 


Re: appraisal contingency
Home away from home
Home away from home


Cool. That works if you have on hand: 20% (or whatever your loan amount is) + 15K + closing costs.

Posted on: 2013/8/15 17:59
 Top 


Re: appraisal contingency
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

cancoloftyesno wrote:
Quote:

JoeGee wrote:
You will definitely get a mortgage, the question is will a lender give you what you need. Have you asked your agent for recent comps?



what recent comps?


Honestly, the whole appraisal process is a load of crap. The bank makes a decision in advance based on current internal bank policy, a risk assessment for the area and very general market trends and then locates comps to justify it. The comps often aren't even very good choices relative to others that could be picked.

Posted on: 2013/8/15 17:35
 Top 


Re: An open letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC (brace yourselves)
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

mdips wrote:
Quote:


Yes, I would definitely support development of the park either way.

I was getting the sense that dog owners would prefer not to have a developed park if it meant that their dogs would be confined to a dog run. I'm glad that you are not in that camp. Please clarify if I understood you incorrectly.

I would prefer a dog run to off-leash hours. That's what the parks in NYC and Brooklyn have and they work great. But, sure, I would prefer specified off-leash hours to no measures at all. I think it would make sense to have them be early morning and late night, when most dog owners walk their dogs anyway. Also, I doubt dogs care about the time of day they are out. If this is about the dogs, the owners can deal with that inconvenience.

Since you are making the proposal, would you be in favor of having off-leash hours now, even though the park has not been developed?


At least we can finally agree that it's possible for us to both want the park developed even if we both have different ideas of how we would want it done.

And since you brought up the fact that dog runs worked for NYC and brooklyn you should know that actually all 5 Bouroughs have numerous parks allowing for off leash hours. (And to be specific I'm not referring to dog runs here, but actual off leash hours within parks)
Bronx: 18 parks
Brooklyn: 22 parks
Manhattan: 4 parks
Queens: 18 parks
Staten Island: 14 parks
(taken from city of NY Parks & Recreation page)

We are only asking for 1 out of the nearly 60 parks in Jersey City to allow for off leash hours.

I would be ok with the institution of off leash hours now, especially given the alternative is the potential for a pricey ticket. And would make a transition easier on dog owners currently using the park.

And thank you for clarifying that you were only'getting the sense' that dog owners don't want development. Prior you were positioning that statement as if it were fact which was really my only contention. Continuously throughout this thread dog owners have been grouped together as an uncaring group that have no pride in their community or neighborhood. I can say that for a large part of the owners I deal with that is widely false.


Given its size LSP would make a heck of a lot more sense for having off-leash hours. The policy is much less likely to bother people there.

Again, I understand you to be saying that you would SUPPORT development of the park even if it was determined with finality at the outset of development discussions that there would be a dog park and that leash laws would be enforced. Do you agree with this specific statement?

I don't think the issue is that dog owners don't have pride in the community. I think it's that they often put their dogs before other community members.

Posted on: 2013/8/15 14:38
 Top 


Re: An open letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC (brace yourselves)
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:

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.




Exactly right. People literally view the park as being a dog park--not a person park. That's a big problem.

Posted on: 2013/8/15 5:06
 Top 


Re: An open letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC (brace yourselves)
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

mdips wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

mdips wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:

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.


It seems like you are getting aggravated because I am not agreeing with your opinion.

I have not dodged any questions. You asked my opinion of a dog run. I told you I would not support the building of a dog run, mainly because my dog likes to swim in the river. Unless a dog run can somehow encompass or allow my dog access to swim it wouldn't really be a solution for me.

Again, I have not dodged anything. Since the beginning of the debate I have stated that I would support the institution of off leash hours, however you seem to have ignored that. Maybe because it doesn't fit with the solution you would want, I don't know. Please let me know your thoughts.

I am completely in support of developing and improving the park, however it is my opinion that the best solution for both parties would be developing the park without a dog run and allowing for off leash hours.

It is your opinion that the development of the park needs to include a dog run.

Both opinions can be allowed to exist in a debate. Just because I don't agree with your opinion for what should be part of the development does not mean I oppose the development of the park.


mdips, you have yet to answer my second question:

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?

Are you unwilling to answer this?


Have you read any of my responses? I said I am in support of the development of the park. It may not end up the way I would prefer but that's why I would make sure to be involved in the actual debate over what the planning would be.

And you have yet to answer my question. Would you support development of the park if it meant the institution of legal off leash hours for dog owners instead of a dog run? Stop avoiding my question in preference of your own.


Yes, I would definitely support development of the park either way.

I was getting the sense that dog owners would prefer not to have a developed park if it meant that their dogs would be confined to a dog run. I'm glad that you are not in that camp. Please clarify if I understood you incorrectly.

I would prefer a dog run to off-leash hours. That's what the parks in NYC and Brooklyn have and they work great. But, sure, I would prefer specified off-leash hours to no measures at all. I think it would make sense to have them be early morning and late night, when most dog owners walk their dogs anyway. Also, I doubt dogs care about the time of day they are out. If this is about the dogs, the owners can deal with that inconvenience.

Since you are making the proposal, would you be in favor of having off-leash hours now, even though the park has not been developed?

Posted on: 2013/8/14 22:49
 Top 


Re: An open letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC (brace yourselves)
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

mdips wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:

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.


It seems like you are getting aggravated because I am not agreeing with your opinion.

I have not dodged any questions. You asked my opinion of a dog run. I told you I would not support the building of a dog run, mainly because my dog likes to swim in the river. Unless a dog run can somehow encompass or allow my dog access to swim it wouldn't really be a solution for me.

Again, I have not dodged anything. Since the beginning of the debate I have stated that I would support the institution of off leash hours, however you seem to have ignored that. Maybe because it doesn't fit with the solution you would want, I don't know. Please let me know your thoughts.

I am completely in support of developing and improving the park, however it is my opinion that the best solution for both parties would be developing the park without a dog run and allowing for off leash hours.

It is your opinion that the development of the park needs to include a dog run.

Both opinions can be allowed to exist in a debate. Just because I don't agree with your opinion for what should be part of the development does not mean I oppose the development of the park.


mdips, you have yet to answer my second question:

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?

Are you unwilling to answer this?

Posted on: 2013/8/14 21:53
 Top 


Re: appraisal contingency
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
If it appraises under what is expected and you could no longer get a mortgage wouldn't that just fix the issue, regardless of the appraisal contingency?


No. That's the whole point of waiving the appraisal contingency. If you can't get a mortgage for the full amount because it doesn't appraise, you are still on the hook and seller can take your deposit and perhaps sue you for the balance!

I suppose that if you can't get a mortgage for some other reason, than the mortgage contingency provision would still apply. But I'd be concerned under those circumstances, where it didn't appraise, that Seller would still try to keep the deposit, and then you would have a legal dispute on your hands.

Posted on: 2013/8/14 20:08
 Top 


Re: An open letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC (brace yourselves)
Home away from home
Home away from home


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.

Posted on: 2013/8/14 19:50
 Top 


Re: An open letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC (brace yourselves)
Home away from home
Home away from home


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.

Posted on: 2013/8/14 19:10
 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