mr_smith wrote:
To SalOntheHill:

What I meant to write was neighborhood watch, not just neighborhood.

And I am not complaining that someone was selling crack in the park, it was just an FYI to everyone in the area who might bring their kids to the playground. The reason I did not call the cops is because by the time they got down there the guy (who was already walking away) would have been long gone and why waste their time?

On another note: I love the sardonic and sanctimonious tone you took with me... another intenet tough guy.

-Chris Smith

Anonymous wrote:
Republican Candidate for US Senate tells John McCain: "Enough War Talk" in new press release


As the likely Republican U.S. Senate nominee in New Jersey I needed to send a clear message to Senator John McCain before it is too late: he needs to stop trying to convince the American people he is right on our involvement in Iraq's Civil War. 75% of New Jersey voters want to bring our troops home and a recent poll has Senator McCain losing to Senator Barack Obama by 24% in New Jersey. This could be the worst political landslide since Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in 1984 (but in reverse). Below is my open message to Senator McCain and the video can be viewed directly by going to my website www.MurraySabrin.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2wxDeXHEZI


In Liberty,
Murray

P.S. Part of my responsibility when I become the Republican Senate nominee will be to protect the rest of the Republican candidates running in New Jersey from the "Obama Tsunami" in November - I take that responsibility seriously.

JadedJC wrote:
Good grief, this old vs new JC debate is just tiresome and stupid. While people were busy bashing the seemingly nice young couple, no one challenged this assertion from the real-estate agent:

Quote:

The couple went over their budget, buying a 750-square-foot one-bedroom late last summer for $436,000. (A similar one-bedroom is currently on the market for $475,000, Ms. Miniard said.)

That's just such BS, and a clear case of the agent talking up the market. A 9% appreciation since late last summer?? That would've been just about the time the mortgage/credit market meltdown was beginning. While the JC real estate market has proven to be resilient, I seriously doubt there's been a 9% appreciation since last summer. If anything, I've heard the developers of some these projects are offering some price concessions and incentives just to move the last units. My bet is the unit will go well below the asking $475K.

mr_smith wrote:
Do we have some sort of neighborhood on harrison ave or is that a stupid question?

Another thing that has been pissing me off are all the people standing around outside walgreens begging for change. I don't mind giving some some change once in a while but these guys are out there all day everyday. If they looked for a job with as much vigor as they beg for money they would be alright. And a lot of the time these guys don't look like they are destitute.

Oh and I saw some guy selling crack in Lincoln Park, right by the playground, which I thought was just in ABC after school specials.

Xerxes wrote:
I am not fond of keeping these horrific looking old monstrosities because I have never felt that ANY warehouse ever built was built to any standards except maximum storage volume at minimum space. These brick boxes all qualify eminently as filthy, useless monstrosities.

GrovePath wrote:
21-unit four-story building at 969 Summit Ave sells for just under $3 Mil.

JERSEY CITY, NJ-In separate transactions, two apartment buildings here and in neighboring Bayonne have been sold for just less than $2.8 million. The sales are part of a recent run by brokers from Gebroe-Hammer Associates, Livingston, NJ, that has seen a half-dozen apartment buildings with 177 units in Hudson County change hands for a total of more than $11.6 million.

In the latest sale, the 21-unit four-story building at 969 Summit Ave. of this city?s Heights section was sold for around $1.3 million, or about $63,000 per unit. The seller was a local group, the buyer an individual private investor, "drawn by the building?s location near public transportation and the Holland Tunnel, which is only five minutes away," says G-H sales associate Benjamin Greenstein.

http://www.globest.com/news/1144_1144/newjersey/170244-1.html

Mathias wrote:
Every story of crime becomes an argument over what to call the place where it happened. If it happens across the street, well that side of the street is a different neighborhood.

I understand the desire of people who bought real estate in Jersey City to try and do their best to present their lot as a great, safe neighborhood but ultimately you are not helping.

There are serious crime issues and government inefficiencies in this city that need to be dealt with.

justin wrote:
Yeah..Sorry. I don't know why I typed Harrison (I guess I was thinking of Lincoln Park)..I meant Glennwood/Highland.

justin wrote:
Quote:

cyclotronic wrote:
The title of this thread is misleading. Most of these crimes were not in the Lincoln Park / West Bergen neighborhood. Only Harrison & West Side would qualify.

Actually, none of it qualifies because West Bergen is a bogus name....period. I'm sure someone called it West Bergen somewhere down the line so that the RE Agents quickly relabelled...But, I lived there for 24 years, dad born there in 1910. Mom in 1926. I never heard of West Bergen until 2007. It's Westside, but, you are right....Even if they had it right, only Harrison qualifies....

And, I read one real estate ad this weekend that listed Williams Street as Journal Square......This stuff is almost as funny as calling Hells Kitchen Clinton:o)

With that being said, this article breaks my heart. It was a such a nice neighborhood when I was a kid.

brewster wrote:
Anyone else noticing a wave of tagging? I've been tagged both downtown and in the heights recently. It's been years since there's been much of this on my property.

DickCheney wrote:
Quote:

SalOnTheHill wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:

Patterson's cadets are well-bred college kids. Ivy-league all-stars who'll graduate with bachelor's degrees, and also with five-year enlistments as Army officers. Most will see combat soon after commencement.

Well-bred sure, but when did the U.S. Military Academy at West Point join the Ivy League? Or did I miss something?

I guess you missed something. Although USMA is not part of the Ivy League the kids who go their had their choice of the top schools in the nation. This week I sat through a presentation by a former dean of admissions from Yale who talked about what it takes to get a student into"the top level schools like the Ivies, MIT , West Point or Stanford." That is a direct quote.

omar wrote:
Now thats what I like to see Ms SalonontheHill, your well thought out response to the commentary by Mr. Engdahl. So whats your point? Mr. Spitzer the former Governor of New York should get a walk? Its a vast right wing conspiracy by rich Republicans against against a multimillionaire Governor?

By the way when these politicians Republican or Democrat break the law or are involved in sexual situations that are unethical and inappropriate (such as to put them into the realm of sexual harrassment land) as Foley, they should resign or be removed. I notice in your post you neglected to mention President Clinton and his clearly inappropriate and unethical relationship with Ms Lewinski. Why?

As to Mr. Guiliani who I'm not very fond of, one can hardly charachterize his infidelity from his wife as a sexual scandal (as you have) that should have resulted in sanctions on him from whatever source you feel they should have come.

omar wrote:
Super fury I stand corrected. But whats your point? The substance of my post was that the writer Mr. Engdahl neglected to mention Congressman Franks. The structure of my argument still remains in tact. Your post is intendended to make you look smart. So kudos to you. However, Bright moment in her/his opening paragraph wrote that he/she believed Mr. Engdahl to be credible. My point is that I don't believe Mr. Engdahl to be credible.

omar wrote:
Bright moment is presenting Mr. Engdahl as a writer whose credentials are impeccible. however, I am of the opinion that Mr. Engdahl's political leanings are quite apparent by my review of the article that Bright Moment has posted.

In Mr. Engdalh's article he cites Republican congressman Foley's sexual scandal, yet he does not reference democratic Congressman Barney Franks ethical issues with male pages employed in the House.

Mr. Engdahl speaks of Rudolph Guiliani's infidelity in his marriage (which is not a crime nor unethical as to his elected position, although it would be morally wrong on a personal level). The Author fails to mention Democratic President Bill Clintons inappropriate sexual relations with Monica Lewinski WHO WAS AN INTERN EMPLOYED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT. Ms. Lewinski was only slightly older than the Presidents own daughter, additionally how appropriate is it for a Boss (President Clinton) to have a sexual relationship with a subordinate (Ms. Lewinski), from a standpoint of Sexual harrassment laws?

I am definitlely not a fan of Mr. Guiliani and I really don't know to much about Congressman Foley, but I can tell you this: This Author with such impeccible credentials (which is described in detail by Bright Moment) clearly has a political agenda.

As for Mr. Engdahl's assertion that Mr. Spitzer has not presently been charged with a crime, I believe the statute of limitations is five years. If Mr. Spitzer did not wish to resign he should have stayed on as Governor. Please do not present him as a victim

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Right, because a problem that already exists couldn't possibly be exacerbated? Once something's categorized as a "problem" it's a wash?

Ian, I love when you think you're making so much sense. That's when I love you most.

Erie Street traffic is not going to use Monmouth Street instead of Erie. As usually, you have nothing compelling to say that would indicate otherwise, other than to belittle people.

Your condescension doesn't make you right, it just makes you sound like an asshole.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

SalOnTheHill wrote:

As i said above:

"On days when I need to drive into the city, I take Baldwin to Newark, left on 7th under the TPKE, left on Monmouth, right on 10th, left on Erie, then to the tunnel. I am far from alone in this regard."

I don't see what this has to do with stop signs on Erie Street. There is already a flashing signal on 10th and Erie, and the problems of speeding cars at that intersection are mitigated by the traffic light on 9th and Erie. The real problem on Erie is speeding traffic between Bay and Fifth Street, and sometimes at Seventh Street. 9th and 6th have a light, and 8th already has a stop sign. So anyone coming down Newark Avenue and cutting down 7th Street already has traffic signals at 8th, 9th, and 10th Street. Anyone coming off Newark Avenue and cutting down 5th to Erie has a traffic signal at 6th, and the only intersection without some sort of signal is 7th. So the portion of roadway most altered by new stop signs would be everything south of 5th Street. For traffic coming east on Newark, that would mean traveling as far southeast as 3rd, 1st or Erie to simply get onto Erie. And then of course, there is the issue of traffic on Newark, and buses picking up and discharging passengers on Newark, and so I contend that very few people traveling east on Newark Avenue are getting onto Erie Street south of 5th; most of the traffic on the most dangerous portion of Erie is then not originating from Newark Avenue.

My original statement was in response to this:

Quote:

If you focus a solution solely on Erie Street to the exclusion of the other adjacent and nearby streets, you will quite literally, move the problem around.

I am contending that addressing Erie street's traffic issues will not "move the problem around" because traffic flowing from Erie can't easily get to Monmouth Street to use that as a substitute, and Jersey and Marin are both safer roads for the sort of volume on Erie. The fact that Monmouth also has a problem is irrelevant; it either already has a problem or it doesn't, and fixing Erie street will not aggravate or create a problem because Monmouth Street and Erie Street are not good substitutes for each other.

The anecdotal evidence that you have presented, that you and many others from up on top of the Palisade already, currently, at present drive down Monmouth suggests only that Monmouth already, presently, has a problem. Correcting Erie Street by sending cars elsewhere will not create or cause a new problem on Monmouth.

nikkiinnj wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Like I said, yours is the impeccable logic and absolutism that brought us Bush. Maybe we'll get another Mayor Cunningham!!

Don't you think that you're being absolutist and rigid? I don't understand why we're not allowed to question politicians.

I think it's great that Steve chooses to use his forum to speak with his constituents. Plus, it gives people outside of his ward access to his initiatives and policies.

However, if he does something that is contrary to what he presented during his campaign then people deserve a valid explanation as to why there was a strategic shift. Maybe when he reads the dissenting view on this thread, it will give him something to think about when future abatements votes happen.

And the way you throw Bush around is like comparing apples and licorice. Last I checked, he and his supporters didn't welcome open debate.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

If you actually spent time observing Monmouth Street traffic during the morning and evening rush hours, reasonable people would conclude otherwise.

Monmouth may have its own problems, but the Monmouth does not connect to the same places as Erie does. Travelers on Erie will not simply move to Monmouth Street because it doesn't accomplish the same thing.

scooter wrote:
With the credit crunch still in effect despite the recent interest rate cuts, it's the waterfront developers who only want to do what's best for us I'm worried about.

I think we should retro-actively adjust the existing PILOT rates down to compensate - after all the waterfront and Jrnl. Sq. are blighted areas with nothing going for them, either geographically or infrastructure/mass transportation-wise.

G_Elkind wrote:
Quote:

The traffic situation on Erie is fairly unique

Nice arm chair reply.

If you actually spent time observing Monmouth Street traffic during the morning and evening rush hours, reasonable people would conclude otherwise.

DanL wrote:

Patterson's cadets are well-bred college kids. Ivy-league all-stars who'll graduate with bachelor's degrees, and also with five-year enlistments as Army officers. Most will see combat soon after commencement.

brewster wrote:
Sal, I can't play anymore. There's no getting through. You win. Yay!!

Like I said, yours is the impeccable logic and absolutism that brought us Bush. Maybe we'll get another Mayor Cunningham!!

Have fun, don't forget to turn out the lights.

Schundler rammed some awful things down JC's throat, like creating "authorities" unaccountable to citizens to handle critical things like sewers. He did this primarily to balance his current budgets by "selling" the city's assets to the authority, which issued bonds to buy them. Get it? He borrowed to balance the budget, something he wasn't legitimately able to do.

Quote:

PubliusIII wrote:
The anti Bret venom is just a cover for those who fear good governement. I mean how else to explain the angry tone that surpasses any of the criticism of Healy or Cunningham who have been absolute disasters?

brewster wrote:

How is the shell games he played with budgets, authorities, utility asset sales, and bonds "good government"? The train wreck he created to balance his budgets on the backs of future ones will be with us for decades.

And if you think we haven't been complaining about Healy being a disaster you haven't been paying attention.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
how can Sal not be right.....

both Councilman Fulop and Mayor Healy said they opposed waterfront abatements when campaigning.

if Councilman Fulop runs for Mayor, he will get pounded on about these issues, not just abatements, but developer contributions and the likely partnering with long time politicos looking get on his train....

some he will defend, some (hopefully, but unlikely) ignore....

competition is good as opposed to being brokered and the campaign will be "bloody", lets all hope more people than in the past take advantage of their right to vote.

now lets get back to Lou Manzo and abatements....

Dan, competition is great. That means comparing 2 different candidates, not simply attacking the 1 city official who most agrees with your position because he isn't "perfect". It's that "in isolation" rather than by comparison part that gets me crazy, and made others think he's a troll, that is, making an argument he really doesn't support. If there's a comparison to be made to Manzo, it was not in there. Perhaps you'd like to make it, I'm sure it would be informative.

I see this "he's not perfect" attack as the same logic that caused people to vote for Nader, because Gore had some warts. We all know where that got us. The folks who claimed in 2000 there was no difference between the Dems and GOP have seen how wrong they were in the larger picture. Lets not repeat the error and split our votes so far that none of our reform candidates make the runoff. I'm not saying Manzo or anyone else should walk away in favor of Fulop, but let the debate be rational and based on comparisons to each other, not some fictional ideal.

DanL wrote:
how can Sal not be right.....

both Councilman Fulop and Mayor Healy said they opposed waterfront abatements when campaigning.

if Councilman Fulop runs for Mayor, he will get pounded on about these issues, not just abatements, but developer contributions and the likely partnering with long time politicos looking get on his train....

some he will defend, some (hopefully, but unlikely) ignore....

competition is good as opposed to being brokered and the campaign will be "bloody", lets all hope more people than in the past take advantage of their right to vote.

now lets get back to Lou Manzo and abatements....

jennymayla wrote:
Quote:

rory_bellows wrote:
I actually think Sal is asking very good questions of Mr. Fulop. NO elected official who works for the people should go unquestioned. I live in Ward E and I am generally a fan of Fulop's but am a bit disappointed with his seemingly hypocritical vote for this particular abatement.

I also think this is a perfectly good forum to discuss such things. This site is used as a communication tool by Fulop's supporters and Fulop himself to discuss various initiatives and issues, so I think it is completely appropriate to discuss some of his more questionable votes or other actions.

At the end of the day though, I don't think that this vote means that Fulop should be crucified and, if he decides to run for mayor in 2009, he will still likely shine as the candidate that gets my vote when held up against the alternatives.

Well said, Rory Bellows.

As for the name-calling and this growing debate, I don't think it's fair to call any of the participants here a "troll" since they are all pretty regular and otherwise upstanding members of this little online community of ours. Don't let JC List politics get as muddled as JC politics

by scooter on 2008/4/1 10:31:19

Quote:

...sit back and braid Steve's hair

argumentative, and just a little creepy... :)

(and I told myself I wouldn't post to this thread anymore! :)