Stringer wrote:

Fulop rethinking support of North Jersey casino expansion

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
on April 13, 2016 at 7:00 PM, updated April 13, 2016 at 7:13 PM

Mayor Steve Fulop is expressing some new hesitance to support an expansion of casino gaming into northern New Jersey, after spending more than a year touting the idea as a way to boost the economy and create new jobs.

Fulop visited Atlantic City today to talk to city officials and residents about the impact of casinos on the city and has come away much more pessimistic about the positive benefits of a casino in Jersey City, he said.

"I'm not so sure today that this is in the best interest of our city," he told The Jersey Journal in a phone interview today.

Read more:  http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... north_jersey_casinos.html

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
No pensions if convicted.

http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/43-p ... t-compensation/1-3.1.html

Vigilante, if I'm reading the statute correctly, only crimes connected to their behavior in office (like theft of services, bribery, embezzlement, etc.) rises to the level of criminal behavior. It's a crime "that touches their office" in some way. It's not a blanket statute covering all felony convictions like in some states.

Specifically:

Subsection a. of this section applies to a conviction of any of the following crimes:

(1) Paragraph (4) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:13-5, criminal coercion;

(2) N.J.S.2C:20-4, theft by deception, if the amount involved exceeds $10,000;

(3) Subsection d. of N.J.S.2C:20-5, theft by extortion;

(4) N.J.S.2C:20-9, theft by failure to make required disposition of property received, if the amount involved exceeds $10,000;

(5) N.J.S.2C:21-10, commercial bribery;

(6) Section 3 of P.L.1994, c.121 (C.2C:21-25), money laundering;

(7) Section 97 of P.L.1999, c.440 (C.2C:21-34), false contract payment claims;

(8) N.J.S.2C:27-2, bribery in official matters;

(9) N.J.S.2C:27-3, threats and other improper influence in official and political matters;

(10) Section 100 of P.L.1999, c.440 (C.2C:27-9), unlawful official business transaction where interest is involved;

(11) Section 5 of P.L.2003, c.255 (C.2C:27-10), acceptance or receipt of unlawful benefit by public servant for official behavior;

(12) Section 6 of P.L.2003, c.255 (C.2C:27-11), offer of unlawful benefit to public servant for official behavior;

(13) N.J.S.2C:28-1, perjury;

(14) N.J.S.2C:28-5, tampering with witnesses;

(15) N.J.S.2C:28-7, tampering with public records or information;

(16) N.J.S.2C:29-4, compounding;

(17) N.J.S.2C:30-2, official misconduct;

(18) N.J.S.2C:30-3, speculating or wagering on official action or information; or

(19) Section 3 of P.L.2003, c.31 (C.2C:30-7), pattern of official misconduct.

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
If people really need a car they'll find a way to make it happen, or more sensibly they'll move to western NJ where their employment is.

This mentality is so very wrong. I own a car and live in Jersey City. I sometimes have to commute to my office in W.Jersey. Just because I work somewhere that is not easily accessible by public transit means I should move closer to my job and leave Jersey City?

If your living preference has enough of a negative impact on those around you, then yes.

tommyc_37 wrote:
38 units and 40 parking spots...oh, my, goodness. This is 2 blocks from the Path, right? On a dense urban rowhouse block. Not in Montclair.

How is parking even allowed in the architecture on a building on a block like this. Its going to look like shit I imagine.

So dumb.

EasyGibson wrote:
No it's not.

Overgrown and unkempt is natural.

Those horrendous looking shit towers they're building are disgusting unnatural eyesores.

Does everything being built these days have to be built with the absolute 100% cheapest crap available?
Can't we get at least a whiff of style on some of these giant projects? This is some Eastern Block stuff happening up on 10th St.

clancey wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
As far as potholes? Anything that slows drivers down is okay by me.

I agree with slowing down drivers with speeds bumps or the police actually ticketing motorists blowing through stop signs, but we pay some of the highest taxes in the country and should have roads that don't look 3rd world.

soaringswine1 wrote:
Similar question.

Does it seem a little unscrupulous to enforce alternate side parking when 25%+ of Hamilton park streets are closed?

Does the city have a policy on this?

(I got ticketed twice the past two weeks, super frustrating)

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
All you pro-development and "progress" people are getting what you deserve. Shitty construction from people who make deals, build cheap and leave town. Enjoy your shite buildings, shite views and shitty inconsiderate neighbors. Not to mention your crammed to the gills commute, parks and over-hyped restaurants.

I'm assuming you live on undeveloped land?

It's about the kind of development dopey. The building I'm in is over 100 years old and will be here 100 years from now. The new development around DTJC is shite. Get a clue.

The Jersey City of 2016 is infinitely better than the Jersey City of the 1980s. Development is the primary reason. Obviously there is a lot of shite development out there, and Jersey City must aim for better. Developers won't like it, but JC should introduce design standards in the zoning (a ban on vinyl sliding for new construction would be a start, in my view.)

Where you give away your NIMBYism is by citing density. We should be encouraging densities to ensure there is an adequate supply of market rate housing to keep things affordable and to cover the costs associated with any new design standards to require better materials and overall quality.

Our current zoning is the problem, and the sooner it's amended, the better.

Believe me, when I think about the new residents downtown "density" is the first word that comes to mind. In any case, market rate is one thing but no one in DTJC is going to allow low income housing if they can help it. This is about and has always been about property values. It's no accident that just about every realtor in DTJC owned multiple properties before the boon in development began. It is no accident that in Hamilton Park the Southwest and Northwest quadrants of the park do not contain anything but grass lawns. Those are the areas that faced the homes of the people who were the presidents and members of the H.P.N.A. who controlled what happened where.

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. That unabated 99 Hudson St tower will alone contribute to 2 percent of the ratabale base before reval, and more afterwords. We should have baked the developers a cake.

With the coming reval, downtown homeowners should be begging for new luxury developments that will help blunt the impact in a reval. Even if a new building receives an abatement, the land is still taxed and the PILOT payment results in greater revenue to the city than it would have received. This is done by legally robbing the county and school board of funds. The rest of Hudson County has to make up the shortfall for our abatements affecting the county while the whole state does the same for our schools. Horrible laws that's inequitable but Mayor Fulop is fully justified to exploit them if the state is unwilling to change.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
All you pro-development and "progress" people are getting what you deserve. Shitty construction from people who make deals, build cheap and leave town. Enjoy your shite buildings, shite views and shitty inconsiderate neighbors. Not to mention your crammed to the gills commute, parks and over-hyped restaurants.

I'm assuming you live on undeveloped land?

It's about the kind of development dopey. The building I'm in is over 100 years old and will be here 100 years from now. The new development around DTJC is shite. Get a clue.

The Jersey City of 2016 is infinitely better than the Jersey City of the 1980s. Development is the primary reason. Obviously there is a lot of shite development out there, and Jersey City must aim for better. Developers won't like it, but JC should introduce design standards in the zoning (a ban on vinyl sliding for new construction would be a start, in my view.)

Where you give away your NIMBYism is by citing density. We should be encouraging densities to ensure there is an adequate supply of market rate housing to keep things affordable and to cover the costs associated with any new design standards to require better materials and overall quality.

Our current zoning is the problem, and the sooner it's amended, the better.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
All you pro-development and "progress" people are getting what you deserve. Shitty construction from people who make deals, build cheap and leave town. Enjoy your shite buildings, shite views and shitty inconsiderate neighbors. Not to mention your crammed to the gills commute, parks and over-hyped restaurants.

I'm assuming you live on undeveloped land?

Suntime wrote:
The alternative is to demand more from the developers than crappy mediocre buildings, particularly when they are seeking variances to put up these buildings and they dont even live in our community. We shouldnt sell ourselves out so cheap or else this town in going to look like crap in 20 years and everyone will say " what were they thinking?". This is why we should not be so gleeful to cave to any developer request for a variance in the name of "progress". Keep in mind that the developer doesn't give a darn about our neighborhood - they just want to jam in as much density as they can so they make more money - then go home to their mcmansion in the burbs.

I was walking by a building in downtown under construction today( a building that obtained a variance) and saw workers cutting huge "blocks" of white styrofoam. The next worker was then coating the styrofoam in concrete, so that the end product looked like large concrete slabs. They were "making" a lot of these. Any builders on here have any idea why they would be doing this? Sure seems like shoddy construction to me if these styrofoam "slabs" were going to be used in the construction....

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
I think you are distorting his words. And boodipoh makes a great point. "But other international cities are terrible at intermingling residents based on income. In fact, it is common (and quite accepted) that poorer residents are relegated to living in the periphery of major cities, with longer commutes and poorer conditions, than more affluent residents living within city limits." It's called revanchist gentrification or hyper gentrification where initial gentrifiers are pushed out or alienated. I love Jersey City and have been here around 20 years and civic minded like many others. I remember when I first moved to Van Vorst Park, I saw a post on JC List that actually said something akin to this "The nonsense on Wayne Street has to stop. All white people who make this City great and continue to make it great, please report to the park on Wayne Street and reclaim our City." There are many black and brown people who make this City great, contribute in many ways and just because someone makes above a certain incomes doesn't mean he/she makes the City great. Likewise, just because someone makes below a certain income, doesn't mean they make the City bad. People should think more.

no one is forcibly forcing low income people to move out of prime areas, at some point, prime areas become unaffordable...supply and demand. although i agree that government efforts can help/hurt affordability

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
If you live in a city, cars are a luxury. If you want extra real estate, you should pay for it.

DtJcQdMf wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I am a 5 min drive to Bayonne... you people think Bayonne is far LMAO... it takes me 20 min to get WTC why would you think coming from Bayonne take eternity? Bayonne also has the a flyer on the lightrail that zips them to Hoboken in 15 min...

Also during Sandy when the light rail was out I drove to Bayonne sometimes to catch the bus to Wall street which took 40 min and sometimes less. Other times I caught the ferry at Port Liberte. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Bayonne but its distance from Manhattan is not one of them.

https://www.coldwellbankerhomes.com/nj ... e/129-5th-st/pid_9076741/

Tons of price drops = a possible motived seller.

Not all that far from 8th street light station although need to cross 440, perhaps there is an overpass walkway.

Bayonne Crossing has tons of shopping and it's near by.

Great starter home with what looks like little needed in the way of renovations (big plus considering the cost and time for dealing with contractors) - 3 car PARKING which is huge after dealing with the struggles in JC if you have more than one car.

I'd come in low @ $205k cash offer (you can always go up so start low) with no contingencies (there is a noted lead paint disclosure) after a really thorough balls to the wall home inspection with a specula and also seeing clear title ready to transfer.

It's brick and seems to have been built in the late 50's when there was still a level of craftsmanship you simply don't see today with the all the prefab crap used.

Sure it's Bayonne, considered the armpit of NJ - but it is actually a safe community with a lot of pride in homeownership there.

You should have seen Hamilton Park 25 years ago, it was rank nasty nasty.

Just food for thought.

I'm sure there are much much better deals for those who want to do the leg work and hit the ground running or pay premiums to stay in the hip area of JC.

Anyone have old pics of Hamilton Park? I tried a quick google search.