NNJR wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
16-17 year old young men
3:15am Arlington Park
31 year old mother

That mother was very young when she had her child and sounds like an excellent role model for her kid as well! WTF.

Are these numbers right? 14yr old having a baby? Is this JC or Somalia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

momoomo2 wrote:
You really need to learn the definition of "relatively." I am not racist, and I made no claims of how dirty or filthy Little India is relative to other areas in Jersey City. I am sure there are other areas in JC that are more filthy; however, we are not discussing those areas. And given Little India's proximity to the American Can Building, comments regarding such area are in fact......relative!

momoomo2 wrote:
I am still waiting on some sort of comparison with the Beacon??? Which is the better investment?

Funny, no one wants to discuss my comment regarding how disgusting and foul Little India really is. It really is absolutely disgusting.

With its five towers, tall smokestacks and stone Deco details, the brick structure is part of a historic industrial district established by the city.

jessicapuppy wrote:

Where I emailed Steve Fuller when he first got elected but didn't take office yet and he came to our second vote and pledged his support to to the out come of the community vote.

injcsince81 wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
There are two formulas that T&M Associates, who prepared the Recreation Master Plan, used to determine how much open space is needed in Jersey City. The city falls well short under both standards.

Under the Balanced Land Use Standard, the city would develop 3% of its developable land as open space. County and State open space is not included in this formula. Under this standard, Jersey City would need 356 acres of open space. It currently has 143.

Under the Core System Standard (used by the National Recreation and Park Association), municipalities should have 10.5 acres of open space for every 1000 people. Under this formula, Jersey City would need 2,521 acres of open space. Including county and state parkland, it currently has 1,524.

We need more parks, and the city is turning down opportunities to acquire them.

These are the numbers I asked for in my original post in this thread.

Thanks for providing them.

I still don't understand why state and county green space is not included in the formula (you can easily imagine a small city where a great majority of area within city limits is occupied by a state park - would they still demand more municipal parks?)

missa wrote:
I heard a rumor that Mia Scanga is promoting Gerald McCann for BOE (i call this a rumor because i cannot watch this program on the web because there is no audio). I find this interesting, as on the Talking Politics website listing convicted politicians of Hudson County he is not to be found.

Was he never convicted or had pled guilty in the past for any of the crimes he has committed?

I thought he was a convicted felon?

Is the Jersey Journal lying or was he accidentally left from the Talking Politics website?

olive wrote:
your comments are just typical of somebody with no class
no wonder why you still on the ghetto.
I can tell you belong there

my biggest concern on moving from downtown to jsq or the heights to have to deal with people like you



and before you talk about grammar you may take a look at your own
realise is spell realize

just for the record Mr ghetto

olive wrote:
I am not competing with anybody I have consider myself saint pauls complex, I have visited it as well as the canco lofts and many buildings in jc
so far, base on my preferences the beacon and canco are some of the best developments in the jsq area
nothing like saint pauls which has a lack of style and character
but hey.... I understand that not everybody has the same level of taste

so my apology to you, and your circumstances
Mr nondowntown if i offended you in any way

olive wrote:
so is "olive" a:

a.) Canco buyer
b.) Canco employee
c.) somebody related to a or b?
d.)none of the avobe

I guess d

I'm just very familiar with he jc market
I'm looking to buy something I have done my homework

olive wrote:
these condos are very different from saint paul's
this is a factory being converted into condos there is a history behind this building saint pauls is just a huge apt complex with not style, kind of a private projects

you have to decide if you can sacrify the view for 14' high celing and 11" windows
this is a real industrial living

I am also sure that these condos wil appreciate much faster than saint pauls
wich actualy are coming down in price

about JSQ these area is under development and is just a matter of time to see new stores opening
the same that happened in downtown jc

JSQ wrote:
Quote:

jcaro28 wrote:
all journal sq is is little india, thats my point!!

I said it before and I have to repeat that, if not for the Arabs' stores, it will feel like country-side, with Duane Reade closing at 7 on Sunday.

MCA wrote:
Of course you insinuated it. It's all over your "It's embarassing to suggest a property in McGinley Square in 2007 not receive an abatement at all (clearly directed at my original "Here's a thought" comment), while they're still being handed out like Halloween candy on the "gold coast" (note the lack of a period between the two clauses, suggesting a continuing thought, i.e., my support or at least acquiescence for Downtown abatements, with no supporting evidence).

I agree with you about the value of abatements when legitimately needed. My point, perhaps not well stated, is that, 20+ years after the building boom began in Newport, this city is well past the point of needing 'artificial' incentives (i.e., tax abatements) to lure development. At this point, and in my opinion, there is more than enough commercial and residential development everywhere in JC (aided of course by said abatements) that we can and should quit abatements cold-turkey. Any litigation that may arise can be fought--and likely won--if the administration would only grow a spine. What the city should be doing is providing 'real' incentives for development such as improving the schools, roads, mass transit options, sewer system and city services, which would draw in new residents while improving the quality of life for existing ones. (Whether the revenue from PILOTs helps or hinders us from doing this is a whole other debate.)

Re: the West Side, everyone I know considers Kennedy Blvd. the eastern border of the West Side. If you grew up near the park but east of Kennedy, then you didn't live on the West Side (but at the time, this was a good thing).

Finally, I'll "manage to see past the occasional typo and misspelling" after you do.

MCA wrote:
So my suggestion is "embarassing," (sic) is it?

For the record, I am, at this time (because I'm sure you'll search my previous posts for evidence to the contrary), against tax abatements in any and all parts of JC, due to the unchecked and rapacious development allowed by this and previous administrations. To insinuate that I don't have a problem with, or even support abatements Downtown just because I don't mention it in my post, might be a better example of a knee-jerk reaction.

PS - Neither this development or McGinley Square is considered the West Side, brother.

MCA wrote:
So the developer went from demanding a mega-super-sweetheart tax abatement deal (25 years, 12 percent gross annual revenues), negotiated down to a super-sweetheart deal (20 years, 15 percent) and would now agree to the regular sweetheart deal (20 years, 16 percent)? Is our Council finally growing some cojones?

Here's a thought: with the recently completed Bergen Avenue streetscape improvements, continued development around McGinley Square and the nearby Beacon, and a prime location a 10-minute walk from Journal Square and a half-block away from St. Peter's College, maybe this proposed development doesn't need an abatement at all. Call me crazy...

ThirdRail wrote:
Quote:

Mr_X wrote:
Hello, I live right on the park. The dog park is right outside my window.

I've lived here for 4 years,

You really should have looked into a neighborhood before settling there. The talk of a dog run has been going on for some time now.

If the dog run is closed at 10pm, the whole park should be closed, that's the law right?

jennymayla wrote:
I was in the dog park the other day, at around 7pm, and there was a small dog yapping it's head off. Someone from across the street started screaming "SHUT UP" and it dawned on me then and there how annoying it must be to live across the street.

Mr X, you and your neighbors certainly didn't ask for this. It's got to be excruciating. I have a feeling that people just aren't aware of how loud it can be, especially at night.

The dog park is meant to close at 10, so if people are still there with their dogs, they need to leave. Go ahead, call the cops. The law is the law and someone's got to enforce it. You certainly don't have to make excuses for calling plus I'm not sure what other legal recourse you have. And maybe they can pick up some of the thugs who are lurking in the park then too. Kill two birds with one stone.

Speaking of kiliing....maybe not so much with the bb guns and the rat poison. I know you are kidding, but still.

In the meantime, I'll be sure to be more courteous and I will make sure my dog owner friends are too. Let's get it solved before the warm weather open-window season starts. You and the rest of Montgomery Street don't deserve to deal with this.

alb wrote:
Quote:

MrWolf wrote:
March 23, 2007

Foreclosures Force Suburbs to Fight Blight

In suburbs like this one, officials are installing alarms, fixing broken windows and mowing lawns at the vacant houses in hopes of preventing a snowball effect, in which surrounding property values suffer and worried neighbors move away. ...

the unusual prevalence of vacant houses...

Outside Atlanta, Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties have mounted antiforeclosure campaigns while several towns south of Chicago are forcing titleholders to fix up empty houses, or repay the government for doing it.

Seriously: I typed the stuff about "lenders may maintain a lot of the houses they get back poorly" and thought, "Well, maybe Nondowntown will be right when he rips me a new one, because maybe that's an exaggerated fear."

Then, hear in The New York Times, we see that "foreclosure blight" isn't a theoretical risk of a real estate crash. It's already a serious social problem.

janegeorge wrote: 1. Sorry I've let you down. If I was ashamed of what I did and didn't know, I'd Wikipedia myself death. Of course my spelling sucks too, so I'd have to google "Wikipedia", so as not to embarrass myself that way as well! 2. I am glad that you agree. 3. Thanks very much Binky, for that bit of direction. 4. Frankly, I'm proud to say that I don't think all that well using irratating acronyms (well I know I use them too, REM and RADAR and SOHO and NOHO and WALDO and AIDS and UNICEF). Really it's their cousins that I hate, the NJDOT and HCNA and HPNA and NFL and NBC and GM and FAA and FDA and FCC and AFLCIO and the worst of them all, the WMD. 4. You are correct in thinking that I will never text message. 5. PILOT works, but honestly, I've never made the connection to, payment in lieu of taxes and the abatements. 6. Now I'm gonna have to go hide my head in the sand (or dirt) for 9 days, until I'm clean again.

Jangie wrote:
It certainly doesn't look like the mayor is placing this event high in his priorities, for whatever reason...

I'm a bit confused here... Not being involved in any of the JC politics, is there anything that says that the mayor *has* to attend this sort of rally? I could advertise all I wanted that Mayor Healy was coming over to my house for dinner, try inviting him, and be angry that he didn't show up. Is that reasonable? It doesn't make sense to me at all... if you plan to have certain people at your event, you have to invite them and confirm their attendance well in advance of associating their name with the event, or at least I would think so. I don't understand how the assumption is that without any answer to the negative or positive, that the mayor would come.

Ross_Ewage wrote:
Quote:

NONdowntown wrote:

THEY DID NOT RETURN CALLS FOR COMMENT.

Yet in paragraph one, the JJ paints them out to be a father and son in need of a home? PUH-LEEZE, LaToya! They never even returned a call to the JJ to tell them the greatest developer lie ever told ("we're building it to maybe live in.")

I don't understand the emphasis on their not calling the JJ. Hell, I wouldn't give that rag the chance to misquote me. Besides, they already changed their design once to try and satisfy their neighbors - they don't owe anybody an explanation.

Sure, the system is broken but these guys didn't break it. It would be different if they tried to do the work unpermitted in the dead of night.

I'm more troubled by this quote:

"You have neighbors who invested in properties and have been stewards of the block for 50 years," Burke said. "Then a newcomer comes along and the city blesses them . And that's where the problem lies.

The dreaded "newcomers" with them funny soundin' names. They don't belong here.