Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
34 user(s) are online (22 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 33

JC_GeeGee, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (oreoz)




Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#1
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Katyn monument won, victory for the people.
https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... u.html#incart_river_index


Not asking for a third-party to review these signatures all of a sudden?

In all honesty, I'm not really surprised they could get 6,000 signatures. But now I guess we'll see if it just gets overturned or it goes to referendum.

Posted on: 8/14 9:41
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#2
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
WHY Dolomiti ??

Seriously? You can't figure this out?

Yvonne is saying that I do not have the right to make any changes to any existing public policy. But if I don't have the right to advocate for any changes, then neither does she.

I.e. I'm illustrating that her position is irrational and hypocritical. It went over her head, of course, because she's behaving irrationally and hypocritically. So it goes.


I figure this out as it proceeds, based upon All of the Shitstorm Sideshows going on in or about JC in these times and a Pacer account.

My Question to you is Only about your text words that I have converted to Bold.......so again, I am asking you WHY ???


Dude - read his response. He literally told you why he said that. He's not saying he agrees with that - he's just using Yvonne's argument and applying it to her actions as well, therefore highlighting its hypocrisy.

If you're not going to read the whole thread I don't blame you, but at least read his response to you.

And Yvonne - most people here aren't condoning the mayor's behavior. At the same time, his behavior doesn't suddenly change our opinion on the topic like it apparently has yours. Going back to the beginning of this thread you were one of those pushing to have it removed..why was that? Oh, something about how other countries' history doesn't belong in America...and yet you accuse the mayor of insulting an entire ethnic group. Which, by the way...when did he do that? Sure, he insulted someone Polish (if you want to understand why, read about the Holocaust law in Poland). Was it right? No - it was a false argument tactic. But so is your argument that calling a person from a specific culture racist is akin to insulting that entire ethnic group. That's the same crap logic that sees moving this statue (a move supported by the Polish speaker!) as some sort of affront to Poland.

Posted on: 8/11 15:54
Top


Re: Boonton Reservoir
#3
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
oreoz, you remind me of the naysayers who said the World Trade Center will never come down after the first bombing in 1993.


A good argument directly refuting the points that were made in that article.
I assume some sort of Hitler comparison is coming eventually (this is the internet after all).

Yvonne, the majority of your arguments seem to revolve around the fact that you've been around for a while. Well not so much your arguments, but rather that you think it gives you some sort of wisdom and knowledge that the rest of us don't have. When faced with facts and figures that disprove what you're saying, you just fall back on some event that happened some time ago when you were alive and somehow connect it to your current opinion.

Someone got leprosy once in New Jersey. That has nothing to do with the fact that New York waterways have had public access for years and the water is still considered so safe to drink that they don't need filtration, nor the fact that many NJ reservoirs and waterways are open to public access and don't, in fact, have any of the crazy problems you suggest.

We get it. You don't like the mayor, and anything he does, you automatically oppose, even if it's literally the exact same view you originally had (see: Katyn monument thread).

Try doing some research, or at least listening to people who are actually trying to find factual information rather than uninformed opinions, instead of acting like your age gives you some kind of knowledge in fields you know nothing about. You'll have a lot more time to spend on things that can actually be useful for both you and the city instead of wasting your time on fruitless battles just trying to oppose everything.

Posted on: 8/1 14:33
Top


Re: Boonton Reservoir
#4
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Yvonne - it's unfortunate that you don't seem to actually take into account any responses to your posts, aside from continuing to push your position.

Doing minimal research (and I mean minimal - a simple Google search) brought up this article regarding NY's DEP buying up land around waterways: https://citylimits.org/2015/06/15/city ... ifficult-balance-upstate/

The key takeaways:
1. The reason for their need to protect the waterways is that NYC water is NOT filtered (unlike Jersey City's), at least not by a water filtration plant (obviously objects are removed and fluoride added), so the natural water needs to be much cleaner.
2. This is a big one - despite the water needing to remain cleaner, HIKING IS ALLOWED! And this, all despite the water not being filtered like Jersey City

I figure it won't really make a difference to you since you seem to be set on your opinion, but maybe others reading here will find this informative.

Posted on: 8/1 11:26
Top


Re: Plastic bag bans coming to Hoboken, Jersey City
#5
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

baxtyre wrote:
Quote:

JerseyCityNj wrote:
I hate this idea, it's the people who have to walk numerous blocks home after a long day of work with multiple bags of groceries that suffer the most from this. Hopefully they remember the same politicians that screwed them over with this idiotic ban the next election.


You act like the sky is falling. It's not very difficult to buy a reusable bag and keep it with you. Here, I found a small, affordable one for you already --> baggu.com/collections/reusable-bags


I was in Morocco recently where they've also banned plastic bags. They just had cloth ones instead, so no problems really.

Posted on: 6/18 19:10
Top


Re: 485 is here
#6
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

dcourts1984 wrote:


Just wish it wasnt A.) build by a Kushner and B.) wasnt so ugly.


It's the other Kushner though (same as Journal Squared). Wouldn't be fair to hold the rest of his family's behavior against him/the company.

But it is ugly.

Posted on: 6/8 9:32
Top


Re: Newark Avenue Pedestrian Plaza Expansion
#7
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:
jcneighbor wrote: P&K had about a year left on their 20-year lease. The new lease offer was over $20k/month and they'd told me they couldn't swing that months before the pedestrian plaza expansion. But multiple store owners have said that the pedestrian plaza has reduced their business. I've been here over 30 years and know enough of the longtime owners. They told me directly-
I can see that being the case - there are certain businesses that would probably do better (restaurants for instance) and others that may do worse. Coupled with presumably higher rents, due to downtown's general revivial - it'll close a few stores for sure.

Quote:

hero69 wrote:
if cobblestones are prohibitively expensive, what about some nice trees that provide shade and so public artwork. i would think that fulop and the City must have some extra money in the slush fund given the reval.


I love the look of cobblestones. If I'm being honest though, aside from being expensive, they are annoying as hell to walk on, and awful when it rains. I'd much rather just have regular street. As for artwork - there is some. A new one was just painted in the new section of the pedestrian plaza:
Resized Image

Plus they had that Monopoly that was somehow always offensive to someone so they finally painted over it. It's mostly building facades though so there isn't a lot of space for art. Maybe sculpture type things if that's what you're referring to (a fountain would be nice).

It would be nice to have some larger planters - here's an article from JerseyDigs when they were considering it (not sure what happened to the plan). It looks sort of nice, but I (and I don't think I'm alone in this) like the look of the lights across the street. It could still probably work with them.

Posted on: 5/29 21:28
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#8
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


So is it safe to assume you've changed your mind and now want the monument to stay? Interesting to say the least. I approve of gaining a deeper understanding of people's feelings towards the monument, although I suspect the real reason is because you don't like Fulop and his handling of the situation made it easy for you to jump to the other side.

Personally - I like it where it is. Presumably, it'll be good where it's going also. The way it was handled was stupid, and I dislike even more the fact that some developer with money declares that he doesn't like it and it has to move (does he own the space? thought it was public), but it seems like the end result is a pretty decent compromise. Too bad it had to happen so..shadily.

Posted on: 5/26 12:11
Top


Re: Newark Avenue Pedestrian Plaza Expansion
#9
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


And just to add - prior to the plaza, a lot of people I know wouldn't have come to Jersey City at all (to hang out). The plaza (and really all the development that's happened downtown in general) brings people to Jersey City, in addition to serving the ones that are already here.

Posted on: 5/26 11:54
Top


Re: Newark Avenue Pedestrian Plaza Expansion
#10
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:
I don't live near Newark. Friends do, these are their issues. If it is such a great idea, and helped established a 'restaurant row' which really is a bar row (which I do partake, respectfully), why not help other communities do the same? Why close only Newark? Aesthetically, it's ugly. Paint the street green and close it, don't do anything to improve the space, just close the street. No plan. Again, they could have renovated the street for 1 lane traffic, widened the sidewalks and close from Friday noon to Monday morning? If the goal is for more 'car free' zones, closing one more block does what? Close and improve other streets in other neighborhoods that really do need a catalyst to improvement?


I guess I'm a bit lost as to what the argument you are trying to make here is. Are you just upset that there isn't a street you can drive on? Do you really think it would be different if they narrowed the street and widened the sidewalks instead? Like everyone else said - see Hoboken. It makes no difference. Where there's supply and demand people will be there, and obviously there's demand downtown for bars and places to socialize. And no restaurants? Since I've moved to Jersey City (which coincidentally was right around the time they started with the pedestrian plaza), at least 8 restaurants have opened up on or within a block of the plaza, not counting the ones I think were already there (Porta, Sawadee, Roman Nose, Skinner's Loft, etc). I can believe that there's noise associated with it - of course there is. Anywhere people are there's bound to be noise.

Quote:
If the goal is for more 'car free' zones, closing one more block does what?


It does exactly that - make an area for people to walk around in. It doesn't have to be an entire street.

Quote:
Aesthetically, it's ugly. Paint the street green and close it, don't do anything to improve the space, just close the street.


It's not really much different from the ones in NY:
Resized Image


Resized Image


Just a closed street or street area, painted, with some tables and maybe planters. Doesn't mean they can't make it a bit nicer, but that alone doesn't invalidate the idea of it entirely.

And I don't see why the idea can't be replicated elsewhere (I'm also not sure why you're suggesting it considering your dislike of the Newark Ave one, unless you are suggesting it sarcastically). There's already zoning in place for a restaurant row in Bergen-Lafayette, and also on West Side Ave. Perhaps parts of these can be future pedestrian plazas too

Posted on: 5/26 11:50
Top


Re: Newark Avenue Pedestrian Plaza Expansion
#11
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:
Generic response "it's a city, etc..etc...etc.. there's noise in a city..etc..etc".. hit snooze button.

1. Exchange Place is very lightly trafficked, easy to close a dead end street.

2. Newark Avenue could have widened the sidewalks, converted to one lane, and put an ordinance on the number of bars in a zoned area. Thus reducing the Beale / Bourbon Street effect.

3. Columbus and Grand SHOULD have center barriers for safety reasons, it's a no brainer, yet, radio silence.

4. After 9 PM, this Newark Restaurant Row turns into a nightmare for residents who have lived in the general proximity for years. How about we close your block and open up bars?

5. Proposal to close MLK and Central, just the same as prior to closing Newark Avenue, prop up and create new eating and drinking establishments / businesses and make it a car free zone.

6. More parks = better quality of life.

I am not against the idea, but it needs to be smarter, with a plan and purpose and zoned better. From what I see, Newark Avenue has been closed for 2 years....still has crumbling sidewalks, cheesy planters, a street painted green. Wow. Fabulous.


Actually, I live a block away - so essentially they have "closed my block and opened up bars". I have absolutely no problem with it. And I used to live on Montgomery Street, right above a few restaurants. The only noise that actually bothered me was the garbage truck coming at 5AM, and even that I got used to. It sounds more like you're sensitive to noise and apparently the idea of having a nightlife doesn't appeal to you. Which is fine and all...but again, these are characteristics of a city, and part of why people move to them (to be near people, to have things to do in walking distance, to socialize..etc). Call it generic all you want, it's also the reality. If you don't like the idea of people congregating in the area around where you live, maybe move to the suburbs, where you can have a yard and no one else around you.

I won't disagree with you that they could do better in making Newark Ave nicer. There was a plan for putting up trees/planters, not sure what happened with this. It would go a long way towards making it look more friendly and less like a Bourbon Street.

I take it you live on Newark Ave or somewhere close? As JCman said - I don't really see how having the street closed affects drunk people in the area. Before they extended the pedestrian plaza, there were (and still are) a bunch of restaurants and bars further up the street (Pet Shop, Barcade, Ani Ramen, etc...not to mention the ones even further up Newark) and they definitely weren't any quieter at night.

Posted on: 5/25 10:28
Top


Re: Newark Avenue Pedestrian Plaza Expansion
#12
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:
Agree with Animal. If it's so great, why did an ordinance just pass: no rooftops after midnight and you cannot re-enter an establishment after 1 am. If they can truly transform Newark into a 'park' that would be great. But the city pushed to have a restaurant row which turned into bar row. It's a closed street painted green. Make new green space by creating parks. What about closing Central Avenue, MLK... close little India (Newark Avenue). No one has to live in a city where pee bottles are tossed all over the place along with disruptive behavior on adjacent streets. What about beautifying Columbus Drive? That needs a central barrier to make it easy to cross (think NYC Park Avenue) and streets not as wide (it's become a raceway). Grand Street could do the same. No, we need one block closed off for what? Add more bars?


I'm not sure why it has to be one or the other. Is it not possible to have both a restaurant row and more green space? We are getting just that - take a look at the plans for Exchange Place.

Some of your other ideas have merit - although I'm a little confused why you're suggesting closing other streets when you seem unhappy about the current pedestrian plaza. Central Ave and MLK would probably be difficult - but that Little India section is basically half a pedestrian plaza already on weekends. And Columbus Ave could definitely use work - I imagine it would be a good place to put some tram/light rail in, or otherwise just the central barrier.

As for the pedestrian plaza - have you ever been there during the day? I was there yesterday to check out the new section. There were lots of people walking around, kids biking and running around, people eating at restaurants. It really brought life to this area and I think most people would agree it's a lot nicer to walk around it than on the sidewalks of Newark Ave. And yes, obviously some people are a little rowdy at night - that's what you get when there is alcohol and large groups of people involved - but unless you are suggesting closing all bars or banning alcohol altogether, I'm not really sure it's not something that more enforcement or more cleaning crew or some tighter regulations (see ordinance recently passed) can't solve. The positive is that it brings social life to the area. I think it's worth a few rowdy people and a bit more noise. At the end of the day, it's a city, not a farm, and there's enough other noise in cities in general (cars driving around, trucks cleaning garbage, etc.) that the alternative isn't silence.

Posted on: 5/22 16:04
Top


Re: Newark Avenue Pedestrian Plaza Expansion
#13
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


FYI - it's already done.

Resized ImageResized Image

Posted on: 5/21 20:05
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#14
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Also in case everyone missed it - Fulop tweeted a rendering of the new park with the memorial in it, on York Street.
https://twitter.com/StevenFulop/status/996038035337891840

EDIT: I see they have a picture of it in the NJ.com article. This one is the rendering.

Posted on: 5/14 17:56
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#15
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I have to say - I think the mayor botched his handling of this one. He could have announced this end result without all the in between drama and there'd probably be a lot less of it. Now he's somehow managed to piss off people from all sides. At the end it will all probably be swept under the rug (and the end result sounds like a good compromise), but it's not a good look.

But Yvonne - I'm curious as to your sudden change of position. You were one of the strongest supporters of moving the statue at the beginning of this thread, giving all sorts of reasons. Why the sudden change? Is it just because you found yourself on the same side as the mayor you despise? Seems a bit odd.

Posted on: 5/14 17:54
Top


Re: Jersey City development
#16
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Do you have a link by any chance?

Posted on: 2017/10/14 12:07
Top


Re: Jersey City to Install Electric Car Charging Stations in Every Ward
#17
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I also want to add that the installation of electric car charging stations is a subsidy to the rich, who are more likely going to be owning that electric Tesla or Prius. Why are we providing subsidy in this area? A privately-owned gas station must purchase land and install equipment in order to service cars, why can't the same be for electric?

Would it still be such a good deal if electric car owners bear the true costs associated with their vehicles by getting private industry to purchase the land and construct the car charging stations? Why is this a government function? And if you're a resident of Jersey City that relies on transit or biking, the much more efficient options, this is just a giant F U.

I hate pet projects that benefit 0.01% of the population at the expense of everyone else. I'm sure Wards A,B,C,D and F are going to love this investment in the neighborhood... It might score a few political points with the ivory tower folks in Ward E though, so that makes it alright.



I see what you're saying, but it seems a bit short-sighted. With something like electric vehicles, which are still relatively in their infancy, how else would you encourage adoption if not with some government help? There aren't a lot of private companies yet that want to build electric stations themselves (although there are a few, including here in Jersey City). Doesn't it make sense then for the city to help, assuming the goal is to encourage adoption of greener technologies?

Posted on: 2017/10/14 12:05
Top


City Nights block party
#18
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Shuster Group is having their 2nd Annual City Nights block party on Thursday, Oct 19 7-10PM.

I went last year, it was fun - some live music, food and drink vendors, games (big Jenga etc).

It's on First Street between Marin and Provost.

For more information:

https://www.facebook.com/events/164560464133980/

Posted on: 2017/10/13 9:52
Top


Re: We need your help in the village!
#19
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


So what's the alternative Vigilante? Being anti-progress?

Seems to me that aside from loss of parking, the town certainly looks better than it did, and there are more food options, even if some are over-hyped or mediocre - with more quantity, some are bound to be good (and some are). There are more living options as well, even though the price point is getting higher.

Not really sure bothers you so much.

Posted on: 2016/3/25 15:21
Top


Re: We need your help in the village!
#20
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Interesting about the lot coverage and minimum rear yard setbacks - those would make the difference.

Here is the previous agenda where it was adjourned - as you can see, the variances are both height and lot coverage.

http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset/ ... 8b-4559-b913-0665caaa1684

The current building seems to have somewhere between 30 and 50 feet of yard so it could be close - but I doubt they are looking to build without the variance anyway.


Posted on: 2016/3/22 23:44
Top


Re: We need your help in the village!
#21
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

khansenslp wrote:
Hi fellow JC residents. We the owners of Fifth Oaks Condominiums located at 369 5th Street in the Village really need your support at the next city zoning board meeting on Thursday April 7th at 6:30 pm (City Hall, 2nd Floor). 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. We are all open to change and progress but not at the cost of the families who have established their lives here. Any support would be greatly appreciated! Please come out on April 7th and let the city know Jersey City families deserve better!


Out of curiosity, What is allowed to be built under current 'law' (zoning)?

Is this the lot in question?
https://goo.gl/maps/3LqtNRZVUro



This lot was already approved as far as I know - for a much larger building - 318 Newark Ave

http://bgtenterprises.com/project/316-newark-avenue/

I think the lot in question is this one:

https://goo.gl/maps/PuE5Wb1GGmo

It was adjourned to the April 7th agenda.

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.

Posted on: 2016/3/22 15:37
Top


Re: Burger opening Mon 12/21 on 1st & Erie
#22
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


I also tried it out for lunch.

First of all, it seems like they wanted to open already, so they started out a little disorganized - menu has no prices, website incomplete, etc. As for the actual place - the place is nice, more for takeout as there's only a few seats by a countertop. The staff was friendly, meat is freshly cooked.

I had a double and truffle fries. The truffle fries were quite good, and for the price, they are definitely a good deal. The burger tasted good, although small for the price. The best comparison for the type of burger is probably Smashburger. Perhaps they will adjust their sizes or prices after their initial teething period. The burger and fries came out to around $11-12, so rather standard for the area (although some places have cheaper lunch specials).

Also, a few things to mention, since I saw it brought up here:

- They do have regular fries, even though it isn't listed on the menu. For those who don't like truffle fries.

- Their sodas are all glass-bottled, meaning their Coke is Mexican Coke (aka the cane sugar one). Don't know if this appeals to everyone, but a nice touch for me.

- I was made to understand that their ingredients are non-GMO, no hormones. I didn't really follow up on this too much, but this is probably something that would appeal to a certain subset of people, if advertised.

So to sum it up:
Quite good fries
Good burger, although pricey for its size

Will probably try again in a few weeks to see if they've made any changes.

Posted on: 2015/12/21 14:29
Top


Re: JC's signature projects that are stalled seemingly forever
#23
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Last I heard about Powerhouse, the developer wanted to add a 40 story building to the plans. Not sure how that's going but no movement there that I could see.

The Embankment is still in some sort of legal battle with Hyman. Once the ruling is final, the city would still have to actually purchase the Embankment (assuming they win).

I've heard that Gull's Cove 2 has already started sales. No word yet on construction.

Monty's Public House seems to have updated their FB page recently - https://www.facebook.com/Montys-Public ... 163692473799989/timeline/

Nothing I know about Hard Grove. Construction on the building next to it was halted when 143 Newark Ave was apparently in danger of collapse (sometime last year), but the site had been stabilized and it now seems the building next door is back under construction.

Posted on: 2015/9/18 0:21
Top


Re: Vacant Buildings
#24
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Certainly they could have done the work, since they were amending it anyway - it probably wouldn't be more than a few hours of work with a car - but it certainly doesn't merit the overreaction "THEY'RE TAKING EVERYONE'S PROPERTIES AND GIVING IT AWAY TO DEVELOPERS!!!". It's quite an assumption to make the jump between laziness/ineptitude (a normal government trait) to maliciousness.

Posted on: 2015/9/17 10:05
Top


Re: Vacant Buildings
#25
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


This thread was actually a pretty hilarious read. Everyone has their biases and is on the attack - Yvonne with her anti-mayor bias automatically assuming the worst and declaring the city is about to take away everyone's property and gift it over to developers, and everyone else attacking Yvonne.

Sully definitely made the best point - all this hoopla has just proven that apparently putting properties on this list has worked somewhat, as at least some of the properties from the 1999 list are now occupied.

Posted on: 2015/9/16 22:11
Top


Re: Jersey City one of worst cities for drivers in the country, report says
#26
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
People here like to attack with no proof.


Actually the problem is that people are offering evidence to disprove of your theories and yet you continue to stick to it. Grove Street, a much more direct route to NJMC I would think, was closed this weekend between Montgomery and Mercer. I doubt there were any problems getting to the hospital as a result.

The bigger overall curiosity for me is that you've made countless different arguments in various threads over the past weeks. A sample based on what I remember:

- The plaza was illegally created (opened before a vote)
- Bad for businesses on the street/favors certain businesses
- In violation of handicap laws/makes it harder for handicapped people to get to the doctors on the street
- Makes it harder to get to the medical center

And countless others I'm sure - you just added the "was Ward C asked?" argument to this thread as well.

All of your arguments have been debunked throughout, but you continue to find other issues.

So again, I ask you - why do you have such a strange obsession with this? Are you one of the few people who actually thought it was a good idea to drive all the way down Newark Ave? Are you personally upset with Fulop and just attack everything he does? Are you just afraid of change?

Posted on: 2015/7/20 13:02
Top


Re: Jersey City one of worst cities for drivers in the country, report says
#27
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
This administration has made the problem worse by closing Newark Avenue. The main issue for JC residents - trying to get to the Medical Center and how closing Newark Ave will impact that. Now I hear the Silverman Brothers want Grove and Montgomery close for their business.


Yvonne, I've been reading this site for years and decided to make an account just so I can try to understand your strange obsession with this one-block pedestrian plaza. I've noticed you always seem to complain about parking and road/car related issues, but you seem to really be stuck on this. Why exactly does this bother you so much? Do you really, actually believe closing that one block makes any difference whatsoever in getting to the Medical Center, or anywhere for that matter?

I commuted into Jersey City for a year and I only went all the way down Newark Ave once. It was a mistake, because there is very little room for cars to turn due to the traffic light on the right. Do you really thing it makes a difference if this section is closed? So, you make a turn one street earlier, which is easier to do anyway. Closing that section is actually smart, because the previous traffic flow was stupid to begin with.

So why does this actually bother you? Is it just because it represents change which you seem so bent on resisting? Is it because it is appealing to a demographic that you don't identify with? I moved to Jersey City for things like that - areas where you can walk around and have a lot of space to sit and eat. Have you actually been there? There's tons of people - families, kids, people eating at the restaurants, sitting in the street. It's great. And you actually think a better use of this one block is to have it clogged with cars trying to make a right turn they could have made a lot faster a block up??

Posted on: 2015/7/18 11:40
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