|
Re: My Dachshund has seizure
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
I have to also cast a resounding vote for the AMC -- GREAT doctors. Our little dachsie has IVDD, and she would not be walking today (even if it is a bit wobbly) if it were not for the wonderfulness of the neurologists there. I cannot recommend them highly enough. Ask for Dr. Benji Olson and Dr. McCue (the head of neurology): Unfortunately, we have a lot of experience with them, but when we take her, we know our little girl could not be in better hands! They are truly excellent -- and, as we have found, will try their best to find a conservative solution first.
Posted on: 2016/4/3 3:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Chic Pea
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
While I do not (nearly) approve of the post at the genesis of this thread, I do think we collectively need to reflect on the selectivity of the "PC" on this board. For instance, it seems many of the same people blasting the personal criticism of Chicpea also personally blast Yvonne. Whether you and I like and/or agree with her, Yvonne should not be a target of obscenely hurtful personal attacks - the same way poking fun at Lynn's appearance ABSOLUTELY crosses the line (even if she has thrust herself into the public discourse via seemingly relentless self-promotion).
It does seem relevant that Lynn accepts money to engineer a "neutral" review of local businesses. However, personally attacking her appearance is brutally inappropriate -- the same way personal attacks on folks like Yvonne (who may not always agree, God forbid, with the Administration) are patently out-of-bounds. Sorry for going on here ... I frequently lurk, but rarely post. I do not mean to assert that I back Yvonne, her positions or her posts. However, I do think this board needs some consistency in its PC approach: Being "polite" and "constructive" should apply to everyone.
Posted on: 2016/2/22 19:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Lawsuit claims Jersey City official retaliated against gay worker
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Cannot agree with this enough. NO HUMAN BEING should be allowed to repeatedly scream "FU**ING FA*GOT" at people. This was a long time coming.
Posted on: 2015/11/28 1:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Is this for real? In the Heights???
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Check out Google Map and Satellite views. Alas - Not so much.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 5:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Though it should be relatively obvious from my posts, I'm a lawyer who, as a large part of my practice, does exactly this (urban redevelopment) for a living. Heck, I even do it from a redeveloper's point of view -- meaning, I'd normally be on the side trying to make these arguments (i.e., I represent redevelopers who purchase and develop property like this -- and know that the Montgomery Towers property is literally almost the most valuable parcel of land in New Jersey). Given all this, I can tell you as a matter of law (and, frankly, as a matter of fact), the City could never do what's being proposed here, given that it would contravene NJ statutory and case law.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 23:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Based solely on Kelo, you may have a point - though, even this is highly debatable. But, several states, including New Jersey, passed stringent statutory restraints on Eminent Domain in the wake of - and as a result of - that SCOTUS disaster. Point is, New Jersey state law makes the "taking" proposed here virtually impossible (where virtually means 99.99999% impossible). New London, CT (the site of the Kelo case) fell so badly on its face (after taking homes in the name of subjective "economic development" -- in that case, the construction of a drug manufacturing facility and offices), other states (like NJ) fell over themselves to ensure their municipalities wouldn't make the same mistake. Kelo and its practical results were seen as so awful that even particularly conservative leaders -- like Chris Christie -- championed strict limits on Eminent Domain. Bottom line: There is zero chance Eminent Domain could ever be used at Metropolis Towers, however difficult they may be on the eye.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 18:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Yes, eminent domain may be used for economic development. But, it could never be used in the way you suggest . Rather than go through every court case or state statute to prove this point -- as the governmental abuse of eminent domain has been extensively litigated and legislated against, especially in New Jersey - I will attempt to explain this by way of example: Let's say the Mayor hated brownstones. After all, they are relics of a bygone era, and do not fit into Jersey City's modern, increasingly vertical aesthetic.To this end, City planners would say, in an area as "transit-oriented" as Jersey City, property density should be maximized, meaning single-family brownstones are truly out of place. Moreover, even the best-kept brownstones cannot hide their age entirely -- tiles crack, roofs leak, difficult to retrofit for modern conveniences like air conditioning, etc., meaning some people might consider them "dumpy." Further, removing every brownstone in favor of higher-density development fits your economic development standard: While brownstones (and the 1/4-acre or so of land on which they sit) are generally assessed between $500K and $1M, buildings like 50 Columbus and Grove Pointe are assessed at between $20M and $30M - just for the building(s). Add in the first-floor retail that high-rises provide (and brownstones generally cannot), and high-rises are nearly infinitely more valuable to Jersey City. That means, every brownstone we allow to stand is sitting on a "goldmine" that would be more productive as a high-rise. Given all this, per the theory of Eminent Domain espoused in this thread, the Mayor should take via Eminent Domain every brownstone in Paulus Hook and Van Vorst park, raze them all, and erect huge high-rise residences in their place(s). Of course, this is ridiculous - and clearly unlawful. That's why doing the same thing vis-a-vis Metropolis Towers is ludicrous.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 17:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain on Metropolis Towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Please, please, please at least read a Wikipedia summary of Eminent Domain before posting on it.
Posted on: 2014/10/27 2:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City Employee Caught on Vulgar Rant
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) While "lowlife" is a strong choice of terms, the term "smear" is equally powerful and judgmental, as it connotes inaccuracy. Per rock-solid authority - and, we're talking virtually straight from the horse's mouth, here - the prior post is not inaccurate. 2) Exactly how is lying to gain entry to a non-profit and the trust of its leaders innocuous? Especially when that non-profit's confidential property later ends up in the hands of a political campaign (and promoted as if it were the campaign's organic work)? 3) I suppose I didn't need to name the "City Hall Employee," nor "smear" her any further -- she's already been named here, and her actions as denoted in this thread speak volumes about her character. Of course, I'm new to the board, so I guess I'm not allowed to be outraged that a member of the Mayor's Administration -- and really, his inner office -- behaved so inexcusably and offensively. I will do my best to post a couple thousand pro-Fulop replies, so that I may gain enough insight into the world to credibly assert even the slightest negativity about his Administration. Though I'm a just a first-time caller, I am a long-time listener -- and tonight, I finally got fed up with the rope that certain folks get here.
Posted on: 2014/9/14 2:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City Employee Caught on Vulgar Rant
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
I guarantee you -- if Brooke gets fired (and she should), it will be because of consistent issues with integrity. She is, after all, the same lowlife who (allegedly), during the mayoral campaign, posed as a college intern to gain access to a local nonprofit - to basically pilfer ideas and documents for Team Fulop.
And, to anyone who is foolish enough to think you can separate the person from her position in government, ask yourself: If the Mayor went out just as "Steve Fulop" and did the same thing, do you think it would not reflect negatively on his job as Mayor? Come on.
Posted on: 2014/9/14 1:12
|
|||
|
||||