Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
58 user(s) are online (45 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 58

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Yojimbo)




Re: Two dogs were stolen and sold in Jersey City, owner says
#1
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


What a troll.

And what an awful site this has turned into if the admin can't control this. No wonder the posts continue to decrease.

Posted on: 2015/5/23 1:08
 Top 


Re: Christie & Cuomo Support Eliminating Weekend Overnight PATH Service
#2
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
1. Can't the governors' vetos be overridden?

2. Could closing a mass transit link for six (?) hours in this part of the world violate any clean air acts at the state or federal level?


1. I don't know about NY, but in NJ a veto override requires a 2/3rds vote in the Assembly and the Legislature, and Republican pols refuse to break with Christie no matter what their personal position is. Christie's never lost a veto override vote despite dozens of tries, not even when the original legislation passed almost unanimously. Zero chance he'd lost this one.

2. I doubt it, almost all mass transit services in the rest of the country shut down during overnight hours. If the Metro in DC, the T in Boston, and the BART in SF don't violate clean air acts, then I don't see why PATH would.

Posted on: 2014/12/29 16:04
 Top 


Re: A fair and equitable plan for a trans Hudson rail tunnel?
#3
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Amtrak's plan still doesn't address why NY should agree to pay a dime. What's Cuomo's motivation here? That several years down the line, some NYC based corporations *may* lose some employees who can't work from home, move, or find different commuting options? Doesn't seem like a great argument for spending billions.
That said, I totally agree that NY paying their share is a fair solution. But given the economic realities of the situation, I'm just not sure that this scenario is very likely.

Posted on: 2014/11/6 23:17
 Top 


Re: Sports-betting coming to the Meadowlands
#4
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Pebble wrote:

Not true.

The court ruling found a loophole and the state assembly voted on it. It was Christie that killed the bill. If Christie had passed it, then his statements about allowing sports books in casinos and racetracks wouldn't be a flat out lie...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... _casinos_race_tracks.html


Fair enough, that does give at least SOME hope of it working out. But keep in mind that's Lesniak's interpretation of the Circuit Court's ruling. Even if Christie decides not to veto a renewed effort in the State Legislature, many of the experts are saying it still may not be enough:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... rts_say.html#incart_river

Which gets back to my original point-- who's going to put up the money to open a sports book when there's still a significant risk of federal felony charges?

Posted on: 2014/9/9 18:57
 Top 


Re: Sports-betting coming to the Meadowlands
#5
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


What a load of hot air. This isn't the Colorado/Washington pot vote. Congress specifically passed PASPA to ban situations like this. It's held up to challenges before, and nothing has changed since the Supreme Court refused to hear arguments back in January.

Christie can order betting to be allowed all he wants-- it still costs millions to set up a sports book, which would be shut down immediately by federal agents. And with the power and money of all the organized sports leagues against NJ, you can bet the Justice Department would jump all over it. If Lesniak and Christie want sports gambling so bad, they need to get the votes in congress. Otherwise this is all a colossal waste of time and money.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 15:16
 Top 


Re: Soccer Bars in JC
#6
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Yeah, your best bet is Mulligan's. Some of the places mentioned above will put on the matches, but none of them have a dedicated crowd. Or at least not that I've found. Mulligan's has such a great atmosphere that it's always worth the slightly longer trip to Hoboken.

Posted on: 2014/4/3 15:20
 Top 


Re: Drivers and Crosswalks
#7
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Yeah, he said it's "convenient." What exactly is "convenient" about hopping a fence?? And how many times have you seen people hopping that fence? There are marked crosswalks at Marin and Washington. Everyone I've seen crossing in the middle on Gangemi does it at Mall Drive East or West, and drivers rarely yield as they're required to.

You've already conceded that those are unmarked intersections. Arguing that the problem is caused by people who are too lazy to walk 50 feet and instead hop a fence is nonsensical.


Quote:

bill wrote:
Quote:

Yojimbo wrote:
Bill and bodhipooh, reading isn?t either of your strong suits, huh?

Coleen was 100% right, and cited the proper rule. That is an intersection. Hero is crossing at the intersection of Mall Drive and Thomas Gangemi Dr. It?s an unmarked intersection, but still covered by the statute


Not one of my strong suits!? Please show me where Hero mentions he is crossing at the intersection of Mall Drive E or W and TGD?

I've seen lots of pedestrians cross right across from the bank and then walk on the curb of the island till they get to Mall Dr.

Also if you have any inkling of physical ability you can hop the fence. Concerning the stroller, Hero was not specific in that person's location. If she was crossing in the unmarked intersection then obviously the driver needs to be ticketed and sent to defensive driving school.

Posted on: 2014/3/13 19:40
 Top 


Re: Drivers and Crosswalks
#8
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Coleen is correct. The area Hero is talking about IS an intersection. It's a "T" intersection at Mall Drive and Thomas Gangemi Dr. It's unmarked but still covered by the statute.

?The driver of a vehicle? shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection?

And yes, there are at least 3 crosswalks at every "T" intersection, even if two of them are unmarked, as in this case. It's almost impossible to jaywalk next to Wells Fargo-- there's a fence in the middle of the islands on both sides.

Posted on: 2014/3/13 19:00
 Top 


Re: Christie Administration seeks to block Tesla Motors sales
#9
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Like every longtime NJ resident knows, this is all about lining politicians' pockets. The idea that auto dealers (??!!) protect consumers is purely laughable. They simply beat Tesla at the cash game:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-te ... utgunned-in-jersey-2014-3

That's right, almost $700k in donations compared to $0 from Tesla. And it's not just Christie-- Sweeney and all the rest received donations as well.

But this garbage about the "free market" is just a story they sell you when it's convenient for them. Money talks.

Posted on: 2014/3/12 14:49
 Top 


Re: Morning commute
#10
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Like others have said, it's a rough commute. I've done the 1&9 to 3 to 17 Route, and you have to leave yourself at least an hour in the morning to allow for normal traffic, although on good days you can make it in 45-50 mins. Any accidents (probably an average of 1 per week) will make the trip take about 1:15. Taking the Turnpike to GSP to 17 will be longer, have more traffic, and cost $11 round trip in tolls. And yes, the evening commute back is a nightmare between 5 and 6:30

If I were you, I wouldn't take the job without knowing what the impact of the Pulaski closing will have on the area. NJ DOT apparently thinks people will find "alternate" ways of commuting, but I doubt it. You may accept the job now, then find out in a couple months that you're spending half your day in your car.

Posted on: 2014/3/6 14:59
 Top 


Re: Columbus Drive between Jersey Ave and Barrow. Is it safe for a single woman to live there?
#11
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


It's totally fine. There are people walking up and down Columbus at all hours of the night, and it's well lit.

However, if you like it quiet, that may be a different story. Last year that block seemed to enjoy partying outside a lot.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 19:38
 Top 


Re: new in town--which neighborhood safe for single female?
#12
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
I'm positive that she can find a one bedroom apartment in downtown JC for less than $1800. Until a couple of years ago, I myself rented such apartment for $1300 a month (It was on Coles Street between 4th and 5th).


Yup, there are definitely apartments in DTJC that are in that price range. I looked at a few of them last year.

Baxtyre-- downtown is probably going to give you the best combination of safety and convenient location. The Heights is a nice alternative, but not as convenient. My suggestion is to walk around the neighborhood and look for signs, since most ads on craigslist or the like are from brokers charging high fees. Larger apartment buildings with management in place may be out of your range, but smaller places (say 2 or 3 units where the landlord lives on premises) are a real possibility.

Posted on: 2014/2/27 15:20
 Top 


Re: Eviction. Tenants rights please help.
#13
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I did, in fact, read the first post. You seem to be confusing possible lease language with the Anti-Eviction Act. There are very few exceptions that judges will respect in these cases, regardless of what's specified on the lease. And as brewster correctly pointed out, one of the co-leaseholders leaving is not one of them.

Quote:

SOS wrote:
Yojimbo did you read the first post?:
" I have lived in the apt for 4 years and am on my 3rd roommate. We are both on the lease... "

If one of the roommates will not be on the "new" lease, the landlord has no obligation to renew the lease. The landlord has the right to perform due diligence on the new person (credit check, etc) added to the lease. The new roommate must be on the lease - at least on every lease agreement I've seen.

Posted on: 2014/2/11 19:12
 Top 


Re: Eviction. Tenants rights please help.
#14
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Jeez, is it too much to ask that you READ the other comments before posting this nonsense?

No, in this case, both you and user1111 are 100% wrong. As the OP stated, she lives in a 4 unit building and the landlord does not reside on premises. As such, at the end of the lease, the landlord's ONLY options are 1) Offer a new lease, 2) Continue allowing her to rent month-to-month under the terms of the first lease, or 3) Pursue eviction through the courts. That's it.


Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
User1111 is 100% correct here. You are not getting evicted. Your lease is up and the landlord has a right to rent to who ever he/she wants so long has its not for some improper or discriminatory basis. While you posted your side of the story, toking at the hearts of the reader, there is always more than one side to a story. Your roommate own the landlord over. Start looking for another apartment. All the best to you. Quote:

user1111 wrote:
The thread title is misleading, to me this does not sound like an eviction. If your lease has ended he is allowed to not rent to you any more, for any reason at all. (not really, but most get away with it)

This is not an eviction, it is an end of your relationship as tenant/landlord. He has the right to decide he no longer wants to rent to you, just like you have the right to decide not to live there any more. (The best excuse I heard, my dying mother is going to take the apt)

He does have to give you 30 days notice that he is not renewing the lease.

There is no "case", your lease will end and he does not want another one. (Even though in NJ its the law to offer a new lease, but most landlords that want you out will raise the rent put in all sorts of horrible things so you will leave)



I have done this a few times.

Posted on: 2014/2/11 14:53
 Top 


Re: Eviction. Tenants rights please help.
#15
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

user1111 wrote:
The thread title is misleading, to me this does not sound like an eviction. If your lease has ended he is allowed to not rent to you any more, for any reason at all.

This is not an eviction, it is an end of your relationship as tenant/landlord. He has the right to decide he no longer wants to rent to you, just like you have the right to decide not to live there any more.

He does have to give you 30 days notice that he is not renewing the lease.

There is no "case", your lease will end and he does not want another one.

I have done this a few times.


That's only the case if it's a 2 or 3 unit building and the owner lives in one of the units. Since the OP stated that they read the Tenants? Rights document and couldn?t find any justification for eviction, my assumption is that it?s not the case here.

But I could be wrong.?teacherinjc, is that actually your situation? Because if the landlord is an owner/occupier, you might as well pack your things. That exception is pretty cut and dried.

Posted on: 2014/2/10 18:31
 Top 


Re: Eviction. Tenants rights please help.
#16
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

CdeCoincy wrote:
Quote:

teacherinjc wrote:
Please help. Where can I go for free or inexpensive legal advice. Thanks.

https://www.lsnjlaw.org/Publications/P ... Manuals/TenantsRights.pdf


http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/hedc.aspx?id=1182


CdeCoincy is right-- the Division of Tenant Landlord Relations is your best resource here.

But just to clear a few things up. You cannot be evicted under the grounds you've established in your first post. Even at the end of your lease, the landlord is required by law to offer you a new lease, unless they have good cause not to do so. Generally, "good cause" means not abiding by the terms of your existing lease. So noise complaints, failing to maintain the premises, or failing to pay rent in full and on time would all be covered there.

That being said, if I was in your shoes I'd leave. Landlord/Tenant squabbles are often more trouble than they're worth.

Posted on: 2014/2/10 16:40
 Top 


Re: PATH currently suspended 12/20 8:45 AM
#17
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

zimbu1234 wrote:
I often hear people say the PATH is unreliable but I disagree. I would imagine it isn't any less reliable than the MTA Subway system. I don't take the MTA subway often so if has gotten better in the past few years I stand corrected. I think we think its less reliable because there are only three ways to get into Manhattan but unless you are in Manhattan, many of the other borrows only have a few ways to get in also.

Yes this morning sucked [badly] but really its generally pretty reliable during rush hour. Weekends and late nights are a different story but that is the same with any major subway system.


The MTA has improved reliability a lot in the last 5-10 years. Sadly, Path has lagged behind, mainly because of its signal system that dates back to the 60s. And the much needed upgrades were pushed back even further due to Sandy, so my guess is this will only get worse in the near future.

Here?s an article on the original upgrade plans, SIX years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/nyregion/18path.html?_r=0

Posted on: 2013/12/20 16:25
 Top 


Re: Micro Apartment Living
#18
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Totally agree with several people on here. Street parking is a privilege, not a right.

Now the tax abatement issue, however, has a bit more weight to it. The price per square foot that these developers are looking for is literally double the average for DTJC. Anyone looking to charge that much doesn?t deserve any kind of break. Chances are they know the initial asking price is too high, and they?re trying to reduce the loss caused by low occupancy in the first few years.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 20:29
 Top 


Re: Runners in LSP
#19
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I run in LSP all the time, but I won't give you any flack. There's a path RIGHT next to Freedom Way, no reason at all for runners to use the bike area of the street on a normal day.

The only time I can see a runner venturing into the street is if it's extremely crowded on the path, like when they have walking events or something similar.

By the same token, I see a lot of bikes using the path (and not the street) on the weekends, which equally doesn't make sense. Especially when the path narrows by the marshland.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 21:02
 Top 


Re: Sigh...Noisy neighbors
#20
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Just curious:

What kind of results have people had with calling the non-emergency number for daytime noise complaints? Has anyone actually experienced a situation where the cops responded and told the neighbor to keep it down?

Posted on: 2013/9/11 18:03
 Top 


Re: A total of 111 arrested in three Jersey City police sweeps
#21
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

CdeCoincy wrote:
The article really confused me. Were plainclothes police just hanging out on the street and arresting people as they saw them commit crimes (including moving violations, which I never thought of as crimes, but I guess they are)?



Moving violations aren't crimes, not even DUI. They're civil offenses. They wouldn't result in criminal charges. However, any time they take a person into custody, the police can call it an arrest, regardless of the charge.

Posted on: 2013/8/16 14:26
 Top 


Re: An open letter to the Dog Owners of DTJC (brace yourselves)
#22
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Signage and outreach are nice, but nothing will change these people's behaviors unless the enforcement comes along with it. I've seen you "guarantee" that it will, but let's be honest, that's hollow unless you're actually in the Fulop administration. I have no reason to doubt you've been TOLD there will be more enforcement (or any at all, really). But new administrations are really good at making promises to everybody who comes to them with problems.

But follwing through? We'll see.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
It was an allusion to the upcoming argument/debate/negative posts.

At the end of the day, you're probably right because the dog owners in this town have such a feeling of superiority and entitlement, little will probably change. However, this cause has never been led by someone as annoyingly persistent as myself.

I will say that at the neighborhood level, things are happening behind the scenes, and you will see changes in time from the standpoint of signage, outreach and enforcement. That, I can guarantee.

But you're right. People will still do what they do, but it can't hurt to try right?




Posted on: 2013/7/10 14:39
 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