Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
151 user(s) are online (130 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 151

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Doozer)




Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Update
#1
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Only the two west lawns, that are next to West Hamilton Pl. are suppose to be marked "pet free" and the two lawns that are along 8th street are suppose to be pet friendly (aka family friendly). I have walked through with my dog and my son, yesterday, and they only put the signs back where they were. They did not fix the positions. Hopefully the town will do it soon, as I was getting some dirty looks for having my dog on the walkways on that side of the park.

Posted on: 2010/6/25 12:38
 Top 


Re: Armed robbery near Montgomery?
#2
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


You'd think the dominos guy would have reported it himself. If he did, the cops might have went directly to him, but they should have still followed up with your sister's husband. If he didn't, I would say we need to at least consider the possibility that the guy your sister's husband ran into was fabricating the story. Did your sister's husband call the police, or did the other guy?

Posted on: 2007/12/14 22:04
 Top 


Re: FBI: Violent crime up in majority of NJ's biggest cities
#3
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Park Rules
A. Except for unusual and unforeseen emergencies, parks shall be open to the public every day of the year between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. (J. Owen Grundy Park, however, is exempt from the 10:00 p.m. closing time.) The opening and closing hours for each individual park shall be posted therein for public information. . . . C. All activity is prohibited in the parks between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except in the case of an exemption or special activity sponsored or approved by the City Council.
I know HP has a sign posted saying Athletic activities are prohibited between 10 PM and 8 AM, but I don't think I've seen a sign posted regarding what hours it's open.

Posted on: 2006/6/16 16:07
 Top 


Re: Bank Robber Tosses Money on Newark Avenue to Escape
#4
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


It's easy to rob a bank b/c it's not the bank's money. Rather than hire decent security, risk getting shot, and face the ensuing lawsuits, they just hand over the cash and hire a single security guard for show. After a robbery, they call the feds, report what was stolen, and get a check from the FDIC. It's gotten to the point where the FBI is criticizing the banking industry for being too eager to hand over our cash. I give the security guard credit for even starting a foot chase.

So why didn't the guard shoot him in the back? The robber never said or showed a weapon, so I think he's considered unarmed. And once he's out on the street, the guard needs to take into consideration the innocent civilians he'll hit if he misses (or the bullet passes through the robber). I'm not sure what the rules are for a private guard once he leaves private property, but I'm kind of glad they don't just run out onto the streets and empty their clips like in the movies.

And yes, it's possible to rob a bank through the drive-thru window (at least according to google).

Posted on: 2006/5/24 17:49
 Top 


Re: Tax abatement for Newport this Wednesday
#5
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Wow, I didn't even realize it was legal for the city to negotiate donations in order to grant an abatement, especially donations to churches. Perhaps the agreement was a donation of $185k to JC non-profits of the developers choice? Otherwise, I don't see how it isn't a violation of church & state. Regardless, is it common practice for the city to request donations to local organizations before they grant an abatement? Does anyone verify the city council/mayor does not have direct ties to them?

Posted on: 2006/4/27 21:01
 Top 


Re: Two 48-Story Residential Towers - 900 units & 20,000 sf of retail - JC Waterfront - 77 Hudson St
#6
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:
They are adding over 1300 units not including office space and only parking for 900 cars.

diving, I read it that way at first too, but if you go back and read it again, you'll see it's 901 total units (420 condos, 481 rentals). So basically it's a 1-1 ratio.

Posted on: 2006/4/13 14:08
 Top 


Re: Hoboken is going to give out more tax abatements to developers.
#7
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Normal tax is split 3 ways (city, county, schools). PILOT (payment in lou of taxes) is less than the normal tax, and only goes to the city. So the property owner wins by paying less taxes, and the city wins by getting more taxes. The county and schools are the losers, and the schools suffer two ways, first through the loss of revenue, and secondly by the increase in students due to the new residents.

But the end result is not the county or school budgets get cut. Instead, to make up for this shortfall, the non-PILOT residents pay higher taxes. So basically, a PILOT grant to a new waterfront development is being paid for by the non-abated residents of JC and Hudson county. Originally, this seemed to make sense, as the reduced taxes were supposedly drawing in new development to the area. Now that it's a highly desirable neighborhood, there's little reason (besides political favors) to continue to grant new PILOTS or allow the transfer of existing ones.

Posted on: 2006/4/12 15:55
 Top 


Re: Hudson residents say: Build smaller
#8
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:
A majority of Hudson County residents want more single-and two-family homes

So, the majority of our county wants more urban sprawl?

Posted on: 2006/4/4 15:33
 Top 


Re: Ordinance for Security Cameras - Steven Fulop
#9
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Great work Steve, hopefully this goes through.

muffilator, I believe the cameras just record to tape or digital storage, and would only be accessed if there's a reason (no one is sitting around watching the cameras). The reason they need to be compatible with the police system is most likely to ensure the quality of the images as well as the ability of the police to view the tape/disk at the station or courthouse.

The price of these systems has fallen dramatically over the last few years (we have one in my 16 unit building), and should not be an issue for a large building, especially for the amount of security it provides.

Posted on: 2006/3/15 19:04
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#10
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Here's my solution to the parking problem...

What we need is about 3 square blocks of parking spaces in the middle of town. If each block can fit 4 rows of 100 cars, we could take 1200 cars off the street. To ensure it helps alleviate street parking, we'll make it a co-op and institute the following rules:
- Spots will be deeded to local residents only.
- To purchase/use a spot, you need to be a local resident (spots will be unavailable to local owners that rent their unit and live elsewhere).
- Each apartment/condo can own a maximum of 1 spot.
- Anyone who purchases a spot surrenders the right to on street parking permits.

If we sell the spots for $10,000 and charge $100/month maintenance, we'll bring $12 Million into the city initially, and $120,000/month.

Ok, so where do I come up with 3 square blocks of available space? That's right, the embankment. Now I'm sure the Make My Park crowd will hate this idea, but it has several benefits. First, it will fund creating park space on the other 3 embankments. Secondly, we can connect the embankments by a foot bridge and set aside a path on the blocks that have parking to connect the open space. Third, it will solve the security issue of having an elevated park that can't be seen from the ground. Through the monthly maintenance fees, we can provide security guards to monitor the cars and the parks, maintain the grounds, and pay for adequate lighting.

Since the embankment previously supported trains, they should be able to handle cars (perhaps after a bit of renovation). The only drawback would be the creation of ramps on every other block to allow car access, and that the park area would be limited to half the possible size.

Ok, I'm sure there are issues I didn't think of, and I'm sure this will enrage a few people. It's just an idea I came up with this morning that I thought was worth sharing.

Posted on: 2006/2/25 16:53
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#11
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


The residents should decide the zoning, not the developers. Yes, I know, it's not reality, but it's what we should be striving for. Besides, Developers will continue to make plenty of money by selling the spots instead of renting them.

Posted on: 2006/2/24 19:43
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#12
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Sure, there's a risk (having to deal with finding a spot on the street, increased likelyhood of crime, etc...). But why should their risk be increased while their neighbor's (who also lack deeded parking) risk remains the same? I feel this is unjust and will not do anything to help the current parking situation, so I'm against the ordinance. I'm all for it if it's limited to new buildings.

I feel a bigger improvement would be if the zoning was changed to require at least 1 deeded parking spot per unit for new construction (or perhaps higher), a crack down on illegal curb-cuts, a reduction in the number of non-resident permits, and an increase in the cost of resident permits.

Posted on: 2006/2/24 19:29
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#13
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

25mcwilliams wrote:
If the parking fee increases, there should be the same notice given as for the rent increase. If the combination rent and parking fee is too high -the tenant can move or get rid of their car.


But we can say the same about the street permit fee as well, which will more equally distribute the issue.

Also consider the people who own but rent a space (many of the garage spaces are not deeded), they're only option is to move. Selling a unit is way more expensive then paying the increase (5% to the realtor, a thousand to a lawyer, moving expenses, etc...), so really it's not as much of a free choice as people like to make it out to be.

Posted on: 2006/2/24 19:01
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#14
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


JC, my issue is with residents in the units who either do not own a car or currently park in their garage. If they use their garage and the price increases, they have no other option but to continue paying. If they don't currently need a car, but due to a change (say they lose their Job in JC or NYC and take a job requiring they drive), they're only option would be to pay for garage parking.

It's not fair to tell existing members of our community that their access to street parking is being removed. If we're ok with this, then all units with off-street parking available should lose their right to street permits.

Also, from a short-term perspective, I would anticipate the majority of people who will be affected running out to get street permits so they are grand-fathered in. If this happens, it could make the situation worse, not better.

Posted on: 2006/2/24 18:43
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#15
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Do people think the parking situation is a problem now, or that it will be once the 9,000 new units are built? If you think its only a problem going forward, then stop zoning new construction without adequate, deeded parking (deeded is key here). If this is the case, Steve's proposal is an adequate solution (preferrably if limited to only new construction).

If the problem is now, then it's an issue of too many cars and not enough parking spots. So we need more parking, or less cars. Asking current owners of 30+ units to surrender their right to street permits is not a fair solution. And since I don't see any new parking garages under construction, the only solution is to reduce the number of cars. Once cars become a financial liability (as opposed to $5/year), people will re-evaluate their need for a car, and hopefully a large percentage will decide they don't need one.


Posted on: 2006/2/24 17:21
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#16
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


It's in garage/lot owner's best interest to have a certain percentage of empty spaces. For example, let's say a garage has 100 spaces available. It may work out that at $150/space, it could rent all the spaces, at $200/space, it could rent 80%, and at $250/space, it could rent 55%. If these numbers are correct, the owner should charge $200, becuase it returns the largest profit and leaves available spaces should the demand increase.

If we now limit the residents to only be allowed to use the garage parking, the owner should increase the fee even more. If the owner increases the fee to $300/month and can only rent out just over 50%, his profit will remain basically static. However, since future residents would have little choice in where they park, the owner would eventually realize greater profits.

While the garage owner will profit, the residents in the building are clearly penalized. If the residents knew the ordinance was coming, it would be in their best interest to run out and get a permit so they'd be grandfathered in. When the price increases in the garages, the end result would actually be more cars parked on the street.

The units currently allowed permit parking which lose this right can expect to see their property value decreased. If there are two identical condos, but only one allows me to have a street permit, then the one with street parking has a clear advantage.

If the goal of the ordinance is to reduce the number of cars in downtown, I think it will be successful in the long term, since residents of 30+ unit buildings will have an incentive not to own a car. However, unless the same residents make up a decent percentage of the current street permits, I don't expect this to have much of an impact on the street parking situation.

To help the parking situation, I'd prefer an ordinance that penalizes garage owners who do not fill 90%+ of their lots with resident vehicles, a reduction in the amount of non-resident permits granted, and an increase in the fee for a resident permit (perhaps done by zone to avoid unfairly penalizing poor sections of the city).

Just to be clear, I do not live in a 30+ unit building. I just feel it's unfair to penalize a select group of residents. If the ordinance is only for new units that have never been occupied, I'm all for it (and other changes, as detailed above).

Posted on: 2006/2/22 19:24
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#17
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Steve, Do you have any estimate what percentage of housing is in 30+ unit buildings (or will be in ~5 years), and how many currently use street parking? Assuming the ordinance removed all of the street permits for the large buildings, how great would the impact be? Also, how many non-resident permits are given out for your ward?

Posted on: 2006/2/22 18:45
 Top 


Re: IMPORTANT FEEDBACK PLEASE ON PARKING - STEVEN FULOP
#18
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I would be for this only if new tenants in the affected building sign a seperate document stating they are aware of the parking regulation. Otherwise, I feel too many new residents will be gouged by developers.

Here's why: In the above examples, we can not use a free market analogy, because this is not a free market and the developers clearly have a monopoly over their tenants parking situation. For example, let's say developers continue to offer rent at the current price, without included parking. If the developer decides to raise parking from $200/month to $400/month, what recourse does a tenant have? Existing tenants using parking will not have street permits, and will not have the option of getting one. If half the tenants decide to sell their cars rather than pay the premium, the developer will still earn the same amount they did before (because the doubled the price), and street parking will not be any better off. Meanwhile, tenants who were parking off street are penalized.

I would be much more in favor of a system that penalizes the building for empty spots. That would force the building to lower monthly prices until the spots are filled or open the spots to outside residents (or both). Unless the developer/building management faces a penalty, there is no reason they shouldn't raise their prices and capitalize off their new found monopoly.

Posted on: 2006/2/22 15:48
 Top 


Re: Why are so many police officers directing traffic
#19
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I don't think you should assume the tax payers are paying. What makes you think the construction site isn't reimbursing the city for the expenses?

Posted on: 2006/2/10 16:31
 Top 


Re: Why are so many police officers directing traffic
#20
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I don't believe they are allowed to use official vehicles off duty. Since you saw three cars, I doubt they were all working traffic for the construction site. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they were on their break and grabbing lunch with their co-worker who was off duty?

Posted on: 2006/2/10 15:46
 Top 


Re: Should Downtown Jersey City Secede?
#21
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Nuada, just to play devil's advocate, what if we seceded and joined Hoboken to become Hudson City? The argument about inefficiencies seems to be offset, since we'd be trading one municipality for another. Of course, I doubt the old school hobokenites would allow anything that would dilute their control, but that's another issue.

Someone else posted that it requires 60% of residents to approve a request to secede, but what other limits are there? Does the county have a say? Is there a minimum size a municipality must meet? What happens to common land, such as roads and parks that fall on the borders? I'd assume seceding would cost hundreds of thousands or more in legal bills, who would pay for it?

Posted on: 2006/2/9 17:02
 Top 


Re: towing at shoprite?
#22
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


If she can find documentation of when she was towed and can show a judge a reciept from BJ's or the auto store that's roughly the same time, she should have no problem winning in court.

Posted on: 2005/11/16 15:45
 Top 


Re: Taqueria
#23
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Here's what I could find:
Quote:
Texans would probably like to lay claim to the fajita, but history gives credit to Mexican ranch workers living in West Texas (along the Rio Grande on the Texas-Mexico border) in the late 1930s or early 1940s. When a steer was butchered, the workers were given the least desirable parts to eat for partial payment of their wages. Because of this, the workers learned to make good use of a tough cut of beef known as skirt steak. In Spanish, fajita is a form of the word faja which translates to "belt" or "girdle" in English.

The fajita is truly a Tex-Mex food (a blending of Texas cowboy and Mexican panchero foods). The Mexican term for grilled skirt steak is arracheras, and its American counterpart is fajitas. Today, the term fajita has completely lost its original meaning and has come to describe just about anything that is cooked and served rolled up in a soft flour tortilla. The only true fajitas, however, are made from skirt steak.


I guess you could consider fajitas Tex-Mex. I believe the Taqueria is more focused on actual Mexican (or perhaps Cal-Mex) style recipes.

Posted on: 2005/11/2 17:23
 Top 



TopTop






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017