JCGuys wrote:

You know, when the reval eventually happens, anyone downtown who advocates limiting the supply of new housing in hopes of increased property values is very short sighted because they're in for a nasty surprise when they get their tax bill. The only way forward is aggressive growth of the tax ratable base.

pacoYtaco wrote:
If it's BGT who is building them, they just built a gigantic buliding on 3rd St that is pressed fresh along the sides of both buildings it's sandwiched between.
....
Big boxes built with ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

JCActivist wrote:
The rear yard requirement in R1 is not 35 FT if the lot is not 100 FT deep. 375 5th is only 50-60 ft deep and following those guidelines, they should be leaving at least a 15 set back.

Erobinsonh wrote:
the variances the developer is going for are both height (5 stories where 3 is allowed) and building coverage (90+% rather than the 65% allowed) - it is currently an R1, and will still be an R1 on April 7th.

The lot coverage that is the biggest problem for the balconies.

oreoz wrote:

Your Google view is actually better for understanding the balconies that are going to be blocked - and unfortunately it seems everyone here is correct. The existing building is already 3 stories high and would block 2/3 floors of balconies if extended backwards. So it seems like the best option is to try and come up with some deal where the owner would build taller on the far end of the block in exchange for some space on that side. Otherwise, I guess you can attempt to obstruct as long as possible, but this would seem to be a losing battle - under the new proposed R-5 zone, this lot would be allowed to be 4 Stories as of right, already blocking all balconies.

khansenslp wrote:
Developers of the property next to us are asking for a variance that would allow them to build a 5-story directly next to our balconies. This leave us without natural light or air and creates a safety hazard in the event of a fire. The law says this is not allowed but the developers are asking for permission (i.e. variance) to adjust this law just so they can cram a lot of tiny apartments into one small lot.

JCMan8 wrote:
Governor elections won't take place until November 2017. I bet Fulop will do everything humanly possible to delay this "sticker shock" until after that date.

Enforcement is a joke, and people know it.

I have seen cars parked along the bump outs

Yvonne wrote:
The mayor speaks on redevelopment, casinos, reval, and parking.
https://vimeo.com/153295281

ProdigalSon wrote: Quote:

bodhipooh wrote: Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold: 305 Grand St Sold: 925 K Tax: $543.00 Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!) 20 2nd St Sold: 1.15 MM Tax: $647.00 Effective rate: 0.056%

Would either of you care to explain what the L.H. Brownstone Charge of $4060-ish that is semi-annual on the Grand Street Property, or the Pinnacle Tower charge that is on all the 20 2nd Street locations? Unsurprisingly you are trying to obfuscate the facts, no one is paying $700 a year to the government to live in a 1 million dollar home.

MattSchapiro wrote:
And I strongly support this mural project for providing visual diversion in our city and encouraging discussions such as this.

Bike_Lane wrote:
Quote:

Annod wrote:
All it does is remind me of Hurricane Sandy.

http://imgick.nj.com/home/njo-media/w ... photo/16247706-mmmain.jpg

Same here. I thought it to be in poor taste ("too soon").

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Had she called the city and asked them about the properties or maybe obtained a proper list or maybe found out that the list she had was old as dirt, she'd have a leg to stand on. Instead, she received a piece of paper and thought she had some ability to attack the mayor for stealing land for developers.

I wouldn't bother calling The City about this, or anything for that matter. You're not going to get the truth.

That list was attached to City legislation (Ordinance 15.144), and was referred to as the ?New Vacant Buildings Study Area Properties.? Obviously the City didn't think it so worthless or out of date.
http://www.jerseycitynj.gov/uploadedF ... Reading/Agenda%20Document(16).pdf

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
As per Wolf Sterling and Candice Osborn fb page the "shake-down" contractor was fired today. The corruption link between city (autonomous) agencies/department is no longer here. People should feel confortable recording and exposing the rooten apples still thinking they can strive here. We are all making it a better city. Have a good night everyone! #jcmakeityours.

Frinjc - great news - thanks for sharing. As far as the corruption link, don't you think the building department should also be investigated? If there was a relationship between JCIA and someone in the building department that had enough power to do harm to a city business (as per the threat issued when Wolf called JCIA), I think there's a wider net of corruption that should be cast here. Just my two cents.

jerseymom, I have to think you're onto something ? as you usually are. I hope law enforcement gets to the bottom of this mess.

You've made me wonder ? in addition to this shakedown, recall the original issue with the JCIA was trash haulage, with construction debris mixed in. Where were those construction sites? Who owns them? Which contractors were involved? How did the JCIA ?know? to show up at a particular construction site? And when? Where were the City's Building Inspectors? What did the building department know about these building sites? I can think of many questions and issues that deserve close scrutiny. All we've heard about is a few JCIA employees....

I wonder who is conducting that investigation, in addition to Jersey City Authorities? Come to think, were other law enforcement agencies (State and Federal) notified about the investigation? The JJ reported it was on-going for a year! Maybe I missed something but the only thing I remember seeing is that the investigation was undertaken by Jersey City Law Enforcement.

EasyGibson wrote:
The kind of entitled behavior he exhibited is pervasive indeed, especially in JCIA, but there's no way this fat shit is going to call down the thunder on Pint via inspectors or the Head Trash Baron for not serving them drinks on their shift.

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Quote:

EasyGibson wrote:
Just by the by, beer at Christmas is still pretty standard for these guys, no?

Pretty much every business I've ever worked at has duked the trash guys at the holidays.

Did nobody tell Pint this?

Maybe Pint's the only bar who doesn't care if reporting these goons results in "building inspectors" showing up? I don't get the point of your post- that everyone should be cow towing to those morons because "derrr everyone does it- did they not get the memo?" ?? Personally, I love that they picked the wrong dude to fuck with.

BeatrixKiddo wrote:
It happened a second time, how are people so stupid that they don't know pretty much everything is recorded now.


https://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/story.p ... m_notif?if_t=feed_comment

jcneighbor wrote:
PSE&G will be milling paving once the work is done,

....

The "temporary" trench paving is being done incredibly poorly and they are leaving a huge mess of loose gravel and asphalt.

And if nobody else noticed, it seems that a lot of the trenching goes right down the middle of the recently-painted bikes lanes, making them seriously undesirable for bikers. As usual, brilliant planning all around...

jcneighbor wrote:
PSE&G will be milling paving once the work is done, but those trenches down the street are only the beginning.

My foundation is about 13" of stone and brick and my bluestones in front are going to be trashed.

....

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Greenface wrote:
PSEG is replacing all the old gas lines in the neighborhood. They're doing the work around VVP as well as low lying areas near Hamilton park and in Hoboken. It's part of their efforts to make the system less susceptible to flooding. When the work is done they will connect all the buildings in the area to the new mains and then repave the streets poorly.

Statement fixed, with some added emphasis.

K-Lo wrote:
Whatever happened with the Atomic Wings lawsuit?

rasoszynski wrote:
If we use the example of 2 adjacent "identical" townhouses: One purchased and held since 1985 and the other in 2007, but both in the same condition - meaning there were no improvements in either property that triggered a reassessment via legal permitting - then their assessed value has stayed the same since the last reval, that's the whole problem.

Quote:

EWT wrote:
As a newcomer/interloper, I thought you'd appreciate some thoughts of an outside observer on Healy v. Fulop. [...]

byebyesteve wrote:
Far from an outside observer, look at his past articles. He is another interloper