Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
52 user(s) are online (47 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 52

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Roaring20s)




Re: Weirdest Street Names in JC?
#1
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

fasteddie wrote:
Dick Street. Behind the Jersey Journal Bldg.


I'll second that one. It always sounded so cruisey. I'd be embarrassed to give anyone my address if I lived there.

Posted on: 2008/8/16 1:41
 Top 


Re: New forum: President 2008
#2
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:

Look for the guest appearance of JC's favorite son near the end !



Now that's funny but why would they want Healy in that??? Not too many outside of JC knows who he is.

Posted on: 2008/7/20 12:28
 Top 


Re: Councilman gets ethics questions on the ballot
#3
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

scooter wrote:

Corruption is like a cancer, kind of hard to get rid of it. But let's try anyway.....



It just wouldn't be Jersey City unless there was double dipping politicitans and corruption now would it??

Posted on: 2008/7/10 13:07
 Top 


Re: 10 Ugly Buildings JERSEY CITY Would Be Better Off Without
#4
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


I wanna nominate an entire block of buildings...those ugly little huts along Montgomery Street by the Turnpike.

They are the most soul crushing architecture that I've ever seen. My heart goes out to the families that have to live there.

Posted on: 2008/7/8 12:38
 Top 


Re: Lincoln Park & West Bergen: VIOLENT WEEKEND -- 3 slain in Jersey City say shootings unrelated
#5
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

justin wrote:
Actually, none of it qualifies because West Bergen is a bogus name....period. I'm sure someone called it West Bergen somewhere down the line


Justin...you're correct. The name West Bergen came about in the 1980s when the Lincoln Park neighbourhood first attempted to become a historic district. It was to be called the "West Bergen Historic District" however that attempt failed as there was not enough community support for the district.

When the West Bergen/Lincoln Park Neighbourhood Coalition was founded (founding member here) several names were tossed around as an identifier for the 'hood. My suggestion was Lincoln Park however there was strong sentiment for West Bergen by those that remained in the area and wanted to bridge the 15+ year gap in community efforts. There was about a 50/50 split vote on the names so we used both West Bergen and Lincoln Park as one name for the neighbourhood.

I don't know how they came up with West Bergen in the 80s...I didn't live in NJ then.

Posted on: 2008/4/22 12:48
 Top 


Re: Monticello Avenue Inquiry
#6
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

tanze_des_lasters wrote:
The particular home we are interested in is on a well-maintained quiet street and those passing us on the sidewalk were friendly.


There are some really nice blocks in the area (Emery Street and Astor Place being 2 that stick out in my mind). Both have very active block associations and are members of MCDC.

Posted on: 2008/4/21 11:33
 Top 


Re: Monticello Avenue Inquiry
#7
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

tanze_des_lasters wrote:

Also, is the Monticello Community Development Corporation still active? There is no current web presence regarding them. Are there any other active neighborhood groups in that area?


The last that I heard MCDC was still active. Check in with the owner of Independent Beauty Supply as he's a board member and he can give you a contact person for the group.

Quote:
And finally, we were told by one real estate agent that this area is now considered Journal Square, which we didn?t believe and another agency lists this area as McGinley Square which is also unbelievable. Are we correct in assuming this is considered Bergen-Lafayette?

Thank you for any information provided.


This isn't formally known as Bergen-Lafayette. B-L generally stops at the Junction section of JC (Communipaw and Grand); it is more a part of McG Square than B-L. Summit Avenue (to the east of Monticello) isn't part of B-L.

As far as safety goes, the area is changing but the changes won't be overnight. If you're looking at a long term investment I would recommend it however if you're only looking for short term, I'd avoid it because it's still dicey. By all means though...patronise the stores along the avenue, especially Aladdin Lamps (if you're into real vintage light fixtures). It's a hidden jewel on the stip.

I'm a former board member (chairing the Promotions committee) of MCDC and lived on Bentley for quite a few years and was active in a lot of the neighbourhood associations for a number of years until I moved away in 2005. Hope the info is helpful.

Posted on: 2008/4/19 1:13
 Top 


Re: Lincoln Park home plan is altered, but not enough for neighbors
#8
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

Ross_Ewage wrote:

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.


Ross, it's obvious that you don't know Charlene Burke. I have had the pleasure of calling her a friend and neighbour for years before I left. She is truly a person who cares about Jersey City as a whole as well as the Lincoln Park neighbourhood.

Your comment about "newcomers" with funny soundin' names just stinks. If you're trying to imply that she is a xenophobe, you're wrong.

Fact is, she's right. There are people who have lived there for years and have become stewards of the block. They could have left as many did when Lincoln Park started it's long decline but they toughed it out. These developers don't care about what they're doing, it' s all a money game but those that live there have to look at it daily, long after the Margaritondas have spent the money they'll make on ruining a beautiful block.

The Margaritondas have a right to make money but should they create eyesores for the rest of the neighbours?

Posted on: 2007/3/9 23:42
 Top 


Re: Greenville and West Side: Planning aims to save large Victorian homes - by increasing min. lot s
#9
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


I'm very happy to see that this is moving forward.

Posted on: 2007/1/3 18:07
 Top 


Re: Jersey City ranked one of the least angry cities in America -- though you can't tell it from JCLIST!
#10
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

Pisces1979 wrote:

- So, the area around disneyland is angrier than detroit. I guess epcot center lines = rage.


If you got stuck in the "It's a Small World" ride you'd be angry too...those damned singing dolls can make one homicidal.

Posted on: 2006/8/19 12:23
 Top 


Re: New face of public housing - 72 homes in the Lafayette section of Jersey City
#11
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

fasteddie wrote:
Quick but off topic question for Roaring: Will you be voting for Kinky Friedman? Is he perceived as a serious contender by the locals?


I'm honestly not sure who I'm voting for but it's definitely not Gov. Perry. Kinky is seen as a quasi-serious contender. He fought hard to get on the ballot as an independent and got the required signatures to get on it after he was challenged by both parties.

I'm not so sure he's serious about it. If I thought that he were serious I would consider him more carefully. Frankly none of the candidates here (even dems) represent my liberal views.

Posted on: 2006/7/29 14:57
 Top 


Re: New face of public housing - 72 homes in the Lafayette section of Jersey City
#12
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

seventoecat wrote:
Roaring20s wrote:
"America used to be a country to producers...now we're just a nation of whiners. Look at the whines and cries over this topic alone."

Unless you weren't sure, this is an opinion board..... and everyone is entitled. If you don't care for the banter, then cease responding to the thread.
By the way, why don't you tell us all how you Texans supported the Bushies and Enron and allowed the racisim and poverty of Mexicans and Blacks to continue unchecked for decades. Where were you when they dragged that Black man behind the truck? How about the homophobia, sexism and all this other macho BS? And let's go ahead and draw new voting districts to make sure the Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities have no impact on the elections. So, stop being smug... your Southern track record ain't great.


I realise that this is an opinion board and I've stated mine. If you don't care for it, please stop reading my posts...no one forced you to read it.

Also by the way, I've moved to TX less than a year ago from Jersey City where I lived for 12 years and owned a home on Bentley Avenue for the past 6 years. During my time in JC, I helped found the West Bergen/Lincon Park Neighbourhood Coalition (held office of VP for several years), was a board member of Monticello Community Development Corp (chaired the Promotions committee which held several successful fundraisers under my stead) and was on the Steering committee for Bergen Communities United (elected position not appointed).

I am also a minority (gay, Jewish) and was partnered with another minority for the past 9 years (gay, Black). I know better than most about racism and surely know far better about homophobia and anti-Semitism. I am even now more of a minority (liberal gay Jew living in the heart of conservative Baptist Red State) so there is my "southern track record".

I realise that your fairly new to the board but did you ever stop to wonder why somebody from TX is posting on this board? Just click on my name and you'll see my last posts with an option to see all my posts for the last 2 years since I joined JCList.

Posted on: 2006/7/29 6:15
 Top 


Re: Jersey City's PSEG coal plant is ranked 12th "dirtiest" power plant in the nation!
#13
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Ha! Texas beat you on this one. Gov. Perry is fast tracking 16 more polluting coal plants here so keep your head high NJ'ers. You'll soon be down to #30 on that list.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedconte ... opowerplants.1227d94.html

Posted on: 2006/7/28 23:11
 Top 


Re: New face of public housing - 72 homes in the Lafayette section of Jersey City
#14
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

soshin wrote:

Access to a decent free education and proper funding of family planning clinics would be a start.........


It's not even a start. You need to incentivise education. We have free schools (shitty but free nonetheless). Any kid who wants an education will make sure s/he's there every day and doing his/her homework.

Just my humble opinion but school should be mandatory for both kids and adults up thru 4 years of college. Screw working these minimum wage paying jobs. They're just keeping people poor. Even if you lived in Podunk Iowa you can't really support yourself on $6.00/hour.

I also think that if you're not pulling a minumum B average, you should 1) go on probation for 1 year; 2) after the first year and no improvement, receive 1 warning to pull your grades or your kids' grades up or else lose your entitlements and finally 3) after 2 years and no improvements, lose your home, your foodstamps, etc. If within a 5 year period, you turn your attitude around you get another shot to make it...but only 1 shot. You fail the second time, you're outta the game.

America used to be a country to producers...now we're just a nation of whiners. Look at the whines and cries over this topic alone.

I for one would not mind one iota paying thru the nose for 30 years or whatever it took to erase this gimme gimme mindset if it meant that at the end of 30 years, illiteracy, crime, substance abuse and poverty were erased. I don't know about the rest of you but I think it's a small price to pay.

Yes, there are flaws with my opinion I admit but at least I've done something productive instead of bitching about why do they get this and I don't.

Posted on: 2006/7/28 22:59
 Top 


Re: New face of public housing - 72 homes in the Lafayette section of Jersey City
#15
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

injcsince81 wrote:

This thread's scope has evolved beyond Lafayette Gardens if you haven't noticed.


These threads never stay on topic for very long. This is an ongoing debate not only on this board but in America as a whole.

Problems are recognised but everyone is so busy arguing with each other over what is and what is not a fact that absolutely no one takes it upon themselves to find solutions, let alone working with other people that they disagree with to find solutions.

There is a great deal of truth that some people on public assistance are lazy and make terrible choices about their own lives (having kids when they can't afford them, substance abuse, you name it...the list is long) but we all, including myself, have made some bad choices in our lives. That is what being human is.

I would for once love to see this group or any other group of people who are passionate about their stance come up with some real workable solutions to these legacy problems. Welfare is a trap and everyone knows it. Getting off it is far harder than "don't have kids' or "get a job".

I'm not in favour of hand out programmes but at this point in our country's history, they are needed whether we want to admit it or not.

If this group of people with all their convictions would just put aside for a few hours all this commentary and ask what can you and I do to end this madness, we'd all be better off. We'd be even better off still if you and I actually did these things instead of just yapping about how to fix them.

Posted on: 2006/7/28 21:55
 Top 


Re: New face of public housing - 72 homes in the Lafayette section of Jersey City
#16
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

glx wrote:

Quote:

Roaring20s wrote:
Then I'll explain for the 50th time since you still haven't gotten it that PILOTs do NOT pay equally into the county and not a dime to the schools. Unsubsidised property owners pay YOUR share...they are subsidising you.


PILOTs put just as much money if not more into the city coffers. The question was why is the city not getting the tax revenue. It is, in a different form. The county gets short changed, yes, but that wasn't the question posed. Would you rather see *all* of that money go into Jersey City in the form of a PILOT, or would your rather see it get split up 10 different ways and go to Weehawken, Hoboken, Secaucus and Bayonne, etc. as a tax?


No one is disputing that PILOTs pay more to the city however there are other entities that depend on these tax dollars (county and schools). These properties that have received PILOTs pay into the city but they're not paying into the schools (which is one of the main reasons why education in JC is such that it is and helps to perpetuate a cycle of poverty). Non PILOT property owners are struggling to make up not just their share of the school tax but also the share not being paid by folks who have PILOT properties.

I'm simply mystified that your only concern is how much is paid to the city coffers. Explain to me if you can why you would be against subsidised housing for the working poor when these PILOT properties are subsidised. Could there be an underlying class issue here?

Posted on: 2006/7/28 11:53
 Top 


Re: New face of public housing - 72 homes in the Lafayette section of Jersey City
#17
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

glx wrote:
How many times does it have to be stated? Properties with tax abatements still pay just as much if not more money into city coffers. PILOTs. I don't think I need to define them for the 50th time.

That is all.


Then I'll explain for the 50th time since you still haven't gotten it that PILOTs do NOT pay equally into the county and not a dime to the schools. Unsubsidised property owners pay YOUR share...they are subsidising you.

Posted on: 2006/7/28 2:13
 Top 


Re: New face of public housing - 72 homes in the Lafayette section of Jersey City
#18
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

soshin wrote:

I am sick of hearing about 20-year tax abatements given to Downtown buildings when my house in JSQ is paying for YOU!!!


SLAM!!!!

Now it looks like the shoe's on the other foot. Non-abated property owners look at abated owners just the same way as you're looking at these people in these subsidized apartments. Don't throw stone if you live in glass houses people!

Posted on: 2006/7/28 0:50
 Top 


Re: Positive things I like about JC
#19
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Sometimes you don't know how much you miss things until you no longer have them. Here's my list

1. Bragging that the Statue of Liberty is in Jersey City.

2. Lincoln Park and it's amazing fountain.

3. The diversity of the people and cultures.

4. Not having to drive unless I want to.

5. Good friends.

6. Proximity to Manhattan and the Village.

7. The Merchant.

8. Rita and Joes (yum!!)

9. Unbelievably, the traffic (seriously these folks here can't drive).

10. The political scene is better than any telenovela on Univision!!

11. Mulu Baltena.

12. Lee Sims Chocolates.

These are in no particular order.

Posted on: 2006/7/11 2:55

Edited by Roaring20s on 2006/7/11 3:19:53
 Top 


Re: EARL MORGAN -- Healy's 3 ordinances would help the city curb gun violence
#20
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

GeorgeWBush wrote:

...so many moonbats...
GWB


Moonbats??? You lose all credibility in an otherwise good post when you resort to name-calling.

Posted on: 2006/5/26 14:02
 Top 


Re: Tax abatement for Newport this Wednesday
#21
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Pisces, I hardly doubt that millionaires are gonna invade the neighbourhood but the demographics will change. That's a given.

And why would Steve vote for abatements like he does...do you really need to ask??? He's not the only one that will vote for it. If all members of the CC show up to vote, the vote will go something like 7-2-0 with Fulop and Richardson voting against it.

Posted on: 2006/4/25 17:02
 Top 


Re: Post your Pimp Sightings Here
#22
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


I love this guy...he's fabulous! He reminds me of a ZZ Top song "Sharp Dressed Man".

I saw him last summer. I was in the Brownstone Diner and he was walking up Jersey towards Grand...the whole diner got quiet and everyone looked out the window at him...he was dressed up in all yellow. He looked like one of those marshmallow peeps that you can get this time of year.

Posted on: 2006/4/14 14:42
 Top 


Re: Green Roof?
#23
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


This sounds really cool and the pic of the roof in Vienna looks great but I have a dumb question: How do you mow it or do you just let it grow wild???

I think it'd be great on the tops of the buildings but I can't see doing it if you can't use it as a lawn...maybe I've just got limited vision

Posted on: 2006/4/9 1:45
 Top 


Re: Home price surge worries longtime residents
#24
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

DoggieDew wrote:
The key to successfully cashing out is not to buy back into the same area for which you will pay dearly, but to move to other parts of the country where both cost of living and quality of life are more reasonable, affordable, and enjoyable.

I made my money in Hudson County, now I can happily go elsewhere to spend it! Thanks Hudson County for making me rich!!!! See ya'!


Ain't that the truth!!!

Posted on: 2006/4/3 22:04
 Top 


Re: Should Healy resign?
#25
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

JCNY wrote:

What happened?



Short answer is that we had 3 mayors in a very short time...Cunningham died in office and then we had Smith for a few months as Acting Mayor and then Healy. Each mayor brought his own cronies in and so the city (and the departments) suffered from a lack of real leadership with all the musical chairs going on with the political shuffling.

At least, that's my take on it.

Posted on: 2006/3/31 17:41
 Top 


Re: Should Healy resign?
#26
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

CleanGov wrote:
Saying that Healy is better than his predecessors is really no defense at all. He may well have inherited the problems, but surely he knew what the problems were before he decided to run for office and therefore he should have had some solution to solve them? The fact is Healy has no vision and has done nothing to raise money from other areas. He has no imagination or proactive policies. He has simply reacted (badly) to the political situation that is around him ? that he has "unfortunately" found himself in ? rather than come up with any innovative ways of raising money. There are plenty of innovative ways to raise much needed cash for JC and the waterfront is merely one way.


You'll get no arguement from me here. I never said nor indicated that he's better than his predecessors. I'll go as far as to say that he's no better and no worse than his predecessors.

"Btw ?Roaring20s?: Oh, please. I can assure you that I am nobodies lacky and trying to banish my honest opinion to some other place indicates that you are childish, undemocratic and don?t believe in the freedom of speech. It makes you sound quite pathetic really. Personal attacks just make you sound sad."

Hmmm...touche' CleanGov. You might want to re-read your posts and pick out the personal attacks that you've slung against Healy. If I'm wrong about you being someone's lacky I apologise but you DO in fact sound like one very particular lacky of a very particular former mayoral candidate.

Posted on: 2006/3/30 14:48
 Top 


Re: Should Healy resign?
#27
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

CleanGov wrote:
The Tax increase of 18% indicates that Healey has completely mismanaged the City funds. He is clearly incompetent and out of his depth and he is either a moron or a crook.

Should he do the decent thing and resign?



Hmmm.....that's one way to look at it however I take another viewpoint on this. The taxes were increased because the price of everthing, including municipal government has risen over the last 20 or so years since the last tax increase.

All this tax increase should have been done years ago instead of the politicians trying to push it off for as long as they could...all hoping a future administration would have been dealing with it. I think that any of us that watched the municipal government over the years expected this to happen under the Cunningham administration...not that it would have been his fault...but it was due time and Cunningham did everything he could to push the tax increse off as long as he could. This time...Healy stood up and took accountability for all the past administrations that wouldn't do what needed to be done. It's time to pay the piper and pay the increased taxes. This topic was brought up at a Ward B candidate forum and all the candidates (except for one...who unfortunately lost...he was a realist so he had no shot at winning) danced away from the question as fast as they could.

He's not a moron or a crook and didn't mismanage the city's funds...on incompetentcy...the jury's still out. I think that he should resign but not for this...my opinion based on just how many abatements are still being given to waterfront property after he said no more waterfront abatements. Just because the Shore Club isn't right on the literal waterfront and is offset from it by a few feet does not make this "non-watefront" property. Clearly it is still waterfront property to many of us. Healy could have told Shore Club that they can build if they want to but no abatements were necessary in the waterfront area and if they wanted abatements, there's plenty of areas that they can move their project to and get an abatement...thinking JSQ or the Hackensack waterfront...some area that needs abatements given..not the Newport area.

If you want to blame Healy for the tax increase, that's your opinion but I must say that you sound like a certain lacky for a former mayoral candidate that I'll let remain nameless...how many of the readers can guess who that former candidate is and who the lacky is??? I'll bet that some of you can. (Jeopardy music playing now )

So please...CleanGov...take your diatribe back to GetNJ.com where it's considered a good deed to post such silliness. I'll also wager that if your guy had won, he'd be working his butt off trying to push this tax increase off for another administration to deal with and then, the increase would be larger than 18%.

Edited to add: You guys all better pay attention to what Mia and Yvonne have been saying for years...there's a revaluation down the road. All the pols will tell you that it's no time soon but...at some point it will happen. I'll wager that it'll be sooner than they're telling the citizens. When that reval does come, watch out!!!

Posted on: 2006/3/30 13:59
 Top 


Re: Those New construction 2 Families
#28
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

brewster wrote:

For the record, I have yet to hear ANYONE seriously advocate the removal of a historic district. The interpretation of the proposals as "gutting" are subject to debate, but lets not do it here. The authors of the proposals certainly don't have that intention.


No one...not even Minnie has advocated the removal of any historic district status. If anyone thinks that having a protective covenant such as a conservation district will diminish the desire of some to work in favour of historic districts, they haven't thought the process out thorougly.

It's my opinion that while many neighbourhoods that are eligible for HD status but haven't made the required moves for whatever reason, there are people in those neighbourhoods that do want HD status...however, they're countered by others in the neigbourhood that oppose HD status (this was the case in LP). However, these people who do not want HD status still want to see their neigbourhood improve...no one wanted to see the awful white brick infills that went in on Lower Harrison Avenue a few years ago...and I shudder to think what will be put on the spot where the magnificent house on Lower Gifford burnt a few months ago...not 1, not 2 but 3 of these ultra lovely (not) white brick 2-families on that lot.

I think that those that oppose HD status will go for something less restrictive but still allows for protection...such as a conservation district. Also note...a neighbourhood does NOT need to be historic to be a conservation district...it can be a 5 year old development where a fire has gutted a home and the neighbours want appropriate type of infill housing in the spot where the old place stood.

Further...a conservation district (can we please get away from that term...it makes me think of water, soil and forest conservation---how bout a preservation district) can serve as a catalyst to springboard into a full blown historic district in the future if there isn't the required support amongst homeowners and residents of said area.

It makes sense to me...it helps protect non-HD status areas like Sherman Avenue, Gifford Avenue and Harrison Avenue.

If anyone cares to see more appropriate type of infill housing, please take a stroll down Emery Street...there are 3 of these 2-family houses on the block however, their architecture and facade do complement the row houses on the block...they're a little taller but they do blend into the rest of the houses on Emery Street with their use of more appropriate fenstration and bricking. Admittedly, they're not perfect however they're far better than these white brick crackerboxes.

Posted on: 2005/12/28 5:01
 Top 


Re: Those New construction 2 Families
#29
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
The main problem here is that the office is understaffed.


Josh, I must respectfully disagree with you here...the problem isn't that there isn't enough staff...the problem is that neighbourhoods that want protection aren't able to get it unless they agree with the historic district tenets. I fail to see how adding more employees to the city's payroll will alleviate this situation.

IMHO...the main problem is that there is no protection for the rest of Jersey City...the historic districts downtown are protected however blocks like Brewster's aren't protected. There must be a way to help these folks too...whether or not they choose to become a historic district.

Quote:

jcnative wrote:
...if it's an either/or situation between the 2-family monstrosities, and the oft-cited disorder 'historic district dementia' (DSM-IV 290.23) that friends have suffered downtown, I'll take the lesser of two evils - and choose the 2 family monstrosities...Good luck with this, but so far, as I would be, I am unconvinced, based on jclist threads and stories by homeowner friends downtown that historic districting would be able to do anything for me other than drive me to bankruptcy, violence, or suicide (not necessarily in that order)...


Sadly this is what I was referring to in an earlier post on this topic...the dirty laundry from downtown's historic districts have been aired for the entire city...those of us who support historic district status for our neighbourhoods are in a constant uphill battle to win support from those that are on the fence...and when a minor victory has been gained...someone (not necessarily from JCLC) that heavily supports historic districts comes along and starts telling people what they can do and can't do...and frankly, there's a longer list of can't do's than there are can do's.

I think that the JCLC needs a serious outreach programme to everyone...those that do want HD status as well as those who do not want it because there's a lot of confusion out there on both sides.

As far as Dan Wreiden...I think he does as good a job as one man can do given what he's got to work with...he's definitely overworked and underappreciated however adding more staff doesn't get to the root of the problem that originally started this thread.

Posted on: 2005/12/28 1:02
 Top 


Re: Those New construction 2 Families
#30
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

As I pointed out, a "Conservation District" ordinance may have some use when there is a desire to keep a certain asethetic, but not the mass of historic buildings needed for district status. There are plenty of neighborhoods in the Heights however, that would qualify for historic district status if the residents actually wanted it.


This is the whole point of a conservation district...while not nearly as encompassing as historic district status would be, it does regulate the type of building design that can be added to a neighbourhood.

As for my personal opinion...I prefer the Historic District status however not everyone wants to live in a historic district...this does not mean that they care less about the type of development happening in their neighbourhoods. A conservation district would help to regulate these ugly 2 family white brick houses...they neither fit into the neighbourhoods nor do they accentuate any of the pre-existing architecture. All they do is hammer another nail in the coffin of neighbourhoods that are trying to maintain their charm and character.

I only offered up what Dallas does because there may be some way balance the needs of the neighbourhoods with the desire to protect our history. It is not and should not be seen as a replacement for Historic District status...perhaps though it could be used as the first step in the process of becoming a historic district. Certainly, there must be a happy medium in all this mess.

I have no beef with JCLC...I support them and what they're trying to accomplish however many parts of Jersey City (including my former Lincoln Park neighbourhood) are totally shut out from any sort of protection from these rabid developers because we are not a designated historic district...even though we are eligible to become one...problem is...and JCLC should acknowledge this...people are terrified by what living in a HD means...seeing as how some of the downtown districts' dirty laundry (such as just trying to get a simple repair done to a door, replacing leaky windows or God forbid...paint their home) has been so publicly aired here on this forum and elsewhere. There's a time and place for rules and guidelines however when they're shoved down people's throats, there's bound to be a backlash.

As for the city providing aesthetic guidelines through zoning and planning boards...that's a laugh...we are still talking about Jersey City, right???

Posted on: 2005/12/27 21:00
 Top 



TopTop
(1) 2 »






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