Quote:

Please elaborate by honestly sharing with us your value system.

Quote:

Come on. You're right, but you're trying to reason with a gaggle of anonymous, self-righteous, sniping complainers. This will never be a reasonable discussion so long as folks can hide behind an avatar. And hide they do.

Going public would create openness and comfort and would cut out all this negativity... which would be quite embarrassing to most reasonable people.

But now I'm trying to preach and I know they'll dismiss my message without any consideration. Keep up the good work though!

Quote:

Here it is. Gross. A few days later there were two large, clear trashbags set out on the curb with sorts of the junk.

1917-1947

Nerds?

I'm going out on a limb here, but not too far: I think we can blame teenagers for most of it. And when some of them grow up, we can blame them again.

So, intervention and social engineering should occur through the schools. Obviously, many families in this town have no respect for their envionment.

Let me get a recent picture I took from across from Frank Conwell school on Bright Street. It will make you sick.

You'd do better to go to White Star on Brunswick/ Pavonia (between 8th/ 9th St.). The dude running that place values good footballing and in general the place is run better. My opinion of course.

Stupid is as stupid does.

P.S. That aphorism is turrible.

Ok. I filled out the survey and I recommend "Get Baked" as the name for your place.

Quote:

This was the point I was going to make, but I got timed out and walked away.

Or, hire a hauling company or some bozos on the street or me and some fat-ass-dude to take care of it. Wouldn't take much.

Can we get the garbage train built in time for this?

I saw a For-Sale sign on "Food for Soul" cookie shop today. It was a business-for-sale sign from Del Forno realty.

Perhaps you can look into that place, at Jersey/ Columbus.

But, maybe that's too close to Stockinette/ Europa/ Made With Love/ Wonder Bagels/ Auhym/ Subia's... unless you'd like to make Jersey Ave a baked-goods corridor.

Perhaps you could stand out if you bring a Filipino bakery akin to Red Ribbon or Ph. Bread House down here. When I'm craving ensaymada... I don't wanna go all the way up there. I'm sure there are other market niches you could fill, as well.

I'm not the biggest fan of Barrow but I know they have it.

Ok. Webmaster pls get rid of this thread or change the title so it doesn't confuse folks.

definitely brooklyn. you should say goodbye and good riddance to jersey city

:P

Fecal Gravity at Work in Jersey City Construction

Quote: Yeah, no kidding. What the hell is his problem? Dragon: get over it. No small business in this town agrees with you. Most landlords and homeowners disagree, too. The city disagrees, too. They want ratables. Hell, even kids on a paper route disagree with you.

Quote:

Come on. Don't be so indignant.

Is it really so "whiny" when taxpayers resent laziness from public servants? If my councilman or my teacher or my librarian or DPW guy was snoozing on the clock, I would be upset with that as well. Anyone who respects the police as professionals should be upset.

P.S. Lots of folks could not, should not apply to be cops. That prooves nothing. And they're still allowed to be critical of cops who snooze on the job or waste city resources on the zucchini patrol.

Quote:

Hmmm. Maybe. I also dislike inconsistency and broken political systems, such as the absurdity that is our local politics.

But, it seems more like your inconsistency has been exposed, because you seem to think park rules apply to everyone except you... even though, as you highlight for us quite often, you know the rules about litter and noise and bball are never enforced anyway.

Quote:

Perhaps that is true, but I doubt it.

It was here (http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... =ASC&type=&mode=0&start=0 ) and (http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... id=237343#forumpost237343 ) that you aired your principles more openly. Maybe here (http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... id=237348#forumpost237348 )?

That said, I do remember something about how you'll flaunt the new regulation and it will go unenforced.

Thus, your misbehavior will be rewarded.

QED

Quote:

And from the "JC Playground Rules" thread about Fiske park, you wrote:

Quote:

I agree.

But, I am using this as a jumping-off point.

We must be mindful that public parks are for the mutual enjoyment of our fellow citizens, and not for the exclusive enjoyment of bad apples at the expense of others. It is unfair when good things like parks are shared unequally.

When individual bad behavior adds up, we have a "tragedy of the commons" scenario. Litter near the baseball field and hockey rink at Enos Jones Park is one such example. Each littering person, individually, is spoiling it for all, collectively.

Where misbehavior goes unregulated and unpunished, we risk a situation of "moral hazard" in which bad apples are untouched by the consequences of their actions. In turn, they have less incentive to change or do otherwise. Litter, again, is one such example. But the non-enforcement of parking codes or uninvestigated insurance fraud might be examples as well.

Together, these may produce yet another $50 word: externalities. Or, when costs are pushed downstream to another person - say, a taxpayer rather than the polluter himself. Thus, the actual costs of misbehavior are not borne by the actor because the costs are borne by other payers.

Ok. Here I come to my point.

In this thread and others - and especially about Hamilton Park - you've openly expressed your disdain for particular park users and hypocrisies related to their park behavior. With regard to HP, you've been quite clear about your opposition to the idea of dog parks. I believe you intend to openly flaunt the new HP dog restrictions and you malign any who say that dogs have ever caused a nuisance. (You've even claimed they fight crime.) Just above you've written that you cannot wait to run the dogs there, at HP.

Many other posters disagree with your position and have called you out on it. I believe you've said that after a while, nobody will pay attention and the dogs will run free again.

You've also taken issue with the non-enforcement of reasonable nighttime restrictions on basketball playing.

This bring us to an interesting scenario where at Fiske Park in the Heights (http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... id=241881#forumpost241881), you've suggested that non-complying soccer-playing teenagers should be removed from the place of their non-compliance, lest their misbehavior be "rewarded" by non-enforcement.

So, if we apply that same principle here to suggest that toddlers should play in the toddler zone and soccer should be played in the soccer zone, cannot we urge through the reasonable and judicious exercise of park regulations that dogs should be run in the dog zone? That particular zone is not the only place they *could* be run, but nor must toddlers or soccer players be isolated in and of their nature.

What I'm asking of you is whether you believe there is something helpful in the theory that isolating zones for particular uses thereby isolates the risks which stem from those uses. Thus, by isolating the risks, other uses in the park are somehow protected or even rewarded.

Now, you may suggest that the uses are different, so the rules should be different. Ballplaying and dogs cause different harms, if any at all, you might say. That may well be for your dog, as you are a careful guardian of its muzzled face and it's squeaky-clean rear end such that you don't believe a leash or a dog park is required. But, if I grant that your dog is Lassie and would never misbehave, then I hope you would grant that there are OTHER dogs who might misbehave outside of the dog zone and that SOME of that misbehavior might come at a cost for other human beings.
(Full disclosure: I was biking through Hamilton Park two years ago when a tan/ light brown medium sized dog cut immediately across my path and forced me to stop in a sudden and very uncomfortable way. The dog was chasing a ball or a squirrel and the owner... hmmm. Well, he was quiet about the whole affair while I sneered at him).

So, if we apply the strict-enforcement/ "stop rewarding bad behavior" argument to Hamilton Park dog libertarianism, then we have the risk of tragedy of the commons (individual misuse which multiplies the dog piles and kicked-up grass), moral hazard (no disincentive to change such actions), and their resulting externalities (others pay the cost of stepping into a dog pile or hiring the Parks department to clean it up).

Indeed, the "others" to whom you wish to apply park regulations are human beings who - normally in control of their relatively-predictable actions and presumably able to understand the consequences of their actions - are nevertheless putting their rational self-interest before their belief in community or enlightened self-interest. In any case, they are human and know what behavior can be dangerous to others.

And, while I am an animal lover, I do not believe dogs have such a cognitive capability. Yes, they understand consequences and take well to good training, but they do not have the capacities of the human brain. For that reason, the regulation does not apply to the animal, but to the owner, who is the one most likely to pursue their own rational self-interest (letting the dog off the leash to let it run free and happy and tire out), or even concoct a self-serving argument that her dog is more in control than most human beings. While that may well be with Lassie, it cannot be guaranteed to be the case with all dogs.

In the end, I think that your tough-talk on park enforcement for litter and rough soccer CAN ONLY be consistent if you abide by the Hamilton Park regulations for dogs and dogwalking. If you do not abide such regulations, I feel you are exhibiting a disturbing instance of self-exceptionalism by excusing yourself from park regulations while you apply them to others.

I expect you will maintain a consistent position by disagreeing and you will try to differentiate your unregulated use of Hamilton Park and your brazen disregard for the preferences of others. Yet, if your principles are consistent, we cannot allow such misbehavior to go unpunished because to go unpunished is to be rewarded.

Quote:

I agree.

Please see my response in the Hamilton Park thread:

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... id=240485#forumpost240485

I'm a bit disturbed by the false dichotomies floating around here: either it's rough soccer where soccer shouldn't be played... or roving street gangs. Hmm... I think the OP was hoping for an option in-between.

But more accurately, I think the OP was hoping for a list of muni/park codes (which I provided but everyone seems to ignore, conveniently). On the day of the boring soccer debacle, the OP was hoping for a reasonable response from the cop: "hey kids, go play on the grass and show some respect for this dude and his toddler."

That's too difficult to imagine? For some cops and from some people on this site... obviously it is too much damn trouble to find aggreeable solutions.

or watch from Ellis if you're into that

Quote:

maybe you're right. lots of nyc neighborhoods, plush suburban towns, and small country villages are resistant to change and new blood.

but this talk of "visitors" is ridiculous. ashkenazi jews and germans bemoan how much washington heights has changed since they growed up there. same goes for their attitude about weequahiac in newark.

towns change, people change, demographics change. this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

hell, most people i know who were born and raised in JC and Newark CHOSE to move to the suburbs to raise their families in better comfort and schools, etc. Same is true for old Brooklyn and Queens

Quote:

yep.

a lot of so-called born-and-raised jersey citizens assume that gives them street cred automatically. "b/c i was here at such-and-such a period, i am _____ than you."

that sort of talk isnt helpful to anyone.

probably 80% of the people who were here "then" have moved along and some 20% are pretending to defend their memory.

(and when was this old school? the 50s? the 80s? it's never clear what the old-school means anyway with so many one-sided stories, undocumented stories, and self-serving narratives)

this is a very interesting and irrelevant conversation...

because it seems nobody's gonna submit those photos to the IAB and then, the IAB who either doesn't know or doesn't care about such behaviors, will not do anything about it.

also, there will be no political response thru the council. etc.

nor will the union respond. etc.

IT'S TIME TO SHUFFLE ALONG

you can't change a culture of government waste with some chit-chat on a message board... you'd need to show a pervasive practice of it or something, in some major way, where the consequences that children or gramma or baby seals suffered and died due to a slow response.

and when there are, conceivably, police reasons for the action and probably some plausible deniability to throw around, too... bah. aint going nowhere. just bide your time until new mayor hires a new police chief

This doesn't seem like a problem worth fighting at the time it's happening. Too much opportunity for conflict, etc., unless someone is actively at risk of being hurt.

But, to answer the question you've asked, try this for JC.

http://www.municode.com/Library/ClientListing.aspx?stateID=30

And then follow the links.

There are a few areas which seem to address your concern, including a few "don't be boisterous" catch-alls. 239-12(F) is in the section relating to picnic areas, but it seems closest.

*****************************************

Chapter 239 - Parks:

? 239-1. - Definitions.

As used herein, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:

ATHLETIC ACTIVITY - Any activity in which a ball and other athletic equipment is used, including baseball, basketball, football, handball, soccer, tennis and ice skating.

DIRECTOR - The head of the Department of Public Works.

PARK - A park, reservation, playground, ballfield, beach, recreation center or any other area in the city, owned or used by the city, and devoted to active or passive recreation and/or athletic activities.

? 239-12. - Picnic areas; camping; horseback riding.

No person in a park shall:

A.
Picnic or lunch in a place other than those designated for that purpose. Attendants shall have the authority to regulate the activities in such areas when necessary to prevent congestion and to secure the maximum use for the comfort and convenience of all. Visitors shall comply with any directions given to achieve this end.

...

F.
Take part in or abet the playing of any games involving thrown or otherwise propelled objects such as balls, stones, arrows, javelins or model airplanes except in areas set apart for such forms of recreation. The playing of rough or comparatively dangerous games such as football, baseball and quoits is prohibited except on the fields and courts or areas provided therefor. Roller-skating shall be confined to those areas specifically designated for such pastime.

? 239-13. - Alcoholic beverages; firecrackers; loitering; soliciting alms; fires; gambling.

No person in a park shall:

...

G.
Enter an area posted as closed to the public, nor shall any person use or abet the use of any area in violation of posted notices.

...

J.
Sleep or protractedly lounge on the seats or benches or other areas or engage in loud, boisterous, threatening, abusive, insulting or indecent language or engage in any disorderly conduct or behavior tending to a breach of the public peace.

...

L.
Disturb or interfere unreasonably with any person or party occupying any area or participating in any activity under the authority of a permit.

? 239-16. - Enforcement.

A.
The Director, the police and park employees shall, in connection with their duties imposed by law, diligently enforce the provisions of this chapter.

B.
The Director, the police and any park employee shall have the authority to eject from the park any person acting in violation of this chapter.

C.
The Director, the police and any park employee shall have the authority to seize and confiscate any property, thing or device in the park or used in violation of this chapter.

Quote:

dude.

the "good riddance" attitude is in every word you write. then later in the thread you give a half-hearted "goodbye and goodluck." ok, fine. you too.

so:

either work on your communications skills (it's bad practice to piss where other people are standing) or decide what you're communicating up front (are you telling us to bugger off, or not?).

personally, i don't care what you're actually communicating because you've poisoned the well.

i'm also not offended that you see problems in this town. i see them too. but I and most of the people on this board and the people in this town are bold enough to discuss the problems openly and sometimes without the sniping anonymity you cling to.

good luck on long island.

Quote:

There already have been too many such incidents. How many do you want? How much violence and depravity becomes uncomfortable for you?

* In 2008, I called the cops to stop a two-party streetfight. They showed up, but a bit late.

* In 2008, I called the cops to stop a multi-party streetfight. They rolled in with cars and big police van coming up the wrong way on the street.

* In 2008, I called the cops to alert them of prostitution occuring in a car in front of my house. Well, it certainly seemed like a business transaction. If nothing else, it was public but not paid for lewdness.

* In 2008?, a driver near Latin Lounge plowed through a few people after a bouncer told him to buzz off.

* Last year, an automatic weapon was hidden in a shoebox on the wall across from Indio's... next to the nursery school.

* Last year, a man was stabbed closer to/ across from The Lamppost.

* Last week, a man was stabbed on Brunswick.

AND numerous complaints of noise, etc.

How many am I forgetting AND/OR unaware of? Just ask "The Village" association. They know of others as well.