JERSEY CITY LIST - Message Forum

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts (nugnfutz)

Bottom

« 1 2 3 (4)

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#91

Home away from home

THE VOTE FOR A DOG RUN THE SIZE OF 2 TENNIS COURTS WAS UP THERE ....TOP3. I WONT SETTLE FOR LESS!

Well - based on this discussion ive decided the entire process is meaningless. The vote A, B C D on the "concepts" aint worth my time and aggro given views expressed here. Gonna execise my dogs where i see fit in the park. An occassional ticket..meh! Worth it. JC have never enforced dog laws anyways. JC have decided to ignore the community vote....im gonna ignore JC.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 3:19

Edited by nugnfutz on 2007/5/30 3:35:45
Edited by nugnfutz on 2007/5/30 3:43:50

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#92

Home away from home

I'm reassured somewhat by Councillor Fulop that there is wiggle room in all the plans, but share Phillygirl's concerns as to what that means, and what meaning can then be attributed to the results of the upcoming vote.

4Bailey asked about trade-offs. Most features were voted on in the ballots in 2005. From the original ballots it looks like the best compromise might have been losing the 2nd court, keeping the communal garden. Perhaps a cross between options C & D.

- Childrens playground adjacent or single (80% 199/50)
- Basket ball court (79% - 202/55)
- Dog run 2 tennis courts or greater (75% 192/62) - 89% for dog run in total
- Childrens water play feature (73% - 165/62)
- Preserve spokes (72% - 189/70)
- Picnic Area (69% - 102/45)
- Chess and chequers tables (63% - 88/53)
- Childrens communal garden (62% - 122/54)
- Basketball bleachers (56% - 138/109)
- 2 Tennis courts (54% - 122/106) - 88% for one

I couldn't find where the 50-50 active-passive split came from. Is this a City policy on minimum or maximum active space? If so, which?

PS: Brewster - the 14k dog run wasn't my request, but the community's based on the ballots.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 19:58

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#93

Home away from home

Quote:

Althea wrote:
.....

I think this may have been me. But i can't remember. I know this is important to a lot of parents that would be using the park.

Althea

From the meeting I remember someone, probably yourself, proposing the play areas being beside each other. Very sensible if you have kids of different ages to supervise. I also heard the suggestion to provide separate large and dog run areas, and a separate suggestion to preserve the spokes.

I believe it was a separate (male) individual that proposed re-siting everything to try to accomodate the above. However, most of us went into the meeting with the understanding that there would be no major changes to the designs and we'd be focusing on voting on the 3 options - I sort of filed that with the noise made at the start by the woman shouting about dog poo.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 14:16

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#94

Home away from home

Quote:

LoraJ wrote:
If your dog is a biter, you shouldn't even be bringing them to a public park, let alone a dog run. You can't sue the city because your dog bites people, whether you are on a city sidewalk or in a park. You'll be lucky of the victim doesn't insist on the dog being put to sleep (something I am against BTW but see it happen all of the time, mostly family pets who bite young children).

Dont strike me as ever having owned a dog LJ. All dogs bite, period. As a responsible dog-ower, I make sure I manage their biting: they bite dog toys for example, not kids.

And actually ur wrong on whether an injured person can sue the City. If a dog bites someone in Hamilton Park at the moment, it would be pretty easy to prove City negligence - given no-one enforces existing leash laws.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/dog_park.html

Similarly, it would be a cake-walk to prove City negligence if they site the dog run near the kids play areas and over-crowd the dog run. Heck ...if my kid gets bitten by a leased dog on the way to the dog run, and the owner has no assets...i'll go after the City. Totally irresponsible for the City to site the dog run en-route to the childrens play area, and overcrowd the run by ignoring the neighborhood vote. If they do so, they're just creating a City liability.

Posted on: 2007/5/27 6:44

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#95

Home away from home

Quote:

BrightMoment wrote:
Yeah, I'm on the fence 4bailey. I think you and Brewster and Parkman have contributed a lot of good info, badinage and suggestions to make me step back and review my position.

Also, my neighbor who started docjc says that the "consensus" of her group is that Option D is untenable for reasons you have pointed out and Parkman too as far as both sizes of dogs.

My only problem with dogjc is that they are doing a poll that purposely leaves out Option D (some there support D)so the credibility of the poll is dubious as only A, B & C are your choices. They have over 150 members, most don't post or read here so I was hopeing for an honest representation of their members, over 150+, but should have realized that obviously their group is hardly neutral as their primary concern is the dog runs and my primary concern is a "big tent" approach, inclusive, open to all suggestions.

What i personally hate about this process isnt the views expressed by the people on this forum. Its the divide and conquer tactics used by the City...and the Archictects that the City employs. Some of us continue to fight old battles...like how much space should be allocated to each interest. If we can all agree that the ballot last year was fair and representational...we should all be as a bloc challenging the deficiencies in the plans and demanding they fix it.

As a dog owner I have to make a few choices...with conscience....i cant force my dogs into an overcrowded and unsafe dog exercise area less than 1/3 the space the neighbourhood recommeneded. I dont want my dogs to walk past kid's areas on the way to these exercise areas, not becuase i think my dogs are dangerous, but because i dont want kids beating up on my dogs and me being held liable, even if i have them leashed.

If my dogs accidently bite anyone in the new Hamilton park under plan D, I will seriously sue the City's ass off for f*cking up the plan badly and ignoring the 2006 vote and i will have every reason to do so.

Posted on: 2007/5/26 8:19

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Mayor's top aide makes mockery of the system

#96

Home away from home

Quote:

super_furry wrote:
The Mayor stated on record in the past that he does not read e-mail.

Trouble scrolling past the colon?

Posted on: 2007/5/24 18:22

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#97

Home away from home

Quote:

brewster wrote: Quote:
4bailey wrote: Allright,? if you?re really sincere about keeping the signal/noise ratio down, l?ll play the PowerPoint game on a trial basis and we?ll see where this takes us.
Concept D large dog run=4391 Concept D Small dog run=2933 concept A,B & C=7733 I've described my methodology, I would guess the margin for error of sizes relative to each other to be under 3%. The actual sizes depends on whether Schorr Depalma drew the tennis court to scale properly, but that doesn't affect the relative sizes. You've correctly summed up what I think the pro/con should be. I don't know what to make of your request for an affidavit of my honesty. Either you're honest or not, saying you are if you're not is a natural, no? Remember Mr. Spock: "everything I tell you is a lie, I'm lying now". Well, I haven't groomed the numbers, I value my credibility. And I don't use AutoCad, they're the evil empire of the CAD world.

We voted for 14k space and were raped in options AB&C to 7.7k. Thanks for the stats. Now were expected to beg and roll over further? Emmmm - two chances...SOME CHANCE AND NO CHANCE. Dogowners - your dog bites anyone in Hamilton Park, you have a simple defense....the City decided to ignore the original 2006 neighbourhood votes, recommended minimum dog run size, segregation of dogs and children, pushed a vote without proper consideration. Sweet to have someone to take liability for your dogs through a flawed process :) Vote option D and unleash the hounds :) << tongue-in-cheek for those who dont know me>>

Posted on: 2007/5/24 3:48

Edited by nugnfutz on 2007/5/24 4:06:20

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#98

Home away from home

Quote:

4bailey wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
...I guess the "wiki" idea hasn't penetrated very far around here. If you don't like the way I said it, correct it rather than bitch and moan about it, and the format of the ballot, of which we have no control. Powerpoint bullets got popular because they organize and transfer ideas easier than long rambling essays. LIke I said, signal/noise.

Allright,? if you?re really sincere about keeping the signal/noise ratio down, l?ll play the PowerPoint game on a trial basis and we?ll see where this takes us.

Just to make sure we?re clear on the ground rules ? in looking at the pros/cons of Concept D, we?re talking Concept D without any tweaks and any comparison to Concepts A/B/C is before any tweakes,? right?...

Second, we?re relying on your numbers, derived from your AutoCAD. As a ?gentleman?s agreement?, are you vouching that the numbers you?re providing are consistent and haven?t been shaved/fattened to make you case more appealing?...

If you?re willing to vouch for that, I?ll give it a go. However, I?ll need the sq footage of both the small and large-dog runs in Concept D (pre-tweak); I?m not sure if I?m seeing the right numbers in post #233 or not.

Also, just to confirm, before the tweak I suggested, is 7,733 the sq. footage of the run in A/B/C?...

Agree. Lets get over the "Non Est Mea Culpa" stance and agree as a community to work for improvements on the design no matter what the outcome of the vote shows. For example we have bleachers, fountains and seating in other active areas...but NOTHING in the dog runs. I want at least 4 benches in the dog runs, running water - ideally a hand pumped well, and adequate shade for the dogs. And 7.7k space for a dog run doesnt cut it irrespective of option. We voted for 14k. If the city ignores this vote, so will dog owners ignore the park - dogs might run free ...might bite ppl...and we might have fun in court on personal liability insurance vs the City's. Just lets get it right together :)

Posted on: 2007/5/24 3:30

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#99

Home away from home

PS: and i dont mean erecting No Ball Playing signs.

Posted on: 2007/5/24 1:40

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#100

Home away from home

Quote:

brewster wrote:
I can't explain the designs presented, because (I repeat), they made no commitment to follow HPNA's survey. I can only be confident that the park will resemble the design voted on now, because this ballot is commissioned by the city, and thus they can be held liable by voters if they ignore the results.

Complaining about the content & structure of this ballot is probably the least constructive thing to be done, yet it preoccupies several of you. To move forward you've got to start from where you are and don't look back.

The designs presented started out as one proposal, then based on initial feedback turned into 3 alternatives with mostly identical flaws. The architects took the feedback on the 3 flawed designs and have created a fourth improved, yet still flawed design. I don't think there was an intentional engineering of the vote by anyone, but unfortunately it's a valid complaint, however unintentional the circumstance.

Adding a fourth design into the mix at this late stage with no real opportunity for feedback, and forcing a vote, takes us either a couple of steps back in the process if option D doesn't win, and highly controversial result if it does win. Particularly if the security and safety concerns are not addressed. If a kid gets hit by a car on 9th street, dog owner gets mugged in the dog area, a kid bitten by a leashed dog on the way to the play area, an injury to someone in an overcrowded dog area....well the park may end up costing the City more than the 2 million.

Believe me...I dont want to hold back the process. The process itself needs to not only to be fair, but needs to be seen to be fair. I see a refusal to recognise there are issues with the vote potentially dangerous. If we have a commitment to address security and safety concerns with any of the options that win, then I'm cool. Hope that's constructive :)

Posted on: 2007/5/24 1:27

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#101

Home away from home

To answer a few questions posed above:

1. Large dog run should be a minimum of 10k sq ft, and small dog run be 4k sq ft, based on the discussion above and the 2 tennis courts vote.
2. Ice cream vans would be more inclined to stop on McWilliams Place if the play spaces were put at the East as in A,B and C. They stop on 9th currently since the play areas are mostly NE at the moment and McWilliams Place is regularly blocked.

My question to the JCPD on safety was also relevant. I lot of people exercise their dogs late evening. I don't know how safe a sound-proofed, fenced off and hidden area is in the center of the park? Similarly, currently juveniles tend to congregate around the swings at night - not a huge issue to people walking past on 9th street at the moment, but may become a problem in option D.

On balance - I'd vote for option D if some security assurances were given and a better compromise was being put forward on the dog run. As it stands, it's not going to get this dog owner's vote..

Posted on: 2007/5/23 22:25

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#102

Home away from home

I'd be interested to hear from the JCPD if they think whether any of the plans materially impact park safety and their ease of enforcing local laws such juvenile curfews, under-age drinking, leash laws. Even if they think there are no differences, that would be good to know.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 20:08

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#103

Home away from home

For cons I'd add:

- introduces an undesirable 50-50 split between large and small dog runs.

Is there any data on environmental factors (air quality, hours of sunlight, etc) and the park layout? I'm concerned over the siting of the playground for 2 reasons:

- Traffic on 9th street is higher than that on McWilliams Place. For example, ice cream trucks will become a more regular feature on 9th. Though I'm not sure what the new development will do to traffic - moving/delivery trucks and the like.
- Even with the larger trees, the north side of the park is more exposed to direct sunlight than most other areas. It's also closer to the Holland tunnel traffic.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 18:01

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Transportation Study

#104

Home away from home

Quote:

PHResident wrote:

Option 4 takes people much further north than many of them need to go. Washington Street in Newport is already a mess. I cannot imagine adding more traffic to it.

Option 4 looks like a bit of a white elephant. If the traffic isn't backed-up at the Holland tunnel, there's little difference between this and taking the existing Jersey Ave exit from the ramp. If the traffic is backed-up, people will see the back-up and take the Montgomery exit. Might be better off spending the money on improving and enforcing the right-turn lanes on the existing ramp.

BTW the options are shown under:
http://downtownjcras.com/

Posted on: 2007/5/23 16:14

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Do we have a dog leash ordinance in JC?

#105

Home away from home

Its a bit of a catch-22 at the moment for the City. From what i've observed the city doesnt fully enforce its leash statutes. Meaning if they write a ticket, its likely to be challenged and is probably more trouble than its worth collecting. The flip side is that it opens the City to a world of pain if someone gets seriously mauled by an unleased dog, and the statutes are not being demonstrably enforced. Unfortunately i dont foresee things changing until someone gets hurt and the city ends up paying.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 7:31

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#106

Home away from home

Size is important no matter what some say, but consider also the aesthetics.

The areas the dog owners currently exercise their dogs tends to be mostly to the west and south. Not entirely sure why this is, but probably down to the fact that its the quietest and coolest area of the park in the evenings. Keeping dogs far away from excitable children and ball games is a good idea. Putting the dogs in the middle of the active space is probably a recipe for trouble. Every dog getting into and out of the option D spaces will have to run the gauntlet of one or more of: kids play area, basketball court, tennis court and local homeless guys.

Personally, I'd rather see option D, with the current space allocated to dogs given over to communal gardens, and a SW slice of the park given to the dogs. The benefit is that local schools who want to maintain the gardens can easily split their time between the play areas and communal garden with less supervision, the communal garden doesn't get lost in a trade-off with the additional multi-use active area, and dogs get their play-space away from the plants and people. (Btw: Who decided that the 50% active/passive split should be contiguous?)

Posted on: 2007/5/23 7:03

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Car service to JFK

#107

Home away from home

Had numerous no-shows in the past with the taxi services mentioned above. I've found King to be the most reliable over the years: 201-798-8100.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 1:06

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#108

Home away from home

Some sources on size of dog parks:
http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/dogpark.cfm
http://www.sacparks.net/docs/Off-Leas ... sk-Force-final-report.pdf
http://www.parks.sfgov.org/wcm_recpar ... Final_Dog_Policy_2002.pdf

AKC recommend a minimum of one acre (43560 square feet). San Fran have a recommended size of 30k square feet with absolute minimum of 10k square feet. Sacramento recommend 1 acre of dog run per 25k population.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 0:44

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates

#109

Home away from home

1. I like the idea of preserving the parks spokes
2. I like the idea of a multi-use court
3. I think the idea of a putting green is a waste of space and funds
4. I'm neutral on the idea of separate small and large dog runs. Small dog runs tend to get used more by anti-social big dogs than actual small dogs - so whatever.

I don't like the idea of reducing the size dog runs in proposal D and I think the vote has been engineered with this specifically in mind. Why for example, can't option B be amended to preserve spokes, have a multi-use court and have segregated dog areas?

I also am not totally thrilled with the idea of pushing the playground closer to the higher-traffic and probably least shaded section of ninth street.

I agree with other posters - if we're voting purely on the designs, lets make it a proportional-rep style ranked vote.

Or better still, why not vote on the real options:
1. Putting green or not
2. Dog run in NW corner, or split in smaller sections to east
3. Multi-use court or communal garden or tennis court
4. Preserve spokes or not.

Posted on: 2007/5/23 0:11

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: $106M vote of confidence for Downtown Jersey City - a new chapter for the city

#110

Home away from home

www.floods.org give a lot of details on the issue.

http://www.floods.org/NoAdverseImpact ... shed_Development_2007.pdf

and

http://www.floods.org/PDF/ASFPM_Manso ... riefAmicusCuriae_0306.pdf

"When you build in a flood plain and the waters begin to rise, the buildings on your property displace water thus increasing the height of the rising waters and making the flooding worse everywhere along the banks. In addition, your buildings and pavement cover the natural ground surface that would have helped soak up the water. Therefore, the more building and pavement allowed, the higher the flood waters along that water body will rise, and the worse the flooding problems will get."

Posted on: 2007/5/18 19:25

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Pet Boarding/Kennelling

#111

Home away from home

Yep - I second Boca's. Alternatives are Petsmart in Secaucus, and North Bergen Animal Hospital 9018 Kennedy Blvd. North Bergen, NJ.

Make sure you get all your dog's shots updated at least 4 days before boarding them. No place will take them without updated shots, including Bordatella.

Posted on: 2007/5/14 15:09

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: JCMUA Flood Forms

#112

Home away from home

There's certainly been more local media coverage and FEMA response on this over the past few weeks. Thanks again Steve for pushing this. I'm still disgusted by the initial city response and reaction. Let's make sure that this is followed though.

Posted on: 2007/5/14 4:02

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Transportation Study

#113

Home away from home

Has the study considered the impact of the NY congestion charge on demand for public transport and parking in downtown JC? If not, why not?

Posted on: 2007/5/14 3:55

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Kucinich for free at a diner, Obama for $2,300 at a restaurant

#114

Home away from home

Soooo...how does this election thingy work? Who gets most cash wins? Very American. Guess policies mean squat atm.

Posted on: 2007/5/12 4:40

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Meeting on Flooding Issues - Steven Fulop

#115

Home away from home

"I'm the head of JCMUA". "I've been in my job for umpteen years but i need a questionaire in 2007 to tell me where are the downtown flooding problems". "I dont know the capacity of my system". "You are going to get your basements flooded twice a year everytime we get a 50-year high rainfall". "Trenton are not going to pay 0.68 Billion to fix the problem".

Sorry my friend, you are a worthless idiot in your curent job - it's way beyond your ability, and I demand that you resign or are fired immediately.

Posted on: 2007/5/1 7:38

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Bloomberg and Boston's Mayor join Healy in Jersey City to speak against a law that limits gun in

#116

Home away from home

Quote:

bdlaw wrote:
Emphasis supplied.

Quote:

GrovePath wrote:

Earlier this year, Jersey City requested from the ATF trace information on guns used in crimes from 2001 to 2006; the agency responded that it could not provide information "except to a federal, state or local law enforcement agency or prosecutor, and then only when such disclosure relates to a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution."

And Healy / Bloomy / Booker's problem with this is... ?

Key confusing pieces are "Jersey City requested from the ATF trace information on guns used in crimes" AND ...
"the agency responded that it could not provide information ...except ... when such disclosure relates to a bona fide criminal investigation".

Were the "JC guns used in crimes" not a "bona fide criminal investigation". Why didn't the ATF consider the JC request "bona fide"?

Posted on: 2007/4/20 8:05

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Bloomberg and Boston's Mayor join Healy in Jersey City to speak against a law that limits gun info

#117

Home away from home

Guess local floods n stuff in JC don't measure up to photo-ops with Bloomberg and bagpipes.

Posted on: 2007/4/20 7:05

Topic | Forum

nugnfutz

Re: Fire captain facing DWI charge

#118

Home away from home

He's charged with DWI even though he was under the limit? Can someone explain how this law works? I'm kinda confused over the seatbelt law too.

Posted on: 2007/4/19 14:03

Topic | Forum

Top

« 1 2 3 (4)