caj11 wrote:
Quote:

PathH8Tr wrote:
Quote:

SRhia wrote:
Don't lose all hope!!! There were a handful of times when the tracking is marked as "delivered" on the day it was suppose to arrive (but nothing). But the package showed up the next day. So, there may still be hope...

Quote:

PathH8Tr wrote:
USPS up to their old tricks again. Items says delivered. It wasn't. Now I have to work through their dysfunctional system of hell.

I thought that too but it's been several days.

This happened to me twice this past month. The first package showed up about a week after it said it had been delivered. The second one showed up the following day. So don't lose hope.

And call the Post Office FWIW. Try this number, 201-915-7139, they actually answer it sometimes.

SRhia wrote:
Don't lose all hope!!! There were a handful of times when the tracking is marked as "delivered" on the day it was suppose to arrive (but nothing). But the package showed up the next day. So, there may still be hope...

Quote:

PathH8Tr wrote:
USPS up to their old tricks again. Items says delivered. It wasn't. Now I have to work through their dysfunctional system of hell.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
... they don't plan to stay in New Jersey thereafter, especially since they were never able to convince the top brass to move to New Jersey.

I would be very surprised if this is true. The Goldman Sachs move to JC is not an isolated case. More and more law firms, hedge funds and other financial firms are moving a LOT of their back room operations to locations outside of NYC. With networking technologies that allow for offices over disparate locations to work and collaborate as if they were literally one door over, many firms have come to realize that paying premium rates on office space in NYC (what's the current rate per sq ft in Midtown and/or Downtown!?) is not worth it when you can buy space elsewhere (a client of mine just moved ALL of their support and backroom operations to Florida) for a fraction of the cost. Over the past year or two, many of my clients in Wall Street have leased and/or announced plans to move their staff to JC, keeping a small footprint in NY to use for upper management, some conference rooms and working offices, and for the NYC corporate address.

Not planning to stay in New Jersey doesn't mean moving back to NYC, for what it's worth. At the very least, I'm sure they will shop around again for massive tax breaks.

yes. i guess they want those tax breaks. i doubt gs would be dumb enuff to move all to consolidate ny area presence back in manhattan. they need contingency plans

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Knowing JC, we will continue with the abatements with a foreign national.

i agree that jc needs to massively curtail the abatements, but i don't see why a chinese company/investor should not be entitled to an abatement if a domestic company/investor is entitled to one.

That foreign national company will pay taxes to the Chinese government which oppress many people. If I were to visit China, the Catholic Church associated with Rome is underground. China only allows the allows their own Church in which they pick the bishops. The underground Church has members in jail. Then, there is the issue of forced abortions. Sorry, I don't believe in giving tax breaks that will eventually benefits a government that oppress their people.

user1111 wrote:
All of this by a raccoon, wow. b safe down there.

07310 wrote:
Quote:

PathH8Tr wrote:
Does anyone know what building?

499 Washington Blvd

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... oving_to_jersey_city.html

alastor wrote:
Yes, I am entitled: I'm entitled to receive the packages.

To be blunt, your tipping creates an expectation of reward for carriers to merely DO THEIR JOB. And it is the duty of the postal service to ensure that packages are delivered to their recipient--in fact, it's a matter of federal law.

So, if you want talk about "entitlement" in the pejorative way that you intend, let's talk about your expectation that you should receive exceptional service for tipping a federal employee. But then we're back at the cronyism and the state of exception that you clearly feel entitled to for paying extra. Clearly, you could give a damn about how this deranges a government agency and creates the conditions for corruption and waste that you favor. But that's for another thread.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

PathH8Tr wrote:
I've really enjoyed patronizing the place. I just wish they'd stop refusing to let us order our appetizers before ordering our main course. This has happened four times. Even when it wasn't busy. Once it was Oysters we wanted to order, even before we were ordering our appetizers and entrees...wanted our drink order and oyster order at the same time. Server came back and apologized but said the chef is working on a large party and needs us to put in our oyster order with our entrees. So we had to figure sh*t out pretty quickly if we wanted our oysters with our cocktails.

Then I came upon this article and thought - okay, it's a trend.

Link here: New York Observer

The "trend" of asking (or, requiring) customers to place their entire meal order at once is not at all a recent thing. And, it has nothing to do with the article you reference/linked. This is not a matter of the customer being right, or wrong. Running a kitchen at an upscale restaurant is like choreographing an intricate ballet; timing is everything. They need to know what you are eating so they can prepare and get ready all of the components that go into your dish or meal so each dish comes out at the proper time.

Also to be considered is that, at upscale restaurants, the "experience" is an important piece of the overall picture. The chef will want to make sure that there is proper spacing and timing between each course, and that is hard to pull if they don't know what you are intending to eat. For those who want to enjoy the experience of eating out, and not just consume food, this is important, as well.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

PathH8Tr wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Are people saying that renters and owners of new construction should not have the same rights to street parking as other residents?

No they're saying if an area that held a residential building that held 6 people is demolished and can now hold 20, that they should find a way to provide parking for natural increase of cars.

This assumes the people who lived there before had a right to free street parking. But why?

JC has plenty of parking spots in existing parking lots. It doesn't need more lots.

Population density. Before street parking wasn't horrible, but when you start cramming more and more people on the same area it changes the amount of parking needed.

Why fight it? It attracts more people to the area.

Exactly. Some people seem to think that everyone wants to ride a bike, works in Manhattan and are aging backwards. The bigger buildings are required to offer parking but all of them tag an extra fee of $200 or more. So now all those residents are parking on the street and they're getting more and more crowded. The parking in those larger buildings should be free to the residents.

I believe it is free to the owners of apartments. But not to renters. There's the catch.

Wrong. Residents AND guests must pay for parking in all buildings. Some lots may have discounted rates for residents, and possibly for monthly renters, and some other lots may even have deeded parking spots that you can buy when you buy a unit.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Are people saying that renters and owners of new construction should not have the same rights to street parking as other residents?

No they're saying if an area that held a residential building that held 6 people is demolished and can now hold 20, that they should find a way to provide parking for natural increase of cars.

This assumes the people who lived there before had a right to free street parking. But why?

JC has plenty of parking spots in existing parking lots. It doesn't need more lots.

Population density. Before street parking wasn't horrible, but when you start cramming more and more people on the same area it changes the amount of parking needed.

Why fight it? It attracts more people to the area.

Exactly. Some people seem to think that everyone wants to ride a bike, works in Manhattan and are aging backwards. The bigger buildings are required to offer parking but all of them tag an extra fee of $200 or more. So now all those residents are parking on the street and they're getting more and more crowded. The parking in those larger buildings should be free to the residents.

maybeMoving wrote:
I'm sure I'm being lumped in with the complainers but I want to be clear that I fully support this. I think it's great that the city is taking the initiative to do this and realize that they have to make incremental steps so people like Yvonne can slowly come to accept the new reality of not giving preference to cars above all else.

My only point is that I hope this becomes something more fully fleshed out and not an annual 3 month stretch of putting a couple picnic benches on Newark so we can sit in the middle of asphalt. I worry that we'll be stuck with this half measure as "good enough" since that's usually how things go.

This could be a "chicken or egg" case. Will more people show up if a beautiful pedestrian plaza is built or will a pedestrian plaza not be built because there wasn't enough use of it while it was just a closed strip of pavement.

Hopefully JC commits to making this a REAL pedestrian plaza in the near future.

JCbiscuit wrote:
I wonder if this was the same bike-riding asshat who played chicken with me on the narrow, one-person-wide stretch of sidewalk on 2nd street.

nah, I'm sure it was one of several asshats making their way through JC this morning.

MDM wrote:
What is with the helicopters today? I have been doing some roof repairs and I swear, they are flying overhead every couple of minutes.

This is way more than usual. Some sort of training or event going on?

devilsadvocate wrote:
So what can homeowners do? My basement flooded a bit last night - a few inches in a portion. I am planning on installing a sump pump this summer, but ideally, I'd like to stop the flooding before it happens. I know we can install a backflow preventer, but that is several thousand dollars to do right, which I'm not dying to spend right now. Do I just need to wait for the sewers to get fixed?