Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

jcfun wrote:
What's the big deal. I see gambling & prostitution way down on the list of legal priorities.
Who's it hurting???

Where should we begin...?

dixonshills wrote:
Quote:

Jeebus wrote:
Playing the race card does not move me and is an appeal to a bygone era. Do you think that any garage in JC could deny black people the same rate as whites without losing most of their business from non-black people - even without government intervention.

Also, the discount was not "against" anyone, including atheists. It was a discount for Jehovah's Witnesses, probably because the lot owner knew a bunch of them would be looking for parking when others wouldn't (i.e. JSQ on Saturday morning).

Maybe I am less threatened by religious folks than some atheists but I treasure private property rights and the right to freely associate with those of one's choosing. I see my freely parking in a non-religious lot and everyone else who supports religious freedom doing so a better solution than employing the coercive power of the state to force bigots to stop losing my business.

Wow, way to completely ignore the point. Just because you're not "threatened" by JWs, it doesn't mean the practice is not discriminatory. And if you truly believe in private property rights, then you DO agree that a lot should be able to offer a special discount to whites. I know you think you somehow bypass this argument by saying it "appeals to a bygone era" (yes, because racism is dead in this country - you're right), but maybe this will make it a little easier to visualize in this modern, racism-free era:

Let's say there happened to be a white nationalist rally one day in Journal Square (these kinds of rallies happen all the time, so it's not an "appeal to a bygone era"). And let's imagine this garage was offering special discounts to members of this white nationalist organization on that day. Would you think that's ok?

JC_DowntownRegular wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:

First, have you ever been to Central Park during a nice weekend day?

1) If there IS disorderly conduct, then prosecute it. That's fine.

2) If there IS drinking and riving, then prosecute it.

Again, drinking in and of itself in public is NOT a real crime. No one is being violated by this action alone. Can things happen after the drinking? Sure, but that doesn't mean drinking itself is criminal.

Let's prosecute people for actual crimes, not pre-crimes. This isn't and shouldn't be Minority Report.

Dirt,

Drinking in NYC parks is also prohibited. If the Parks Enforcement Patrol officers do not ticket the violators, that is their discretion.

You are mixing your opinion with fact. Your opinion is that drinking alcohol in public in and of itself is not a crime. You know what? I agree.

However, the City of New York and the State of New Jersey have laws that indicate that drinking alcohol in public parks is prohibited. So, if someone is drinking alcohol in a public, they have indeed committed a crime.

And indeed deserve to be prosecuted.

Until, or if, the laws change, people need to adhere to them.

I have no issue with drinking being prohibited if the safety of the public is at mind. I don't feel like my civil rights have been violated or personal freedoms infringed upon, and I value both just as equally as you do.

Let me ask you a question: would you rather than officers had to spend their time dealing with drunk and disorderly incidents and drunk driving incidents in addition to or instead of other emergencies and incidents? Don't you think the officers can focus their energy on, as you call it, real crimes then?

And here is a fact. Where I work, drinking was allowed in a certain area and there were daily numerous incidents. After alcohol was banned, the incidents dropped by 95%. Coincidence?

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
If the people don't care about their waste, let them pay it. It works itself out. We get the government we deserve.

That all sounds nice but reality isn't quite so simple once you let pesky facts get in the way.

For starters, many layers of the local government (and i'll just speak to ours for the moment) are openly hostile toward the citizenry they supposedly represent. School board elections are held separate from any other elections. They are held at very unusual hours (something like 2pm to 8pm). There is virtually no public advertising for them. The deck is stacked for teachers and municipal employees to vote in disproportionate numbers (think people who are not working outside of JC and can easily make it to the polls during the allotted time) - they are here, they (unlike most) are very aware of the election and they have strong personal incentive to vote - even more than the taxpayer. Of course there is nothing technically stopping anyone from voting (and yes, I vote in BOE elections), but when you make it difficult rather than open and easy you are bound to end up with a system that requires less than 2,000 votes to win a seat. Which is the case here - in a city of ~ 130,000 registered voters.

Take the MUA. They meet at 5 on a Thursday once a month. They jam through a huge rate increase and no one even knew there was a meeting to go to so they could voice opposition. (Maybe a few people knew, but no one - NO ONE - was there.)

I could go on and on and if you're being honest with yourself, you could probably as well. Sure - vote them out. But when the incumbents have essentially unlimited funds (acquired through whatever means necessary), there is unquestionably a tilted field in their favor.

I don't think asking for these things to be addressed - things that need to be done to begin to be able to do things like "get the government we deserve."

flying_the_flannel wrote:
It's a law placed into affect as a precautionary step; better to play it safe than be sorry, right?

JC_DowntownRegular wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Why is the "no alcohol" law a good one?

If you commit a real crime, prosecute it. Drinking in and of itself is not criminal.

Dirt,

The issue at hand is not whether the no alcohol law is a good law. That is what the law is, and the OP, by his own admission, broke the law. Alcohol is not allowed in any state park in NJ.

There are two reasons for the law.

1) There is an increase of disorderly conduct and other incidents when alcohol is allowed. This is not my opinion, but fact.

2) Most people have to drive to the state parks in NJ. Yes LSP is different as it has the light rail. However, the state parks are being proactive by not allowing people to drink and thus reducing the potential chance of a drunk driving incident.

This is a real crime. It is as prosecutable as littering, having a dog off a leash, jaywalking, running a red light, murder, or robbery. Let's not let personal opinion of what the law should be muddle the issue at hand.

ianmac47 wrote:
"Keeping it Local" is exactly why property taxes are so high in this state. For every municipality that remains independent there are the costs of payroll, health insurance, and pensions for:

Council
Mayor
Manager
Clerk
Municipal Lawyer
Accountant
Engineer

And then add to that the varied department heads for things like public works, sanitation, transportation, public safety, parks, recreation, ect.ect.

Then multiply by 566.

Do the people of Weehawken, with just 13,500 resident, actually have better representation than Hoboken with 38,000?

Or are there just fewer taxpayers to pay the salaries of the council, mayor, manager, clerk, lawyer, accountant, engineer, police director, sanitation director ect ect?

radryan03 wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:

No, it\'s not working well, but centralizing it will make it worse. It will drive the administration even further away from the people in the locality.

If the munis are wasteful, then that\'s what those citizens deserve. Those that are smart enough to wake up and demand change will be rewarded, those that aren\'t will be punished. Intuitively, that\'s how it should be. The munis are as accountable as the citizens want them to be.

I would be interested to know what sort of backing you have a for your statement - other than it\'s what you think will happen. I have lived (paid taxes) and participated in both systems. My frustration with NJ has lead to a lot of research and reading. Municipalities are typically a strong civic entity when they exist on a small scale, providing community services for (typically) geographically disconnected groups. They tend to not behave well in large densely populated areas, like NJ, where community services from town to town are similar. Instead, municipalities become fiefdoms, serving themselves or the people running them... not the public.

You are suggesting that democracy runs efficiently in this state... I think we know better. The corruption sting being the case and point. Just because the community doesnt know better doesnt mean they dont deserve better. The only way this will change is if someone reaches in and takes control - a real leader.

radryan03 wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:

I?d rather keep it local. More accountability and at least a chance of efficiency.

Because that is working so well.... all of the inefficiencies we have are driven by the municipalities acting independent of each other for the same things.

The governor will continue to be a figure head in this state until he takes power back from people like Healy and their fiefdoms. I am more concerned about what that nut job and his cronies will do than I am about Christie.

It's great that Christie isn't going to raise taxes... that means nothing for my property tax, which in the next four years is likely to go up.... and for what?

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
I?d rather keep it local. More accountability and at least a chance of efficiency.

But how local do we need it? Some 560-odd municipalities in a state that isn't even a quarter the physical size of the average state? Sure it's a densely populated state - all the better in terms of rolling up some of these insane "municipalities" such as East Newark and Guttenberg.

I have to agree with Wibbit (which is quite unusual) - start gutting the administrative ranks of the schools. 26 deputy and assistant superintendents in the Jersey City school district all of them making between $110,000 and $160,000 per year??? For what??? Oh right - the $285,000 per year superintendent was also a state assemblyman until 2008 and in Trenton two days out of the week. I guess he needed the 26 others to do the day job he was supposed to be doing himself.

Accountability will come when someone (hopefully Christie) makes it clear that local politics is not a synonym for racketeering. This state, this county and this city are all embarrassments.

radryan03 wrote:
If Christie wanted to do something effective he would pull the power off the municipal governments and incorporate our counties. Start with the centralization education, sanitation, and safety.

Too many people loose out in the municipal system.

mrasg1 wrote:
I like to go up to those I see with a hat saying Goldman Sachs or AIG etc etc and say your'e welcome! Then they say excuse me? Then I repeat your'e welcome! And then they say for what? And I say for my taxpaying hard earned money!

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
My right to not feel like the victim of systemic discrimination. What kind of an American are you?

I favor the freedom of private enterprises to run their operations as they see fit. You can't get more American than that.

And you'd be the first to complain if a factory was dumping toxic waste into your well.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/040800-03.htm

Since the 1930s, Portlanders had railed about the growing filth of the Willamette, where pulp and steel mills sent globs of sludge floating downriver and raw sewage left fish unable to breathe. Film shot in the 1960s showed healthy fish dropped into the river flailed and died within minutes.

I would because they would be dumping waste into a someone else's property. Apples and oranges.

Ha ha. He would but selectively. I rest my case.

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
My right to not feel like the victim of systemic discrimination. What kind of an American are you?

I favor the freedom of private enterprises to run their operations as they see fit. You can't get more American than that.

And you'd be the first to complain if a factory was dumping toxic waste into your well.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/040800-03.htm

Since the 1930s, Portlanders had railed about the growing filth of the Willamette, where pulp and steel mills sent globs of sludge floating downriver and raw sewage left fish unable to breathe. Film shot in the 1960s showed healthy fish dropped into the river flailed and died within minutes.

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
My right to not feel like the victim of systemic discrimination. What kind of an American are you?

I favor the freedom of private enterprises to run their operations as they see fit. You can't get more American than that.

Like apple pie!

This morning I woke up on my "don't remove the tag" mattress, walked through my building code compliant house, used the federally compliant toilet, dressed the kids and drove them to their "state certified" charter school where they'll eat a state approved lunch.

I got back in my state registered, emissions compliant, insured (by state requirement) car and drove the legal speed limit back to the house. I then walked through my Scottsdale code compliant yard (no weeds in our "desert" landscaping")into the house, drank pasteurized (USDA required) juice, and ate cereal processed in an inspected facility with milk from an USDA compliant dairy. I then took my FDA approved prescription pills (from a licensed pharmacy of course) and played with the state-licensed dogs.

I took a call on my federally taxed cell phone (instead of the federally taxed land line), stopped by our FDIC insured bank (which received TARP money that it didn't want and is not allowed to pay back), and drove along city streets (paid for by sales and property taxes) to the closest Costco (which has a business license of course and pays mandated worker's comp). I bought beef franks made from inspected beef in an inspected facility, buns made in an OSHA compliant factory, and a gallon of Frank's in an approved plastic bottle.

All of this before 10:15 am.

mscottc wrote:
The fact that I can't avail myself to that discount unless I make use of an organization I have no use for. That is what makes it prejudicial and in violation of civil rights. If the church wants to subsidize parking for its members, I have no problems. Well, except that, most likely those subsidy dollars would be coming from monies they have that were never taxed because they are a religious organization.

BTW, if a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization can segregate its charitable work funds from its religious operation/education/proselytizing monies, I have no problem with the charitable funds being tax free.

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
My right to not feel like the victim of systemic discrimination. What kind of an American are you?

DowntownSteve28 wrote:
Quote:

Jeebus wrote:
If one didn't want to park there without the discount, or if it bothered you on principle, you were free not to patronize the garage. Why shouldn't the owner be free to charge whatever he wants?

I don't think you're grasping the basic issue at stake here. Maybe if we change some words around in the article, you'll see what the problem is:

The complainant noticed a sign that offered "special parking up to 10 hours" for $5 at the Journal Square Ramp on Saturdays and Sundays for white people. The price for everyone else was $8.

The Civil Rights Act, New Jersey state law and the city code of Jersey City do not distinguish between different forms of diversity. As an atheist living in an overwhelmingly religious society, I'd think you would be a little more conversant in what our rights are.

Iwitness wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
If it's vital, let private companies do it.

Yeah, the constituents most affected by it will get right on that and wave their magic wands and privatize the U.S. Mail system.

Lafayette wrote:
Please support the Lafeyette Community and Communipaw Avenue Block Association today at 12 pm at the main post office in downtown.....It is important for all to know that we can't accept vital services to be taken away from us.! Thank you!

ianmac47 wrote:
Or we could let the free market figure it out, and people can either pay for parking or get rid of their cars.

flying_the_flannel wrote:
Clown nose, bro.