Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
128 user(s) are online (110 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 128

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Bamb00zle)




Re: Trees for the future....
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


BE WARNED. The JCIA / DPW uses street trees as a revenue raising opportunity.

I've lived in DTJC over 15 years, dutifully tending a tree that is on City property in front of my house. It's a lovely Bradford pear, a beautiful tree, although the roots do raise the sidewalk some. I clean up around the tree, weed when needed and trim the suckers that shoot up each year. Have done so for 15 years.

Last year, without any initial request or warning, the City fined me before I had an opportunity to trim the suckers. And before you ask, no they weren't obstructing the sidewalk in any way. Recall I've cared for this tree for 15 years. In all that time I've never seen a City employee go anywhere near the tree.

I called the JCIA, spoke with the Inspector and explained how I care for the tree year in and out. I very respectfully suggested, under the circumstances, they consider issuing a warning rather than a fine. I was bluntly informed ?we don't issue warnings.?

I'm done. I will NEVER plant another tree in Jersey City on the sidewalk where the JCIA or DPW staff can use it as an excuse to extract a fine.

Posted on: 2016/10/29 17:31
 Top 


Re: Historic district may come to Jersey City's West Side
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


itgirl's post made me wonder who is doing what without permits over on Bentley. I trust the City's inspectors go and check things out.

Hmm... interesting case.

The City already permitted the complete demolition of an historic building in the new district. That demolition, occurring after the ordinance passed, was apparently OK. By coincidence, in a stroke of remarkably good timing, the application for the demolition was submitted just before before passage of the new ordinance. See user1111's post #63 below in this thread, and also: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ue_tears_down_buildi.html

So, what surprised me is that the suit has no argument related to the City's powers in respect of historic preservation. The NJ enabling legislation (?MLUL?) is clear in that it permits Cities to regulate ?historic preservation and conservation?. Those are the words from the legislation, thus, it is those activities the City can regulate, at least in respect of a matter like this. Implicit in the meaning of the words ?historic preservation? is the idea that something from the past still exists today to be preserved. Put another way, if it's not there now, then there's nothing to ?preserve.?

So, if the siding this guy removed from his house wasn't the original historic siding then it's over-reach by the City to demand he ?re-create? the historic wood siding for the house. They would be acting beyond their legal authority - ?ultra vires? - because there isn't anything historic to preserve. However, if the siding he removed was the original historic wood siding, then he's out of luck and will need to go to the huge expense of replacing it with ?new? historic wood siding. Seems like a contradiction in terms, ?new? historic siding.... Oh well.

Of course even when legislation limits the City's authority it doesn't always work like that in practice. In Jersey City here's how it actually goes down: The Historic Preservation Officer / Commission withhold permit approvals until a property owner gives them what they want, even when there's nothing historic left to preserve. There's nothing the HPC likes more than to spend other people's money, lots of it, on expensive ?re-creations? of late 19th and early 20th century buildings.

In theory, homeowners could appeal, but that gets expensive and time-consuming. Oftentimes the path of least resistance is to comply with whatever the HPC demands. If a homeowner is broke and can't do what the HPC wants, then they can (must) sell and move ? try living in a house you can't heat because of defective windows or siding you're not permitted to fix.... Now that makes me wonder if there isn't a ?disparate impact? suit hiding in here someplace.... See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_8m58.pdf *

I'd never buy in a historic district for reasons related to the above. The power the City has ? not based in law, but practically speaking by denying permit applications ? makes it very uncertain as to what work an owner will be permitted to undertake on a property and also drives up the costs considerably. Those long, historic wood widows are as much a $3,500 a piece!!


* In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the Court held that disparate impact claims are available under the Fair Housing Act. This allows plaintiffs to challenge housing laws and practices that have a discriminatory effect, even if there is no intent to discriminate.

Posted on: 2016/10/6 1:51
 Top 


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hmm..... seems like a bunch of spin to me jerseymom. I am very curious to see what might happen next. Too many sudden announcements makes it look out of control imho. Could be nothing I'll grant, but my curiosity has been piqued by events of the past few days....

Posted on: 2016/10/4 2:47
 Top 


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


User1111, thanks for posting the cartoon. I found Sheneman's accompanying remarks every bit as entertaining (if not more so) and I wouldn't want anyone to miss a good laugh....

Here you go folks:

?Like a bottle rocket that fails to slip the surly bonds of Earth and instead skitters off the driveway and underneath a bush, such is the nascent gubernatorial candidacy of Jersey City mayor Steve Fulop.

A moment of silence for what might have been.
?
Earlier this week?Mayor Fulop announced to an audience in the tens of people that he would neither seek or accept the Democratic nomination for governor of the great state of New Jersey.?His stated reason for abandoning his once promising campaign is to avoid dragging the Democratic party into an ugly primary battle with opponents Phil Murphy and (probably) Senate President?Steve Sweeney.

That's mighty kind of ya, Steve. Truly a magnanimous act.

The real reason he's not running is that he got caught up in the Bridgegate debacle and a bunch of other unsavory New Jersey political shenanigans like trading favors and awarding contracts to cronies.

He made his name dismantling?a corrupt machine in Jersey City but?it turns out he was only using it for parts.

The announcement certainly came as a blow to?the several dozen people who could recognize him without a name tag.??

Posted on: 2016/10/1 23:05
 Top 


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Brutal read for Fulop supporters.

http://www.njbiz.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... r-fall&template=mobileart


Did y'all see the Sheneman cartoon on NJ.com?

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... n.html#incart_river_index

Best reflection on Fulop I've seen so far: ?He made his name dismantling?a corrupt machine in Jersey City but?it turns out he was only using it for parts.?

Posted on: 2016/10/1 19:11
 Top 


Re: New Jersey and New York at war over replacing Port Authority Bus Terminal
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


I so concur - it is VERY discouraging. The figure I recall for the PATH extension to EWR was over a billion to go less than a mile on track that already exists.... And then there's the $4 billion cost of the "what were they thinking" WTC transit hub - described by none less than the former PA Executive director Pat Foye as a "symbol of excess".... Such a mess.

Posted on: 2016/8/12 19:59
 Top 


Re: New Jersey and New York at war over replacing Port Authority Bus Terminal
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home


Wouldn't it be great to co-mingle PA's strong desire to get rid of PATH, NY's strong desire to get rid of the PA bus terminal, and the critical need for better transit, at a time of record low long-term borrowing costs into a single mega-plan to:

1. Extend the subway(s) across the Hudson river into NJ
2. Move the PA bus terminal into NJ next to the new subway line/s
3. Extend that subway further into NJ to allow removal of the overcrowded JSQ / HOB / 33rd line
4. Transfer ?ownership? of the WTC line to the MTA ? basically making it another subway line.

It could be that everyone gets something they want. The long-suffering, transit riding public gets the subway extended into NJ, with increased capacity to match demand. NYC gets rid of the mid-town PA bus terminal forever. Bus riders get a new terminal next to the new subway to get into NYC, and PA gets rid of PATH.

And how to pay for all this? PA getting rid of PATH saves them $400 million a year. Surely some of that saving could be used to pay interest on a bond issue to fund a portion of the work. Long-term interest rates are at record lows, so a couple of hundred million a year would go a long way. And just how much is that NYC real estate the PA bus terminal sits on worth...? It might pay for a good amount of the work. Maybe a modest $1 surcharge on trans-Hudson subway trips will sweeten the deal for the MTA. Some of the gas-tax increase that will eventually happen.... Dream on....

Posted on: 2016/8/12 19:09
 Top 


Re: Historic Preservation Overreach?
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Here's my take on the HPO/HPC in Jersey City.

A lot of what the HPO/HPC demands is ultra vires. The enabling provisions in the MLUL are for ?preservation? but the HPO/HPC demands ?restoration? and ?reconstruction? work. They get away with it because they have power over issuing approvals, and most people just give in or go away. The appeal process ? first the Zoning Board then the Courts ? is too expensive, cumbersome and time consuming, and the HPO/HPC knows it.

So in response to the OP's question, given how the HPO/HPC operates, it would come as no surprise to me if they are attempting to extend their reach into interior spaces of historic buildings. Per ordinance, every permit application (yes, including water heaters....) for work on a building in a historic district must first be signed off by the HPO. This provides plenty of opportunity for ?regulatory creep.?

In general, with very few exceptions (for example, National Register listing) interiors in privately-owned historic buildings in NJ are beyond the HPO/HPC's grasp, provided the work has no effect on anything visible from a public right of way. However, I'm certain the limits of the enabling legislation won't stop the HPO/HPC once they get started. No, it will take a Court case. On the other side will be an army of ?preservationists? determined to spend other people's money to ?reconstruct? the late 1800's in an historically accurate manner ? lead containing paint and all, no doubt.

For additional information, here are a few useful links: For a collection of some (not all...) of the relevant MLUL provisions see this download at: www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/3preserve/mlul_7_07.pdf and another a download at www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/hpo_article.pdf Additionally, a link to the State Historic Preservation Office: http://www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/ and download presentation about the NJ MLUL: www.preservationnj.org/site/Ex ... /pdfs/NJHistPreseMLUL.pdf

Brewster said it all in an earlier response: ?Thank God I am not in a district...?

Good luck ? you'll need it!

Posted on: 2016/7/26 0:15
 Top 


Re: Proposed Development at 8th Street/Division
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
It's great these contaminated sites are being developed. DEP regulation require the soil to be remediated prior to residential development. Had it not been for the strength of our realty market, these sites may have remained contaminated for a very long time because there is no public funds for cleaning up, especially on private lands.


I understand you believe it's a "great idea these contaminated sites are being developed", but there's no way I'd ever live in a building over a site contaminated by gasoline.... And I wouldn't ask anyone else to either without letting them know about the history of that site on Newark and Division.

The developer was asked a series of questions by one of the Zoning Board members who is an environmental law attorney. The Zoning Board also spoke about long-term monitoring of the inside of the building, after construction. It sounded as though they're not certain they've removed all the hydrocarbon pollutant. It didn't do anything for my confidence in the effectiveness of the remediation efforts, notwithstanding DEP involvement. I wonder if the NJ DEP is any better than the Michigan DEP? You know those were the experts who tested the water in Flint for lead and said it was fine.

Oddly, when you go to the City web-site for the minutes of that meeting (Oct 29th, 2015) to see what transpired they're not available - the link takes you to the September minutes instead.

In any event, according to the public notice appearing November 5th, the application was ultimately approved ?with conditions?. I wonder what those conditions might have been...? Would be on file with the City. And I'm still very curious what disclosure requirements apply for prospective renters / purchasers when the development is completed. When I have a spare moment I might do a little work trying to find more out. I'll post if I learn anything of interest, so stay tuned.

The whole thing makes me wonder about that part of downtown and just why it stayed so "under-developed." What is the history of land use there? So much of Jersey City has some history of industrial use at one point or other.

Posted on: 2016/2/16 1:14
 Top 


Re: Proposed Development at 8th Street/Division
Home away from home
Home away from home


That development proposal must be close to the development at 380 Newark Ave, almost under the Turnpike overpass, on the corner of Division St. It was interesting at the Zoning Board meeting, October 29th, to learn the site was an old gas station with soil contamination to be remediated. As well, the train tracks are right behind. Not appealing to me for all three reasons ? turnpike, railway and contamination issues. Also see page 9, items ?o? and ?p? of the Feb 29th Council meeting minutes: http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... nda%20Document%284%29.pdf

Could this other Division St development, so close by, be impacted as well? Would they need to do some testing to determine? I wonder what disclosures need to be made to prospective renters or purchasers (at both sites) about this kind of issue? The train tracks and turnpike are easy to see, but the soil issues aren't in plain view.

Posted on: 2016/2/15 17:04
 Top 


Re: Carlos Fernandes is thrown out of Ward A meeting
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Giovanna wrote:

"a. Vinyl and Aluminum Siding. The Commission discourages the use of vinyl or aluminum
siding on historic buildings. These materials are not permitted on masonry buildings. On
buildings which have existing vinyl or aluminum siding, individual units may be replaced
with matching materials if necessary following the issuance of a Certificate of No Effect. On
buildings with wood clapboard siding and/or shingles, the Commission encourages
retention of the historic material or replacement with matching materials.
b.If an applicant chooses to apply for aluminum or vinyl siding, a Certificate of
Appropriateness is required."


Thanks for that post, it's interesting language in that Ordinance.... If the City felt it was on strong grounds to prohibit the use of vinyl or aluminum, then it would have said so clearly. The fact that the Ordinance language does not contain a clear prohibition in all circumstances is telling in itself. The imprecise wording used makes me think those drafting it had concerns about going any further. It's not surprising I suppose, since the enabling legislation giving municipalities the power to regulate historic districts speaks of ?conservation? and ?preservation?. Those are the words used in the relevant sections of the act. The words ?restoration? or ?re-creation? don't appear, so it's a stretch to argue the enabling legislation could be read in a way that it permits the City to compel ?restoration? work. But since the City wields the power by denying permits, they often get their way.

If this house already had vinyl or aluminum siding that he just wants to replace, then he might consider applying for a certificate of no effect to replace it with the same. However, the City and Historic Preservation folks are zealots bent on ?recreating? the late 1800's / early 1900's. Since it's not their money being spent, they'll abuse their power in an attempt to ?force? people into using what the City wants ? expensive wood siding in this example. And they'll try, even if it's beyond the limits of what they are permitted to do under the MLUL provisions.

So, if he has the time and money, when the City rejects his intial application, his next step is the Zoning Board with an appeal. Then, as would seem likely, when the Zoning Board rejects him, he's off to the Superior Court, Law Division. At least there he'll get a fair hearing. And if he doesn't like their decision, he could appeal, and so on, all the way perhaps to the State Supreme Court (maybe they'd agree to hear the case...?), since the fundamental issue is what is an individual permitted to do with her or her property, and what limits on that are appropriate. Rather important questions actually in a free, democratic society....

Posted on: 2016/2/5 1:13
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

DanL wrote:

There are people for whom this will mean paying thousands less. When Paterson did a reval its Coefficient of Deviation was in the low 20s and it still led to hundreds of property owners paying thousands less.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/city- ... rty-revaluation-1.1437630


A line in that report about Paterson says it all: ?...homeowners said the impact of the new assessments were not evident until late in the summer when a higher tax rate was set for the city.?

stateaidguy's other posts on JCList speak more to the big picture. My 2-cents worth ? the state wants to shift school aid costs ($420 million yearly) back onto Jersey City taxpayers. But first the valuations better line up with reality, since there's no getting blood from a stone.

Yes, JC needs a reval but don't hold your breath waiting for taxes to go down ?thousands? at the end of all this game-playing. That's not what's in store for us.... is it DanL?

Posted on: 2016/1/31 20:43
 Top 


Re: 17 floor tower 8th n Marin behind Unico Tower
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yes, the only precisely clear way to describe the height of a building is to use feet. Stories gives a rough approximation only. That's why I referred back to the reports giving the actual height - 190 feet.

Posted on: 2015/12/23 20:51
 Top 


Re: 17 floor tower 8th n Marin behind Unico Tower
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
unless the project was downsized, the original post is correct, 17 stories.



correct. tax abatement application says 17 stories.


Terrence, one of your earlier news reports indicated 190 feet. See: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... wer_on_manila_avenue.html

Architects generally use 10 feet per story, as a rule of thumb, so that's 19 stories. However figured it's a much bigger building than 12 stories. So big it needed amendments passed to the Master Plan for than area.




Posted on: 2015/12/22 10:45
 Top 


Re: 17 floor tower 8th n Marin behind Unico Tower
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MattSchapiro wrote:


Also OP should check his information. The building is not seventeen stories; I recall it being twelve or thirteen.



The KRE building will be 190 feet; the existing Unico building is 130 feet. Thus, the new building will be more than 40% taller than the existing Unico tower.

The new public park will be situated between these large buildings.

Posted on: 2015/12/21 22:58
 Top 


Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

Some of your concerns are valid, but I think in the above, you've just got to hold your nose and vote, like I do in almost every election. Your vote would not go to them unless all the candidates you prefered had already been eliminated. Rarely are even heinous candidates equally heinous. If I had to choose between Trump and Carson, I'd be able to make a choice.


What's the downside of allowing optional ranking? If no candidate has an absolute majority, keep the count going till all ranked votes are counted. At that point the candidate with the most votes wins. I want to be certain I can prevent my vote going to a candidate who is an anathema to me. "Holding my nose" and giving my vote to someone who isn't capable of representing me isn't appealing in the least.


Normally - the way ranked voting works is:
1. 1st choice votes are counted. If someone has a clear majority -they win.
2. If not, the candidate with lowest number of votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes are transferred to the voter's 2nd choice candidate.
3. That's repeated until someone gets a clear majority.

Depending on the mechanism, you mightn't have to rank everyone on the ballet - but if you do - put your least favorite last and they won't get your vote. So for example, if there are 5 candidates - the race will be decided by the 3 elimination and 4th count - one of the 2 remaining candidates will have the majority of the ranked votes..


Yes, having voted in a bunch of ranked choice elections in another jurisdication, it's conducted as you've described. So, the redistribution of votes from the candidate with the fewest votes - in effect the least attractive candidate to the electors - could result in candidate 4, or candidate 3 moving up the ranking to pass the candidates with higher "primary" votes, if the ranked votes continue to be distributed. At some point, under some circumstances, I may want my vote NOT to be distributed to a candidate I believe doesn't deserve my vote. The only certain way to allow for that is to permit optional ranking. So if I only "like" 3 of the 5 candidates, I stop at candidate 3. If after distribution of all ranked votes no one gets a clear majority, then then largest vote winner can be declared winner. I don't see that it creates a major issue.

Posted on: 2015/11/6 1:28
 Top 


Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

Some of your concerns are valid, but I think in the above, you've just got to hold your nose and vote, like I do in almost every election. Your vote would not go to them unless all the candidates you prefered had already been eliminated. Rarely are even heinous candidates equally heinous. If I had to choose between Trump and Carson, I'd be able to make a choice.


What's the downside of allowing optional ranking? If no candidate has an absolute majority, keep the count going till all ranked votes are counted. At that point the candidate with the most votes wins. I want to be certain I can prevent my vote going to a candidate who is an anathema to me. "Holding my nose" and giving my vote to someone who isn't capable of representing me isn't appealing in the least.


The scenario you describe is how many people feel in Nov elections, when the ballot is only the 2 primary winners they hate. One of the 2 you hate is GOING to win. You can't change that. You just seem to want the intellectual firewall of thinking you didn't vote for them. But that's when you need to suck it up and make your best call of who is worse, because one IS. If you can't decide you need to know more, and care about more issues. No 2 candidates are exactly alike on every issue.


Hmm.... The idea that I might want to withhold my vote as a protest seems out of the picture for you... There are candidates I simply will NOT vote for under any circumstances. If they were the only candidates running, then I wouldn't vote. Perhaps that's why we have such low turn out at our elections - people are smart enough to know that there are times when no one is actually worth voting for.

Posted on: 2015/11/6 1:09
 Top 


Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:

Some of your concerns are valid, but I think in the above, you've just got to hold your nose and vote, like I do in almost every election. Your vote would not go to them unless all the candidates you prefered had already been eliminated. Rarely are even heinous candidates equally heinous. If I had to choose between Trump and Carson, I'd be able to make a choice.


What's the downside of allowing optional ranking? If no candidate has an absolute majority, keep the count going till all ranked votes are counted. At that point the candidate with the most votes wins. I want to be certain I can prevent my vote going to a candidate who is an anathema to me. "Holding my nose" and giving my vote to someone who isn't capable of representing me isn't appealing in the least.

Posted on: 2015/11/5 23:08
 Top 


Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
Home away from home
Home away from home


It's unclear to me how the run-off election process avoids that problem, since in the example given the top 2 candidates, who presumably go into the run-off, each had only about 10% of the primary votes. Whoever wins the run-off was still initially chosen by a small number of voters. Further, since votes are re-distributed in the instant run-off according to the voters preferred choice, a candidate who came in 3rd or 4th, could win the overall majority of votes. In the ?run-off? system candidates coming in lower down than 1 or 2 in the primary tally are eliminated....

As for ?instant run-off?, it can get kind of complicated, depending on the exact rules. I am mostly in favor of an ?instant run-off? system, as long as the rules are set up in a way to minimize the number of ?wasted? votes, and to allow a voter to stop at a point where they might wish to with-hold their vote.

Take for example (numbering sequentially for ease) an election where there are 5 candidates running. I support candidates 1, 2 and 3, but do not want my vote to go to candidate 4 or 5 under any circumstances. The rules should allow me to vote my preferences, 1, 2 and 3, and then stop without indicating a vote for 4 or 5. In some jurisdictions, at least in the past, all 5 preferences had to be completed to make the vote ?valid?. I wouldn't favor that system.

Additionally, let's say I am OK with all 5 candidates, but make a mistake and number the candidates 1, 2, 3, 3, 5. Just because I made a simple error, I don't want my vote to be cast aside completely. It should be valid and count as a vote up until the point at which the error occurs. Only then, when the intent of the voter is no longer clearly discernible (which of the 3rd choices is the real intended 3rd choice...?) should that vote be excluded from further counting.

One other consideration is that in some close situations with several candidates, the candidate who comes 2nd , or even conceivably further down the list, in the initial tally of votes can be the final winner. That can lead to some lingering doubts about the ?legitimacy? of the victory. Also, depending on the number of candidates and the ?closeness? of the result, it can take some time for the final result to be known, particularly when there are a lot of ?vote-by-mail? ballots to be counted. Computerized systems make that quicker, but there still has to be some level of scrutiny / audit as the mail-in ballots are entered, or scanned. That takes some time, so results aren't always known ?instantly?, as the name might imply.

Overall, I think ?optional preferential? or ?optional ranked? voting is a good idea, but the devil can be in the details, so I'd like to take a close look.

I still wish they'd find a way to mail me a sample ballot ? that really helps for complex ?instant run-off? elections.

Posted on: 2015/11/5 19:45
 Top 


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Pebble wrote:

Just asking, but why do you believe that you are not receiving a ballot and I am? Do you believe they are intentionally preventing you from receiving a paper copy of the sample ballot?


I wouldn't venture to speculate regarding the reasons why I've never received a sample ballot. I'd much rather leave it to the Feds to show up at the County Offices one day and find out why Hudson County is incapable of even this simple task in administering our electoral process adequately.

What I do know is this: I have a voter registration card with all details correct and when I show up to vote my name is on the list, yet I have NEVER received a sample ballot for a Hudson County administered election. It makes me wonder what else they're ?missing.?

Rest assured though, one thing I am not going to do is to complain to the County, as someone here suggested, let alone repeatedly - "How many time have I complained...". That would be a total waste of my time. Obviously, they're incompetent ? evidenced by the fact that they can't even organize to send mail to someone on their list of registered voters.

So those are my thoughts about this mess, but by all means feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Posted on: 2015/11/3 2:57
 Top 


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
Home away from home
Home away from home


I am not the least bit concerned about the Post Office. As I said, I receive all my other mail.

As indicated in my earlier post, my concerns rest firmly with the City and County, and their willingness and competence to administer the electoral process adequately. Complaining to the same people (County) who are demonstrably and repeatedly unable to mail me a sample ballot seems a pointless exercise to me. They've already shown they're not capable of even the simplest administrative task.

Posted on: 2015/11/2 21:10
 Top 


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Quote:
In all the years I have lived and voted here, I have NEVER been mailed a sample ballot....


Seriously? Both DH and I each receive one before every single election.


Yes, seriously, NEVER. And I haven't received one for this election either.

Actually, it's very serious - speaks to the inability of City and County Government (or is it unwillingness...?) to oversee a fair and unbiased electoral process. One day, in my wildest dreams the Feds will investigate and the whole mess will be exposed for what it is.

Do you have the proper address on file? Do you live in an apartment building in which others might be getting your mail?

Annoyingly, I still have election ballots coming for people that haven't lived in my house for years.


My voter registration card has all the correct details for me, including my mailing address. I've NEVER received a sample ballot. The idea that somehow every election my sample ballot is delivered to someone else isn't believable - I receive ALL my other mail, and I've lived in the same small, 4-family building the entire time.

It reminds of when I first registered to vote in Jersey City, shortly after moving here. I applied about 6 weeks before the election, yet my voter registration card didn't arrive until about 3 weeks AFTER the election....

I wish I could believe it was plain, simple incompetence. Unfortunately, I can't. I really do hope the Feds take a long, hard look one day....

Posted on: 2015/11/2 20:05
 Top 


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Quote:
In all the years I have lived and voted here, I have NEVER been mailed a sample ballot....


Seriously? Both DH and I each receive one before every single election.


Yes, seriously, NEVER. And I haven't received one for this election either.

Actually, it's very serious - speaks to the inability of City and County Government (or is it unwillingness...?) to oversee a fair and unbiased electoral process. One day, in my wildest dreams the Feds will investigate and the whole mess will be exposed for what it is.

Posted on: 2015/11/2 18:41
 Top 


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Pebble wrote:
[quote]
In fact, you presently have a ballot sitting at home. It might even be in front of you.



In all the years I have lived and voted here, I have NEVER been mailed a sample ballot....

Posted on: 2015/11/2 17:21
 Top 


Re: CIVIC JC sues to stop City Hall redevelopment plan
Home away from home
Home away from home


From an earlier post under ?city hall redevelopment plan? about this issue. It will be interesting to see what the CIVIC JC lawsuit unearths.... If it goes ahead we might find out what happened regarding the sale of 202 York Street to the Silvermans, just a short while before the City Hall Redevelopment plan was announced. I'll be keeping my eye on this story.


JCGuys, apropos your two posts today, the timing of the sale of 202 York to a developer ? Silverman Bros no less ? is is just a little too convenient for my tastes. It may all be completely above board, but there's a long and sorry history of cities using all sorts of ?creative? approaches to drive people they didn't want around from their homes. So I am curious about the sale. Was it somehow ?forced?? Reading the description of the property in the redevelopment plan made me wonder if they threw the Building or Fire Codes at the owner to encourage a sale? And of course, there could be absolutely nothing untoward about it at all. Venture to guess, we'll never know for sure. It will be nice to get the City Hall restored, but I hope no one was thrown under the bus to do it....


Posted on: 2015/10/13 2:15
 Top 


Re: Preparing for 'Transportation Armageddon' on the Hudson
Home away from home
Home away from home


My recollection is that it was in the materials PATH made available during their centenary year, a few years back now. I don't have copies, but they would have.

I don't know if PATH (or H&M back in the day) was always Federally regulated as they are today. Perhaps that also limits the service today, compared to 1927. The Regs require minimum "headway" - gaps - between trains. Because of that requirement and a choke-point in the system just to the north of the Pavonia Newport station, the number of trains per hour during rush times is at the max. No more trains can "fit" in the time available. I do know that over-crowding has become a bigger and bigger problem on the JSQ-33rd line over the years. The recent rescheduling of 3 trains from the HOB line to the JSQ line confirmed for me that a major problem exists. They couldn't add any net new trains, instead they had to "shuffle" things around.

Posted on: 2015/10/10 15:36
 Top 


Re: Preparing for 'Transportation Armageddon' on the Hudson
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCSHEP wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

JCSHEP wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:

This is an issue whether or not the Amtrak/NJ Transit tunnels close. With the over-development of DT, and other developments (Harrison, etc) along the PATH line out to Newark, it is not a question of if anymore, but when....


Don't worry we have a ways to go, we are only at 65% of what the system used to handle.

--PATH's busiest year - 1927 with 113 Million riders (H&M RR)

--Last year - 73 Million


Actually, I am very worried. Here's why: Yes agree the absolute numbers were larger back then, but that's not the full picture. Ridership patterns have changed significantly. During the twenties there was much more back and forth ridership between NYC and JC. For example, rush hour would be busy in both directions. There was a lot more over-night ridership for shift workers in industries that no longer exist. These days there's limited ?reverse commute? ridership during rush hour so trains return nowhere near full, there are many fewer night shift workers, and so on.

My experience trying to board the 33rd St trains at Pavonia/Newport during the morning rush hour, pretty much confirms to me that the system is over-capacity during those peak times when people need to get to work. It's not infrequent that I must wait for the next train to be able to get on. It's only going to get a lot worse when all the (over) development is completed.


Can you share where you got the 1927 ridership data for the H&M RR? I would love to see that.


You can find it here: http://www.panynj.gov/path/history.html

Ridership declined after 1927 - the year the Holland tunnel opened.

Posted on: 2015/10/10 0:03
 Top 


Re: Preparing for 'Transportation Armageddon' on the Hudson
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
...

How about we check in with Gov. Cuomo and Mayor De Blasio about using their West Side Highway as a parking lot for New Jersey bound buses? I can imagine the warm welcome that idea is going to receive. LOL.

Each weekday, on average, 225,000 people board buses at the PABT, about 78,000 of these ride NJT buses; 87,130 board NJT trains at Penn Station, 112,114 ride PATH into NYC. It's going to take a whole lot of buses.... and a whole lot of New York streets. Can't see it happening anytime soon.


Limited vision again. When buses become driverless, you won't need a parking lot - just sufficient space like a bus lane to drop off and pick up, plus some curbside shelter for passengers. And it wouldn't need to be West Side itself - there are plenty of side streets off it.

Let's say a fleet of 1000 buses could handle the PATH load of 100k+ per day. Parked end-to-end they'd come to under 10 miles. At any given time - there'd likely be no more than 1 mile of buses parked - and not all in the same location. There's more than enough roadside real estate for that.


Limited vision...? How about total blindness to realities of inter-state, -city politics? There is no chance that anyone in New York is going to turn over a mile, or even a block, of streets to New Jersey bound buses - driverless or no.

Posted on: 2015/10/9 12:47
 Top 


Re: Preparing for 'Transportation Armageddon' on the Hudson
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCSHEP wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:

This is an issue whether or not the Amtrak/NJ Transit tunnels close. With the over-development of DT, and other developments (Harrison, etc) along the PATH line out to Newark, it is not a question of if anymore, but when....


Don't worry we have a ways to go, we are only at 65% of what the system used to handle.

--PATH's busiest year - 1927 with 113 Million riders (H&M RR)

--Last year - 73 Million


Actually, I am very worried. Here's why: Yes agree the absolute numbers were larger back then, but that's not the full picture. Ridership patterns have changed significantly. During the twenties there was much more back and forth ridership between NYC and JC. For example, rush hour would be busy in both directions. There was a lot more over-night ridership for shift workers in industries that no longer exist. These days there's limited ?reverse commute? ridership during rush hour so trains return nowhere near full, there are many fewer night shift workers, and so on.

My experience trying to board the 33rd St trains at Pavonia/Newport during the morning rush hour, pretty much confirms to me that the system is over-capacity during those peak times when people need to get to work. It's not infrequent that I must wait for the next train to be able to get on. It's only going to get a lot worse when all the (over) development is completed.

Posted on: 2015/10/9 10:58
 Top 


Re: Preparing for 'Transportation Armageddon' on the Hudson
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

Bike_Lane wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Plus there's a new bus terminal being built at the WTC site.


There is?? That's news.

I believe it's for the use of tour buses. But why not make it work for us? Regular rush hour "tours" to WTC - just wear your Dockers, mom jeans, and cheap sneakers, we'll fit right in.


Even if that can't be used - why bother building another huge bus parking lot? There is plenty of existing real estate on the roads and sidewalks to make it work - it worked after 9-11. West Side Highway itself could be the new bus terminal.


How about we check in with Gov. Cuomo and Mayor De Blasio about using their West Side Highway as a parking lot for New Jersey bound buses? I can imagine the warm welcome that idea is going to receive. LOL.

Each weekday, on average, 225,000 people board buses at the PABT, about 78,000 of these ride NJT buses; 87,130 board NJT trains at Penn Station, 112,114 ride PATH into NYC. It's going to take a whole lot of buses.... and a whole lot of New York streets. Can't see it happening anytime soon.

Posted on: 2015/10/9 0:58
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 »






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