K-Lo wrote:
Legal proceedings are ongoing.

rescuelife wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I just don't understand the emphasis on catering to "long time residents" who don't like change. Aren't "long time residents" largely responsible for the depressed state Jersey City was in until relatively recently? The dismantling of the trolley lines happened on your watch, as did opening doors to suburban big box shopping centers in prime locations, along with the near constant electing crooked, short-sighted politicians until Mayor Fulop shook things up.

When I read this, I had a great laugh, it reminds me of my early teaching career while speaking on President Washington, an innocent young child asked me if I knew President Washington, I was barely out of my 20s then. She had no sense of history. Returning to the subject, we old timers did not dismantle trolley lines, or even the bath houses or the train lines that went to the Jersey Shore, that happened before we were born. So what did we do, we increase the value of properties. A typical brownstone was $10,000 in the 1970s, before the 1988 reval, homes were selling between $150,000 to $300,000. We stopped Colgate for destroying historic buildings, created the historic districts, sought grants for Van Vorst and Hamilton Parks. We pushed for handicapped curbs. We fought against polluters who used our vacant land as dumping grounds for toxics and fought for floods control issues. We were successful on some issues but not others. By the mid 1980, Colgate said their land was too valuable because home prices were raising and decided to develop, they never asked for an abatement, just letting you know. We started the development, not the mayor. He moved into a luxury condo in his early 20s instead of a toxic waste land. Give credit where credit is due.

funny because you are usually the one providing entertainment here, Yvonne, and now we made you laugh! It's like the king cracking a joke to the court jester/village idiot.

You had quite the comedic performance at this week's council meeting. I swear the greatest comedic minds in history could not come up with what you/Jayson Burg/Kabili Tayari come up with. Keep up the great comedy, thank you.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I just don't understand the emphasis on catering to "long time residents" who don't like change. Aren't "long time residents" largely responsible for the depressed state Jersey City was in until relatively recently? The dismantling of the trolley lines happened on your watch, as did opening doors to suburban big box shopping centers in prime locations, along with the near constant electing crooked, short-sighted politicians until Mayor Fulop shook things up.

When I read this, I had a great laugh, it reminds me of my early teaching career while speaking on President Washington, an innocent young child asked me if I knew President Washington, I was barely out of my 20s then. She had no sense of history. Returning to the subject, we old timers did not dismantle trolley lines, or even the bath houses or the train lines that went to the Jersey Shore, that happened before we were born. So what did we do, we increase the value of properties. A typical brownstone was $10,000 in the 1970s, before the 1988 reval, homes were selling between $150,000 to $300,000. We stopped Colgate for destroying historic buildings, created the historic districts, sought grants for Van Vorst and Hamilton Parks. We pushed for handicapped curbs. We fought against polluters who used our vacant land as dumping grounds for toxics and fought for floods control issues. We were successful on some issues but not others. By the mid 1980, Colgate said their land was too valuable because home prices were raising and decided to develop, they never asked for an abatement, just letting you know. We started the development, not the mayor. He moved into a luxury condo in his early 20s instead of a toxic waste land. Give credit where credit is due.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I just don't understand the emphasis on catering to "long time residents" who don't like change. Aren't "long time residents" largely responsible for the depressed state Jersey City was in until relatively recently? The dismantling of the trolley lines happened on your watch, as did opening doors to suburban big box shopping centers in prime locations, along with the near constant electing crooked, short-sighted politicians until Mayor Fulop shook things up.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
Exactly!

And BRING BACK THE STREET CAR.. All the way down Columbus Ave to the water.

a streetcar would be awesome...i believe nj transit had wanted to put a lightrail on columbus but ran into stiff opposition from obstructionists

Fomite wrote:
Exactly!

And BRING BACK THE STREET CAR.. All the way down Columbus Ave to the water.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:

Parking became a problem when Fulop proposed as councilman the change in policy for new construction. It was always one residence, one parking space. Now ration is less than 50%, so what is happening? New residents are parking on the streets. The developers are making more money because parking spaces do not pay like a rental but the overflow of cars on the street impacts people who live in older homes without parking.

Same conversation on every thread. New residents and old are more than welcome to actually pay for a spot and park in one of the many 1/2 empty decks downtown. We don't lack parking. We lack free parking. Free parking in a city is a ridiculous waste of space and money.

According to the US Census over 40% of the residences in JC don't actually own cars. Yet we're supposed to build a space for each and every new unit? That's insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... #cite_ref-bikesatwork_1-9

Why should long time residents pay for parking when it was always free? It is also free in other cities. I pay enough in taxes and water, so why should parking be another liability? If developers want to make a profit on their buildings it should not be at the expense of long term residents. They should not have to fight to maintain what they have. Again, did you ask Fulop and the council to give up their free parking behind city hall?

jcdd wrote:
There is a legitimate concern for parking for families that live in Jersey City. Anybody that has children knows that it is pretty much essential to have a car. You have school issues, doctor appointments and a whole host of other requirements that come along with children that often involve a car, particularly if both parents work and have to utilize daycare. Try walking a mile or two to a doctor appointment with a 3 month old sick baby. I'm not saying that parking should be free, but it needs to be conveniently located nearby for such families, and Jersey City is lacking that, to a big degree.
NYC has a much superior public transportation system that allows families and children to get to school, doc appts, and virtually anywhere in the city fairly easily. There are cabs everywhere. It is much easier to get around NYC without a car than it is in JC and amenities in general are more accessable. Notwithstanding, most people I know with kids in NYC still have a car. NYC also has plenty of parking garages around the City, so long as you are wiling to pay.

If we want JC to be a city of single or childless people, then certainly go car free. But families will continue to move out because it is family unfriendly. Families make good neighbors - they raise property values, keep their properties looking nice, provide long term stability, take pride in their neighborhood and volunteer, support local business to a greater degree, and work to make the City a better place to live because they have such a vested interest in doing so. We do need to balance the needs of all people that live in JC.

jcdd wrote:
There is a legitimate concern for parking for families that live in Jersey City. Anybody that has children knows that it is pretty much essential to have a car. You have school issues, doctor appointments and a whole host of other requirements that come along with children that often involve a car, particularly if both parents work and have to utilize daycare. Try walking a mile or two to a doctor appointment with a 3 month old sick baby. I'm not saying that parking should be free, but it needs to be conveniently located nearby for such families, and Jersey City is lacking that, to a big degree.
NYC has a much superior public transportation system that allows families and children to get to school, doc appts, and virtually anywhere in the city fairly easily. There are cabs everywhere. It is much easier to get around NYC without a car than it is in JC and amenities in general are more accessable. Notwithstanding, most people I know with kids in NYC still have a car. NYC also has plenty of parking garages around the City, so long as you are wiling to pay.

If we want JC to be a city of single or childless people, then certainly go car free. But families will continue to move out because it is family unfriendly. Families make good neighbors - they raise property values, keep their properties looking nice, provide long term stability, take pride in their neighborhood and volunteer, support local business to a greater degree, and work to make the City a better place to live because they have such a vested interest in doing so. We do need to balance the needs of all people that live in JC.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.

I was here first.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.

Parking has always been available in JC until developers who also receive abatements build mega buildings without adequate parking. The burden should not be placed on long term residents, it belongs on developers to provide for parking. St. Johns in Journal Square did not impose on their neighbors, they provided parking and even the Gregory now called Metro also provided for parking. It is just greed by developers who realize less parking means more revenue. Don't give me that garbage to go to the suburbs. Let the developers follow the same path as St. Johns and the Gregory. If you want a city without parking move to Manhattan, I was here first.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.

Parking has always been available in JC until developers who also receive abatements build mega buildings without adequate parking. The burden should not be placed on long term residents, it belongs on developers to provide for parking. St. Johns in Journal Square did not impose on their neighbors, they provided parking and even the Gregory now called Metro also provided for parking. It is just greed by developers who realize less parking means more revenue. Don't give me that garbage to go to the suburbs. Let the developers follow the same path as St. Johns and the Gregory. If you want a city without parking move to Manhattan, I was here first.

...I was here first.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
The 'mega buildings' all have decks, 1/2 empty decks. I know more than a few people who live in those buildings and I don't know a single one of them who parks on the street.

VVP is the area we're talking about in this thread. No 'mega buildings' there, just a lot of brownstones. Turns out that the existing buildings in DTJC that have been here the longest have no parking despite often being 2 - 4 units.

272 Grove, a new building, with inadequate parking, will have horrible effects on the Van Vorst community. New residents there will take away parking. There is nothing in the ordinance requiring the mayor and city council to have parking. Did you ask the mayor and city council to give up their parking spaces? It is downtown also. Don't ask residents to do something that is not required from the mayor and city council. It is part of the Van Vorst area.

moobycow wrote:
The 'mega buildings' all have decks, 1/2 empty decks. I know more than a few people who live in those buildings and I don't know a single one of them who parks on the street.

VVP is the area we're talking about in this thread. No 'mega buildings' there, just a lot of brownstones. Turns out that the existing buildings in DTJC that have been here the longest have no parking despite often being 2 - 4 units.

Fomite wrote:
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

Why should long time residents pay for parking when it was always free? It is also free in other cities. I pay enough in taxes and water, so why should parking be another liability? If developers want to make a profit on their buildings it should not be at the expense of long term residents. They should not have to fight to maintain what they have. Again, did you ask Fulop and the council to give up their free parking behind city hall?

Yvonne, forgive me but I feel like this discussion is had over and over again, to no avail. There is very little free parking in Manhattan - the only viable comparison, since Jersey City is very much dependent on NYC for it's growth. And, it's viewed in most planning circles, by advocates for sustainable growth and cities that engage a new demographic, that eliminating cars from urban streets is a good thing http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/p ... ing-is-screwing-up-cities, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/sci ... .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I think the Mayor, and his planning professionals, understand what some residents are actively fighting to ignore - that remaining a car dependent "hybrid" city does not bode well for future development, or for attracting the types of businesses and residents that make urban areas thrive.

And the "old timers" need to remember - their parking was never free, we all paid for it - and those of us who live in multiple dwellings - and pay disproportionate taxes because of the city's pandering to that particular voting block in the past are willing to put up a fight.