Well stated!

Perhaps it bears repeating as the message might get lost...

SAY NO TO FIVE, HIGH DENSITY, THIRTY STORY TOWERS ON 6th STREET!

SAY YES TO AN EMBANKMENT PARK


A further message to the current City Council members and future Ward E and other council and mayoral candidates. We're listening carefully to what you say or don't say. Where you choose to stand on this issue will impact how at least Ward E downtown residents will choose to vote in upcoming elections.

Geoff

The entire application should be tossed out the door for lack of standing.

Given the current ruling and a lack of a timely appeal, the applicant has little legal basis for claiming that it possesses good title to the property, sufficient to even file the application.

It shouldn't even be considered any further...

We'll see what happens next.

All the best.

G

Ansky / Xtine... I blew it... double checked and confirmed that Shakatah is correct and so are you about the repeal of the NYC non-resident tax.

Notwithstanding that, if the original poster moved from NYC to NJ during the tax year, there could be NYC tax implications... but for the rest of us full-year NJ residents, there is no NYC income tax... Yeah!

All the best.

Geoff

I\'ve been living in NJ and working in NYC for more than 25 years.

Shakatah is almost correct but for one small item... NYC Income Tax.

Basically, in broad brush strokes, the NY / NJ State tax component works out like this:

1. You withhold 100% to NYS at regular NYS rates.

2. There will also be a very small component of withholding for NYC \"non-resident\" income tax.

3. You complete and file a non-resident NYS tax return.

4. The bulk of your actual tax payments will be paid to NY

5. You complete and file a resident NJ return, for which you receive a credit for taxes paid to NY.

6. If you have no other tax complexities (e.g. no other income generated or performed in NJ), this typically will generate a small NJ refund. Even though there is a differential between NY (higher) and NJ (lower) state tax tables, my experience has been that the real result is essentially a wash. Some years I get a small refund from NY and other years from NJ.

For an accurate read on your actual or predicted outcome, you do need to consult a tax accountant.

All the best.

Geoff

To all sides of what ever whine you stand for...

... A "put up with it or move to the suburbs" apologia is no substitute for good urban planning... and good urban planning for those of us who have chosen fully and knowingly to live in an urban environment...

Ciao for this thread!

Rant all you want about dogs, the fact is people will move here with dogs and unfortunately, we have to deal with the demographics.

Telling people to go to the suburbs if they want to have a dog is the functional equivalent of saying that the rest of us should go live in the burbs if we want new greenspace developed. Get real.

Diverting some of those developer dollars into providing necessary amenities is not unrealistic. At least it's not coming off the back of local taxpayers.

Too late Vigilante... almost no one seemed to give a @#!@ more than six years ago when the Downtown from Grove Street on East was almost uniformly designated as high density in the Master Plan.

Actually what we're getting is More People AND More Dogs.

Forseeing a need for a dog run represents some form of glacial recognition by the Planning Board that these mega projects provide for proper amenities so the dog poop doesn't spill over into the streets or other communities.

When the Planning Board begins to see the need for proper greenspace accomodations for people, then that might be something significant. I'm not holding my breath, though.

All the best.

Geoff

How about shame on Goldman?

An excellent tract on the concept of "exigent circumstances can be found here (and reproduced in part below): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure

Quote:

From what's been described in this thread, the EMT personnel were legally present on the premises and most likely have an obligation to contact the police under the circumstances described. They did absolutely the right thing -- it's not even debatable -- and so did the police.

Alb, there's no illegal search and seizure issue here... and there's no practical way to go running for a search warrant as you described following a report of possibly unexploded munitions by the EMT personnel who were lawfully present and on their official business. Delay under these circumstances would be close to unconscionable given the potential danger to others.

Unfortunately, in a post 9/11 world, I would rather have our emergency professionals err on the side of caution. I have to agree with workin_hard 100%.

Quote:

A +1 from me as well.

The core of the problem stems from the city's underlying zoning, which is often inconsistent with the character of many existing, individual neighborhoods. Where this inconsistency exists, it's most likely to first manifest itself in infill construction -- often with shocking results. (The 9th Street residents of Hamilton Park are dealing with a similar issue as well.)

IMHO the fight against this particular developer nightmare requires follow through to amend the underlying zoning to avoid future disasters.

Zoning can be a sleeping timebomb.

All the best.

Geoff

Generally speaking, there's nothing unusual or peculiar about FBI involvement in major criminal investigations (as arson is); you just don't often hear about it often.

In the context of a post- 9/11 world, having multiple agencies (local, state and federal), with different jurisdictional reaches, looking into a possible arson of this magnitude along the JC waterfront is fairly routine. The Feds (not just the FBI) have also had an increased presence in the JC area post 9/11 because of the high concentration of financial industry firms located here -- again no surprise here.

That being said the investigations are continuing at the local level, concurrently. The FBI's involvement means very little in of itself.

Quote:

The environmental question still remains to be answered.

If the city can come forth and demonstrate when the old firehouse site was remediated and by what method, then this question goes away, but it should be clearly answered, and not taken for granted.

A very important question that needs to be answered is whether this piece of property falls into a redevelopment zone. From the earlier posts, this might be the case... and if so, then the regular zoning does not apply. The zoning specifications of the redevelopment will supercede the regular zoning. (Hopefully, we'll have confirmation of this by the close of business on Wednesday.)

The community, under such circumstances, will have a strong legal argument to defeat the requested variances, and to keep the planned development to not more than than the levels set forth in the redevelopment plan.

It will be a more difficult fight to reduce permitted allowances below those set forth in the redevelopment plan, as according to NJ land use law, these specifications are permitted "as-of-right". What this means is that if the developer submits plans in conformity with the redevelopment plan, the city cannot legally deny these rights. It must approve the plan.

To successfully fight the developer's plan will require everyone's active attendance at the planning board and other meetings where the plan will be reviewed. Petitions and posting here won't be enough to get the message through.

Ianmac, I've read that article and it's actually a good one, but this thread (and this particular property) is perhaps not the best place to have a policy discussion about the pros and cons of development. Save that for another thread.

I believe that there are two basic questions the community needs to explore about 209 Ninth Street -- I'd like to hear what others have to say about the following:

1. A Zoning Issue: Should the owner of this property be granted variances to build higher and more densely than what's permitted under the currently applicable zoning principles and regulations?

2. An Environmental Issue: This property was the site of the old Ninth Street Firehouse -- a known Chomate Ore waste site listed by the NJ Dept of Environmental Protection list as having been remediated. See http://www.pdcbank.state.nj.us/dep/sr ... einfo/chrome/update28.htm

Before considering the zoning question, there should be a clear demonstration to the surrounding neighbors and community that the remediation method actually used has left the property suitable for development (including ground excavation) in the first instance.

I'm not anti-development Ianmac, but it pays to ask questions before development takes place, rather than later.

All the best.

Geoff

SefZi is spot on.

As I wrote many posts ago, this thread has little to do with JCPD workplace policies and the serious core issues of drinking while in uniform and armed, whether on or off duty.

It's all about smear - pure and simple - all lightly disguised under a thin veneer of "pseudo-journalism". (Hey Jersey Journal --> Here's something to look into..."Is this a case of media for hire?" Now that's an equally, if perhaps, more compelling angle to look into.)

Let's fast forward this conversation to its logical conclusion:

To the likes of sk6 media and hitchhikers (like FAB), it doesn't matter what factual information comes out -- facts are irrelevant. In the face of contradictory facts, they continue to spin, re-spin and mis-spin reality to avoid taking responsibility for being just plain wrong. In their world, everything is a conspiracy or a coverup; the JCPD cannot be trusted simply because they are the police; and ipso facto, Mayor Healy must be responsible for the aforementioned, no matter what the truth is. To continue making such assertions in the face of contradictory facts is smear in my books. You're most certainly free to disagree with me, but that's what it still looks like.

Look, the JCPD IAU did exactly the right thing. They received an anonymous video nearly three years ago evidencing improper behavior by uniformed officers (on or off duty doesn't make a difference). They investigated; they adjudicated; they disciplined in accordance with the law and existing procedures.

Reasonable people might differ on the severity of the sanctions imposed and/or whether workplace policies have been or should be amended, accordingly, but that's not a discussion, which can honestly take place on this thread, or perhaps on this board. (Webmaster take note.)

Sorry you folks aren't due any apologies, and I'm certainly not ever going to hold my breath waiting for yours.

All the best.

Geoff

No agenda?

Looks like you really don't care about the issue and are just more interested in promoting your company commercially.

I'm sorry to say that this thread demonstrates no serious interest in addressing the issues of off-duty police work policies and drinking while in uniform.

This is a case of wind 'em up and watch what happens. This is what professional smear looks like folks, and you just don't get it.

JCListers, it's time to open your eyes.

Webmaster, these folks are making a mockery of your policies.

Ciao

[quote]Our goal is to bring a fresh-minded, economically pragmatic perspective to campaigns with a focus on strategic consultation, Internet services and grass-roots street team promotional consultation / support. We also offer a variety of additional services designed to help you with your campaign.

Posting a video with full knowledge that the event in question took place several years ago is a prime example of not just irresponsible posting, but a severe lack of media and personal ethics.

Knowing it was old news, but presenting it as if had occurred in the near present is just plain wrong, irresponsible journalism - if that's what you are pretending to engage in - and a misuse of this site. This is nothing other than "smear" journalism.

The serious issues raised by the video could have presented honestly, responsibly, and discussed in its proper context, but you clearly choose not to -- diminishing any discussion as to whether policies and procedures have been changed or not as a result of the incident.

Only when called out with the facts (that you have failed to acknowledge or trouble yourself researching or disclosing) did you folks admit that it was old news... then you try to turn the tables with that phony feigned surprise that there's something wrong with people who are angry at your presentation of old - but undisclosed as such - news.

Pinkowitz has you folks by the shorthairs.

Keep up the good work Pinkowitz!

G

Quote:

What you're saying is not necessarily unreasonable. They're excellent issues that need to be raised and merit discussion.

But if you don't go and make the minimum investment of your time to participate, in person, as an advocate for those positions, then you should not be surprised if they never see the light of day.

Just posting them here doesn't make the grade.

Btw, the Pet Free Zone ordinance permits the Director of Public Works to designate up to 50% of any city park as pet free, following a noticed hearing for public input. The Director could recommend an amount greater than 50%, but that would require a City Council resolution.

All the best.

Geoff

Like any other community initiative, everyone has a choice. You can choose to get off this board and get directly involved or not.

Your choice, I guess, appears to be having fun arm-chair bad mouthing someone you don't know on the basis of nothing other than reading a posted announcement

Btw... Ava and Walt have lived and worked in Hamilton Park for more years than most of the posters on JCList have been alive. Having said that, they still have much to contribute to Hamilton Park. You might just actually learn something.

Give her a chance... and at the very least attend her meeting when it's scheduled.

All the best.

Geoff

R_Pinky is right on point folks.

Focusing solely on the City Council misses the mark, which only a comprehensive approach will address. That being said, even a comprehensive ethics code by itself is no panacea.

Without holding city departments and employees accountable for their performance (or lack thereof), the quality of service delivery will remain poor, despite numerous individual exceptions by dedicated city staff.

Frankly, it's time to for Jersey City to implement best operational management practices now widely in place in both the public and private sectors.

Implementing a city-wide HR performance measurement system, which objectively sets quantitative goals and objectives by which the various city departments (as a whole) and employees (individually) can be measured would go a long way toward improving things.

A performance scorecard for all of the various city departments should be developed and publicly disclosed quarterly and annually. Individual performance measures would go along way toward setting standards for individual performance in a professionally administered HR and review system, and weed out non-performing deadwood.

If we can't measure performance, we cannot expect the delivery of city services to improve, nor can we effectively hold people accountable.

Ethics are important, but without a system of accountability, we shoudn't expect any significant change.

All the best.

Geoff

As an attorney specializing in corporate governance law, I concur with JCLAW.

The Faulkner Act in no way would limit the City from adopting such an ordinance.

For those who may not have read the Faulkner Act, this act concerns itself almost exclusively with the various forms of government under which a municipality may choose to organize and operate itself. JC operates under the city council / corporate form of local government.

If for some reason, JC wished to change its form of government, it would be restricted to the choices appearing in the act; otherwise, an amendment to the act would be required.

The above being said, the Faulkner Act in no way restricts the form of anti-conflict of interest legislation JC could choose to adopt and apply to its own employees and council representatives.

All the best.

Geoff


P.S. On a final note, if we are truly concerned about good government, only a comprehensive piece of anti-conflict of interest legislation covering the behavior of all City employees and councilpeople would make a significant difference.

The Embankment and Resevoir Coalition Groups invested much additional and significant effort to ensure significant physical turn outs at key public meetings.

Speaking generally, it doesn't matter whether you believe your governmental officials to be corrupt or on the take.

No significant public response in the form of a physical presence is interpreted as a lack of public interest or apathy, and leads to the easy dismissal of the issue as political grandstanding and something which can then be ignored.

Having the physical presence of significant numbers of people makes it less easy for other public officials to dismiss the issue and certainly raises the discomfort level when they realize that people cared enough to show up at City Hall.

Again, the basic premise these folks recognize is that if people appear, it makes it all the more difficult to dismiss the issue, even if the first attempt results in a failure.

All the best.

Geoff

P.S. for Mr. Rogers. It remains to be seen. If I actually see people turn out to vote in favor of such a referendum, (which I would personally support), and it passes, I will then be the first to say "Well Done" -- but not before.

Cyberspace has its place, but the guts of all governmental decision-making takes place in the physical world -- and it's not something that's going to change in the short run.

If you want to influence decision-making, you have to be physically visible.

The calculus is that people, institutions and organizations who get bodies out to city council and other meetings have the theoretical wherewithall to translate that organizational effort into voting. To date, the conversation on JCList has never been able to effectively translate the 'talk' into truly 'visible' action that the folks in City Hall can take seriously. When and if that happens, the things might shift, but not before then.

All the best.

Geoff

I agree 100% with Ms. Pinkowitz...

Being able to say "Well Done" is infinitely much better than "Well Said".

We seem to excel in the latter, and come up way short in the former.

If most of the armchair conversation could ever be translated into action or direct participation, then maybe the folks in City Hall would take greater notice.

4bailey:

A personal observation and a most-important correction:

Personal Observation:
The vote was what it was based on the choices provided.

I can't say the choices presented in this referendum were the perfect choices or even the best choices, however, these were the choices the city asked us to vote on based upon the recommendations of the professionals they hired for this purpose. (I often find myself saying something similar in many respects regarding the choices we face when voting in any of our municipal, state or federal elections.)

To speculate that the outcome was merely a "mommie" vote generated out of some unspecified "fear" or "security" concern sounds more like "blame" than it does sour grapes. Personally, I find this type of analysis to be more divisive than you may have found the choices themselves.

I could easily speculate alternative rationals for why the vote turned out the way it did that have nothing to do with a mommie vote or the dog run design. But such speculation does little to help move the conversation forward in a positive manner.

As has been mentioned here before, a final detailed plan will have to produced by the city architects.

There will be plenty of opportunity for additional input on specific design elements details to achieve an acceptable outcome for everyone. So rather than look backwards, I would hope you would look forward and participate actively in this important, next stage of developing the final park plan.

A Correction
As to the choices, the target of your criticism is misdirected.

The HPNA did NOT design the choices appearing on the ballot. Those choices presented by the city were those provided by the architects they hired - Schoor DePalma.

Quote:

Rather than assigning blame, it's time for everyone to come together constructively and help finalize a park plan that works for everyone. I see that process happening as we speak and I am not discouraged by the outcome of the vote.

All the best.

Geoff

See Jersey City Municipal Code Chapter 254 - Property Maintenance

http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/ ... _36__Nature_of_occup.html

? 254-36. Nature of occupancy of certain dwelling and rooming units limited.*

A. Occupancy of single-family dwelling. A single-family dwelling shall be occupied by persons composing a family and no more than two (2) other persons.

B. Occupancy of dwelling unit. A dwelling unit in any building other than a single-family dwelling shall be occupied by persons composing an immediate family and no more than one (1) other person except as provided in Subsection C of this section.

C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection B of this section, the Director of Housing Code Enforcement is authorized to permit, on an annual basis, a dwelling unit, in a building containing six (6) or more dwelling units, to be occupied by not more than five (5) college or university students of the same sex pursuant to written leasing arrangements between the college or university where said students are enrolled as full-time students and the owner or manager of the building containing said dwelling unit, provided that:

(1) A copy of the written leasing arrangements is filed with the Director of Housing Code Enforcement.

(2) An appropriate official of said college or university submits a written agreement that he or she will cause adequate safeguards to be provided to ensure that said dwelling is properly maintained.

(3) In all other respects the occupancy of said dwelling unit is in full compliance with this chapter.


D. Occupancy of rooming units. Rooming units shall be rented for occupancy or be occupied by adults and emancipated minors only.

E. Occupancy of one-room dwelling units or rooming units. Occupancy of dwelling units or rooming units having only one (1) habitable room, except for those in approved hotel, motel or dormitory facilities, shall be limited to two (2) persons.

.

Quote:

The answer to FAB's question as written is a flat out "no".

If there is to be any legal responsibility for the design, that will lie entirely in the hands of the city, it's architect and outside contractor.

That being said, it would be an upward swim to hold the city liable for design negligence even without having to jump the hurdle of the various governmental immunities that apply to municipalities, as noted by Lora.

Failure to enforce safety rules, regulations and ordinances might have a better chance of making it through the courts.

All the best.

Geoff

Lot's of good ideas and discussion on balance in this thread.

My suggestion at this point is to go vote what you think is best on June 9 at the HPNA ParkFest.

Whatever the final choice, there is still room and a serious need for tweaking once everyone can review the actual final architectural plans, as opposed to the mere renderings we have at the moment.

All the best.

G