Alb, were you at the meeting? What you are saying is not true. Minnie was rude to take as much time as she did. The response from the crowd was appropriate. I spoke to a woman from my neighborhood last night about it - she had no idea who Minnie was, but was disgusted by how Minnie went to the front of room and attempted to wrestle control of the meeting.

I don't understand your point "b" - there is a children's garden open for all children to use, and two playgrounds for different age kids.

Quote:

I understood, the suggestion as renovation would be begin by the fall. But I could have misinterpreted that.

At this point, does anyone have a timeline for when renovation will BEGIN??

Sort of on topic...

From Elizabeth of Exeter, developers of Hamilton Square:

Dear Neighbors,

Please note, beginning tomorrow, March 28th we will be closing McWilliams Place from 8th to 9th Street in order to restore the east side of the park. The Park will be extended to its original size, and parking will eventually be made parallel on both sides of McWilliams Place.

This process of the park extension will take approximately 3-4 weeks (pending weather cooperation!). When McWilliams re-opens, it will be one-way only flowing south. This will be a permanent change per site plan approval.

We are truly sorry for the inconvenience. We will try our best to make the process as fast and painless as possible.

If you are concerned about parking, there are still garage spaces available on Erie & 9th street. Please call our office if you are interested in renting one. 201-435-8000.

Please spread the word, and call me with any questions or concerns.

Thank you for your continued patience and cooperation!

Elizabeth

Thanks for posting the videos...I missed the meeting, and it was great to see some of what went on.

Also, at this point, does anyone have a timeline for when renovation will BEGIN??

Yes - having these videos online is a great public service for those of us who weren't able to attend the meeting. Thank you!

Thanks for posting the videos.

Hamilton Park's makeover: More active or passive?
Monday, March 26, 2007
By COTTON DELO
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Downtown Jersey City activists filled a room at 1 McWilliams Place on Thursday night to evaluate options for Hamilton Park's long-awaited renovation.

The engineering firm Schoor DePalma presented three park designs, relying heavily on community feedback from balloting conducted in 2005 when 1,113 ballots were cast, according to Jen Greely, president of the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association.

An expanded children's playground, a dog run, benches, picnic tables and a Victorian-era water fountain were included in all three designs.

The first two options are essentially differentiated by the addition of a putting green. A third option calls for eliminating one of the park's two tennis courts.

Several attendees showed concern over the third option - expressing the view that elimination of active space would discourage residents from other parts of the city from using the park.

Others worried it would have a disruptive effect on passive areas.

"I'm worried if we don't have that (second) tennis court for the cricketers, they're going to move into other areas of the park," said Bob Garner, a 15-year Hamilton Park resident who suggested that a multi-use court for net sports replace one tennis court.

But some Hamilton Park residents were chagrined that removal of the basketball court wasn't included in the options.

"When they have games, there's trash that's left all over the place," said Alfred Martino, a resident since 1998. "Why isn't getting rid of the court an option?"

"This is not a gated community," responded local event producer Dale Hardman.

Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop, who moderated the meeting, said that the City Council was unlikely to approve a design that drastically reduced active space - especially in light of the thriving youth basketball leagues in Hamilton Park.

One skeptic of the process was Janet Allen, chairman of the Friends of Hamilton Park, who has advocated a park design with less active space and larger areas for landscaping and gardening.

She was met by a chorus of boos from the crowd of about 70 after commenting at length on the plans' lack of an irrigation system.

"They said they were going to spend $2 million, but how are they spending it?" asked Allen, who said a breakdown of budget and cost should be provided before the final balloting - as well as plans with more clearly decipherable features.

The final vote to choose a design to be submitted to the Council is tentatively scheduled for April 21, but voters should visit the HPNA's Web site (www.hamiltonpark.org) for confirmation.

Voting is open to all Jersey City residents ages 18 and older. Call 201-222-9070 or e-mail hpnajc@gmail.com for an absentee ballot.


? 2007 The Jersey Journal
? 2007 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

The article can be found at nj.com

Who cares! Post her address, phone number and anything else. You want to play hard ball, then be ready to get up to the plate and play in the major leagues Sonia! Be prepared to defend your filth! You are nothing! NOTHING!

Here is the video from the March 22, 2007 meeting... the new camera has acceptable video and sound but is not the greatest for low light situations. It was a two hour meeting and I did my best to include the important comments from the public in the two ten minute parts. Not much was included from the officials because they were there mainly to take notes on public comment and concern... PART 1: PART 2:

I was at the meeting on Thu March 22nd and have a few observations:

Generally i was very impressed with everyones desire to get the plans right. The architects listened and genuinely seemed to take views into account, the residents had some well thought through concerns, and Mr Fulop did a great job of chairing discussions and keeping things on track.

I wanted to comment though on the issue with Janet. Janet does more than most in the park...she organises gardening sessions, puts up holday decorations...of all the people at the meeting from HPNA and FOHP; as a regular user of the park, she is the only one I've ever actually seen in the park trying to make a direct contribution. Janet walks the walk.

Yes I agree that Janet came across very badly at the meeting. As a friend I'd say you need to sit back a little and trust the people who share your concerns to raise the issues. I think in your passion to get your voice heard, you forgot that other people actually share your views on issues such as irrigation, passive space, dog-free areas etc..all good points...it would have been much more productive to let them speak first.

I TOLD YOU SO!!!

Quote:

Now I can't imagine why anyone would have a grudge against a stranger who wrote nasty things and personal information about them. Go figure.

Still on 9th street, but pulled closer to the gazebo. They claim they have put "buffers" in between the run and the street. I think these were hedges.

The landscape architects seemed very interested in take down all the comments that were made. I'm sure you can still voice your opinion by sending in an email or call to Fulop or the HPNA.

Althea

Quote:

I missed the meeting due to work, which sucks. But can anyone tell me was the dog run (which I assume is going to be green) on 9th St just west of the bball courts or was it moved closer to 8th St as was discussed at a previous meeting?

Be careful Althea, these two are the neighborhood psychopaths. Getting addresses and taking photos is scary business. These associations they have created for themselves, is their life and reason for breathing and any real or imaginary threat to their association is a direct and personal threat to them. I would strongly suggest that you change your username and let the 'Althea' name on this website retire.

Hey Sonia and Janet, I can only guess that both of you are as welcome as urine in an elevator and the only thing you represent in our community is all the self-serving, power hungry dictators out there.
You would be better suited running the Jersey chapter of the Klan that would put both of you on a petastal and be the new pin-up girls for that association!

Janet Allen was cut off because she felt that she was entitled to ask ALL the questions, thereby passing over the democratic process where everyone has a fair chance to ask questions. We all appreciate that she got to ask questions, but it was unfair when she continued to speak not allowing others the same politeness.

As for Sonia, I went tonight to see for myself the person who attacked me completely unprovoked just because she saw my name on a public speakers list. She attacked me and my family. She called me abusive names and shared with all my home address at a time when I am expecting a child and quite vulnerable. Until that point I had never known her name or her association, because I do not live in her area and hadn't read any threads about her association. How she made this connection, I don't know.

Sonia, although having my home address that she so thoughtfully shared with everyone, has yet to have the consideration to apologize, but instead blames others. This is someone deserving of so much respect?

I did not heckle at Janet nor yell for her to sit down, albeit I felt she was being very unfair to the rest of the group who all wanted a chance to speak. I was there to cover any of the concerns of the families of JC Family Initiative.

So when it came my turn to ask a few short questions, imagine my surprise at Sonia constantly cutting me off from even starting my question. She spoke out of turn and had no courtesy or respect for the fact that it was my turn to speak. Apparently the democratic process is not supposed to work both ways? Only her way? Now who is a gutter rat? Who was rude to whom? I didn't cut her off when it was her turn and I didn't cut Janet off. Apparently when offended, these two people are then given permission to be rude to anyone and everyone and justify it?

Well Sonia, consider yourself on notice! Let's see how you feel when I publicly post your home address, because I decide you provoked me!

Sincerely,

Althea

P.S. - As soon as Janet asks for and obtains permission from everybody she photographed at the meeting, myself included, maybe then Sonia can even begin to contemplate whether she has any legal recourse over a member of the community videotaping a public meeting.

In typical Sonia Maldonado fashion, in the safety and security of her lonely lair, she completely distorts what happened tonight, because her and her ally were resoundingly defeated:

============================

"Sonia
NWA President

Plans for Hamilton Park Renovation

There was a meeting this evening for everyone in Jersey City who wanted to see the new maps showing three different concepts for the Hamilton Park renovation. The main problem with the maps, however, is that they failed to provide an explanation key, identifying all the squares, circles, octagons, rectangles, dots, and stars reflected on the maps. So for the uninformed viewer it wasn't possible to understand everything in front of them. The lack of clarity made the presentation seem unprofessional, and deceptive.

In addition, some of the attendees in the crowd were rude, crass, and impolite to people addressing the speakers. It was obvious the presenters were unable to control a rowdy audience. Especially, in bad taste, was the loud heckling against Janet this evening, and not allowing her to finish her sentences.

NWA meetings are so much better organized, and people treat each other with much more civility.

I met several people from Janet's organization this evening, all of whom treated her with the courtesy she deserves as a human being, but many of her adversaries behaved like gutter rats, heckling her and belittling her during the meeting, which resulted in a circus atmosphere, and the inability of the group to have an unbiased, democratic meeting.

Janet has given years of her life trying to help improve Hamilton Park, including creating the gardens that were eventually destroyed by Steve Fulop. Well, in Newport we have plenty of water, sunshine, and good earth. Moreover, I am confident Janet has the ability to create a lovely garden here, so the NWA will ask Lefrak to provide her a little space for a community garden. Hamilton Park's loss will be Newport's gain.

In conclusion, we understand Dan Falcon took video footage of us without our consent. He has yet to contact us to negotiate for how much we are willing to sell our images, and a few laughs at our expense."

==================


Newsflash, Sonia: tonight's meeting was democracy in action. An entire room of people, not "some" as you claim, had the final word on exactly how they feel about what Janet Allen has done and how she has behaved. It was not a small group of people calling for her to end the circus she herself created. It was the ENTIRE room. Janet attempted to sabotage an event because it was about THE PARK, and about THE COMMUNITY, and NOT ABOUT HER. And she suffered the social and political embarassment of being booed off the floor when she refused to end her entirely unproductive disruption.

Take note: nobody in that room was opposed to an irrigation system. They were opposed to somebody manipulating a process in which they and their families have a great deal at stake, all for the sake of some irrational political agenda that nobody aside from Sonia Maldonado and Janet Allen give a rat's ass about. They were opposed to somebody behaving as if she was entitled to speak more than any other person there. They were opposed to somebody shamelessly looking to turn this historic park, that has been a center of activity and recreation for downtown jersey city since long be for she dropped her carpet-bag down, into a museum, or an ethnically-cleansed, gated-community, or another elitist gramercy park.

And the people spoke out. And their voices were heard. Loud and clear. And finally, YES FINALLY, Janet sat down. Because the "nays" had it. THAT is democracy. You will never understand how it works.

And nobody in that room, except for Janet Allen and Sonia, would waste anybody's time with asinine questions such as "so is the dog park going to be green? because it's green on the drawing."

The truth is, the meeting was a success, despite Janet's minor, inconsequential disruption, because the people who truly care about their community, their neighbors, their city, and their park, had the courage to stand up and speak out about what was important to them. They had the strength and the resolve to tell those bullies-in-victims'-clothing Sonia Maldonado and Janet Allen that they will not be manipulated. And they had the decency to listen, really listen, to their neighbors and fellow citizens who came out because they care about their community, and not just about themselves.

Lots of completely valid concerns were raised, various points of view were represented (parents, dog-owners, educators, new residents, old residents, black, white, brown, etc), a number of constructive ideas were offered, and the team overseeing the renovation was given a lot of direction on how to incorporate the input into the final proposals which will be voted on, democratically, in April.

The meeting tonight made me proud to call Jersey City home, proud to have been born here and grown up here and to have recently bought a home here. It wasn't prim and proper and neatly tied up with a bow - it's still Jersey City after all. But the vast majority of people there seemed to understand that this is an important moment for Hamilton Park, far more important than any one ego or political vendetta.

It's a shame I felt the need to even dignify somebody like Sonia in arriving at some of the things I've said here, but I believe it's important for people to understand that if we as a community aren't careful, people with agendas and axes to grind can far too easily manipulate a situation for some sort of sick personal motive or petty gratification. I'm proud that the people in attendance tonight cared enough and were smart enough to not let that happen.

Congraulations to the HPNA, Councilman Fulop, Schoor Palma, and everyone involved in the process of seeing this project to where it is now, and please keep up the good work, for there is obviously still much to be done to see it through.

Quote:

Yes, especially thanks to Jen for all her hard work and during a pregnancy at that having to suffer certain fools arguing with her about the process.

Lets not forget to thank Jen Greely for her added expertise to the project, which would have cost the city in excess of $100,000 had they had to pay for such services.

Great meetig! Over 60+ I counted and others came later. Surprisingly less contentious than the early meetings with T&M (perhaps cause we've gone over this many times before), some surprising and funny footage that Webmeister will post later!

Vote on final 3 concepts will NOT be April 1st as previously posted but look here for update for all to vote on final concepts.

Thanks to Steve Fulop for putting this together with Schoor Palma for good presentation and to all who came out to ask questions and make comments.

And thanks to Cotton Delo and James the photog who came out from the Jersey Journal to cover this mtg.

I think good compromise came out of the presentations which all will get a chance to vote for and support the construction of during the next 5 to 8 months after bids are put out. More on that later and details from tonights mtg. to come from others there.

Great time at White Star too for all the JCListers who joined us all.

I?d like to suggest that you establish ?pet free? lawns at this meeting (if you want them) and vote on it at the April 1st. meeting. It is required to have both the approval of the Director of Public Works and feedback from the community in order to designate those areas.

For VVP it was a long process and you now have the opportunity to address this issue and have it in place going into construction.

I agree with SF on this and go with your personal choice?..

Hamilton Park cannot (objective) and should not (subjective) meet the park and recreation needs of the influx of new residents alone. For that, more acquisition needs to be included in the T & M Recreation Master Plan, in fact, acquisition of land west of Enos Jones Park which could accommodate numerous tennis and multi-use courts AND another dog run or dog park was removed from the final draft plan.

Should not the city include open space and recreation needs when creating redevelopment plans that increase the demand for open space, recreation and in this case playgrounds or money give backs be directly linked to park acquisition.

Instead of ?paving? over more open space for recreation structures, maybe point the finger back at City Planning, the administration and nearby developers to find better solutions.

Now, that damn PUTTING GREEN?..



Quote:

The winner of the bid for the construction plans - Schoor DePalma, is under no obligation to use T&M's ideas and plans, but the plans posted are certainly similar. We don't know yet if they are proposing multi use or tennis courts - we'll know tonight.

Frulop wrote: "3) feedback with elimniation of one tennis court and inclusion of more passive area in its place"

If there were two multi use courts, I'm not sure which I would go with - A or C.

Quote:

Quote:

Super_furry, I'm not looking at the courts as "tennis courts" and T&M did not present them as such but as dual "multi-use" courts. Were they only dedicated to tennis I would agree that one "tennis court" would be enough. However, with the influx of residents downtown I think dual "multi-use" courts are required so that's why I support Concept A.

I agree with you that my personal choice is Concept C since it provides more free park space.

Bright, you can support C with good conscience. Tennis courts are not efficient use of space, since at the most only 4 people can use them at a time. Multi use courts are are benefit the majority. One multi use court (tennis, cricket, volley ball, etc) - Option C - is the the best choice.

My endorsement of Option C is personal. HPNA will not support one option over the other.

Quote:

Quote:

The drawings on the HPNA site are the exact same size as the ones I posted here from Steve Fulop: 650 x 488 pixels

The difference is here you must click on the drawing so it opens up to full size in a separate window.

I have copious notes from T&M meetings and NO mention was ever made of a "putting green" by anyone present at meetings.

In reference to the different Concept Drawings, as 4bailey points out: "On the issue of the size of the run, the HPNA survey poll identified ?two tennis courts? as the size preferred by most of the survey participants."

This is CONCEPT A drawing which I fully support, as even though I do not make use of the tennis courts due to my disability, I feel as did others in the HPNA survey that multi-use courts for tennis, volleyball, badminton, etc are necessary for the implosion of 60k new residents in JC over the next 10 years.

Were I considering only for myself I would support CONCEPT C but then I would be joining others who denigrate the full use of Hamiltion Park by all throughout Jersey City and not just a few who think the Park their provenance by living there.

Hamilton Park is not a gated community park like Gramercy Park in New York and as such should be planned for multi-use for all as the HPNA Survey suggested, including ball playing.

fyi, Its a little bit clearer on the HPNA Park Renovation site here - Hamilton Park Renovation



Sam, again, a PUTTING GREEN? where did this come from?



Quote:

Again, thanks Steve!!...

Regarding the dog run, there?s one thing I don?t understand?

On the issue of the size of the run, the HPNA survey poll identified ?two tennis courts? as the size preferred by most of the survey participants.

In keeping the hub-n-spoke design of HP, the park is divided into 1/8 segments/lawns. From these renderings, it looks like the dog-run will take up half of a segment ? roughly the size of one tennis court,?maybe slightly bigger.

Since it?s physically impossible to fit the area taken by ?two tennis courts? in any single 1/8 segment, wouldn?t it better represent the survey participants to make an entire 1/8 segment a dog run?...

By the same token, I?d also suggest that it makes the most sense to designate an entire 1/8 segment as a pet-free lawn without subdividing a single lawn into pet-free/pet-OK zones.