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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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