Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2007/2/3 21:36 Last Login : 2020/4/18 19:17 From Way Downtown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1300
 |
that fenced-off hole goes nicely with the "improved" sidewalk pavers.
oh, and all the new trees.
Posted on: 2009/8/10 18:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I don't know about anyone else here but I'm pretty stoked that they canned the paseo idea and we have a really sweet, fenced off hole in the ground.
Posted on: 2009/8/10 18:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
Quote:
DanL, thanks for the shout-out. I couldn't agree more with those interested in including The Village area (Coles Street to west past Brunswick Street) in the redevelopment and beautification of Newark Avenue. In fact, at this Tuesday's Village Neighborhood Association meeting, both Robert Cotter, Director, Division of City Planning, and Councilman Steven Fulop will be on hand to address this very issue, and how it impacts adjacent neighborhoods, such as The Village. I urge those with similar concerns to attend Tuesday's meeting. For details, please visit our web site www.jcvillage.org/association/our-next-meeting
Posted on: 2008/10/13 3:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
The Newark Avenue Redevelopment Plan was adopted on Sept 24th. The Paseo is not a requirement of the plan but remains permitted. I'm not sure what permitted means but it looks like the plan will go ahead without the Paseo at least for now.
Rob
Posted on: 2008/10/13 1:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
So was the plan approved sin paseo by City Council? I never heard any followup. Thanks.
Posted on: 2008/10/12 15:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
TO anyone who reads this thing that can pass along ideas to "those in charge":
Here's a way to at least partially extend the plan past Jersey for a little bit: make sure that the building Fields is putting up on the south side of Newark just west of Jersey has a sidewalk, lights, etc, that are the same as what's going in from Grove to Jersey. Coax Fields to do the work in front of the bank building on the corner and you extend the plan almost another block, albeit on the south side only.
Posted on: 2008/9/26 4:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
One challenge is that, except for the new tourist attraction explanation signs that are going up, Jersey City does absolutely nothing to indicate that it expects to get tourists. - The signs and traffic flow are confusing. - Many of the storefronts are completely empty. Personally, I find that a lot of out-of-town guests that I have love visiting dollar stores. Plenty like visiting Arab American shops, "Spanish" shops and other hole-in-the-wall shops that they don't have back home in suburbia. But none of them has any interest in visiting an empty storefront. The city should figure out some way to at least get temporary shops into the empty storefronts, even if all the shops sell is art produced by the city's public grade school pupils. - Places like Sweet Priscilla's get nice downtown guides aimed at residents, but, if you walk around downtown and are a tourist, it's very unlikely that you'll end up holding anything like a quickie guide to Jersey City. - To my knowledge, there isn't a tourist information office anywhere. I learned a few months ago that we have a county Chamber of Commerce, but the only evidence of its existence that I've seen is a couple of newspaper articles about some meeting it had somewhere else. - To the extent that the city has started putting signs up, the signs tend to be very downtown-centric. No one tells you, for example, if you're standing on the Newport light rail platform that there's a lot of good Caribbean food and soul a few blocks south of the Martin Luther King Jr. Drive light rail stop. - The city hasn't really done anything to explain and showcase its very historical historic sites in a tourist friendly way. Example: there's not even any kind of marker, as far as I can tell, at the site of the Feb. 25, 1643, Dutch massacre of 80 Lenape Native Americans. A lot of folks here think caring about that kind of thing is too politically correct, but maybe some Dutch people or people into Native Americans would come here to look at the memorial plaque on the site if we had one. - The city makes little effort to preserve and market the old industrial sites here, which are probably some of the most tourist-attractive sites we have. A lot of the old industrial stuff here -- example: the Morris Canal -- was actually paid for by European investors. But I don't think there are really many plaques or brochures that explain our economic history very well, or a tour that might, for example, tempt European bankers who are visiting Goldman Sachs to go look at monuments to 19th century European investments in Jersey City (and American industrialization in general). - No one has picked up on the fact that one of Barack Obama's first ancestors to live in the United States is buried in the Old Bergen Church graveyard. - The city doesn't seem to make a serious effort to promote itself as a daytrip destination on the Web. No city-paid sock puppets are going around posting messages about how great Jersey City is on sites such as TripAdvisor.com. - It's hard to find out about lodging away from the waterfront. Did you know, for example, that there's a moderately priced hotel right by the Journal Square PATH station? I didn't know that till a few weeks ago.
Posted on: 2008/9/25 17:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2007/8/27 19:49 Last Login : 2009/6/10 14:44 From Under the Turnpike
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
69
|
Quote:
I don't think that a parking lot needs to be ugly or space wasting. I have visions of downtown Jersey City looking a bit like Red Bank, NJ - it always had a very nice downtown shopping district but about 20 years ago it was not nearly as nice or condusive to pedestrian shopping as it is now. There is a municipal lot behind the store fronts and people can walk all down Broad and Front Streets. I think having parking on both sides of the street like Washington or any street in Hoboken for that matter would look crowded and then there is the issue of double parking and horn honking. The only difference with Red Bank, though, while it is urban in fee compared to the surrounding towns, it is not in a super-urban-close-to-nyc area. Also, for the record I do not have a car that I keep or use in Jersey City. I just think that making the area more condusive to both pedestrians and drivers should be a goal.
Posted on: 2008/9/25 17:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/8/1 19:34 Last Login : 2022/4/27 19:59 From journal square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
269
|
yes, bedford, and since you mentioned it before smith st in bk are both very succesful one-way retail streets which proves that not having two ways of traffic wont suffocate the businesses. I think wider sidewalks and parking on both sides of the street (instead of an ugly space-wasting parking lot) will actually improve the look and effeciency of the street.
Posted on: 2008/9/25 16:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It's back to Nickie's point, which comes first the chicken or the egg. I was living off of Bedford Avenue in Williamsburg Brooklyn while it went from dump to destination - it was cool stores like Metropolis that started to turn the area around - and as Mark pointed out -- cheaper rents a few blocks further away from Grove & Jersey Avenue encourage more interesting and daring stores to open. BTW - Bedford is a one way street. What is needed for Newark is repaving and a little beautification all the way to at least Brunswick.
Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/25 15:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think the real issue with retail on Newark Avenue is that we aren't really attracting tourist shoppers, and its a catch-22 because the sort of stores that would attract outside shoppers can't be supported by local residents alone. What I mean is, for a vibrant retail district, the area needs to do more to attract people from outlying areas and the city to expand the customer base. Right now we have a large proportion of shops that provide everyday needs retail-- the sort of stuff that you need on an everyday basis, like a vegetable stand, or a dollar store. But some suburbanite doesn't say, "hey, lets go into Jersey City to shop at the vegetable stand and buy hand towels from the dollar store." There are of course a handful of destination shops that provide really great shopping opportunities -- Metropolis Music for one thing, or some of the Grove street clothing boutiques or Another Man's Treasure, but I think these really are not centralized well enough, nor are they publicized well in areas outside of Jersey City. For instance, if you walk down Smith Street or Bedford Avenue, there is a much higher concentration of unique, independent retailers; its a lot more obvious to people who are unfamiliar with the area that you are in a shopping district. By comparison, there are shops on Newark Avenue, Grove Street, Jersey Avenue, and on side streets, but nothing in a clearly marked, centralized shopping district. Also these streets are punctuated with nail salons, vacant store fronts, and the dollar stores. The shopping "experience" doesn't really exist here right now; Jersey City isn't attracting people from outside the city, and no one is making a day trip here. Hoboken has done a much better job, I think, because Washington Street is concentrated enough that day trippers can walk up and down and shop at the local stores.
Posted on: 2008/9/25 13:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2007/8/27 19:49 Last Login : 2009/6/10 14:44 From Under the Turnpike
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
69
|
There also needs to be a municipal lot or parking garage that comes right off Newark Ave or is right behind it. This way people can park and then walk up and down the storefronts...
Especially if the lot behind Skinners has been sold to a private party...
Posted on: 2008/9/25 13:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
Joined:
2005/10/5 21:01 Last Login : 2014/9/26 20:59 From 240 Newark Avenue
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
130
|
Quote:
Whatever you're forced to buy outside of downtown JC is what the downtown market could support, plus any luxuries or leisure items (if done properly). I could use a good hobby store, a CD store, a Rita's... I dunno... minigolf? Pool hall?  Mark. 
Posted on: 2008/9/25 0:30
|
|||
|
www.JerseyCityMusic.com
----------------- |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
If am not mistaken, the tiny lot or the passageway to the parking lot ( next to Skinners Loft ) was sold. To whom I do not know. The owner of Skinners told me this months ago. So where would the passageway go.
Posted on: 2008/9/24 16:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/8/1 19:34 Last Login : 2022/4/27 19:59 From journal square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
269
|
im glad they nixed the paseo which wouldve been pointless. as for the one way traffic. i think it actually would be a good idea, if only for a few blocks, like heading west from grove up until maybe jersey ave or so. with one way traffic, there would be enough room to widen the sidewalks (which are pretty narrow in comparison to every other retail strip ive ever been on). this would allow more trees and areas to have tables and chairs outside of restaurants.
the argument about car traffic is a meaningless one because even if people do drive south down newark, they have no where to park on that side of the street anyways. at least if the street was one way, people could park on both sides of the street which would allow even more drivers to pass by and stop in front of a store. the planning board got one thing right. lets see if they get another.
Posted on: 2008/9/24 16:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Alb, the walkway is out of the plan -- and Fulop is on record as being "willing to forgo the passageway."
I just hope the city takes some of the savings and has the vision to finish what they start. Newark Avenue needs to be repaved and beautified all the way to Brunswick, not just the first two blocks by grove street and the new towers. Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/24 16:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Alb, I think that some of your ideas are good ones.
The idea of relocating the paseo isn?t in and of itself a bad idea. The great thing about the proposed location is (in my opinion ) the block of Newark between Barrow and Grove is really long so this would break things up. Also I think it?s a benefit that it?s not a wide lot. I know some people think it?s too tight. But I think that it?s more intimate. That?s a matter of opinion, I realize that. But I think that a very wide space (like the width of a normal street) would be too wide. I am not certain what the lots are that you are referring to by World Fruit, but my concern there would be that it connects Newark and Bay (or is that first??) and the back street isn?t commercial. The paseo that they are talking about now would connect Newark and Columbus, with Columbus turning into stores and wider sidewalks, so that it would be more shopping (not the ?highway? that we have now). That makes more sense than connecting it to a residential street. The idea of the paseo on the roof I think is bad for the merchants just because they want lots of street activity and people milling around, walking to and fro, and moving that to the roof would take away from that. Also how do you have restaurants on a roof if people live below? But I think that this kind of thinking could give some good ideas and alternatives. Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/24 16:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
First, I've just realized that Steve Fulop supports the Paseo. If so, maybe the proposal has some merit to it, as long as the city buys the property on a truly voluntary basis. If the city uses eminent domain to seize the property, or it forces the owners to sell by blocking their construction plans, then that's not fair. If the city really buys the property, or the property owners themselves create the Paseo and profit from it, then it all comes down to what will work. Second, I don't think that support of the Paseo concept has to go hand in hand with support of improvements on Newark Avenue. The city could repave Newark, fix crumbling sidewalks, help property owners improve their facades, etc. whether or not the Paseo gets built. Third, does anyone have data from an economic development study that compares the Grove Street/Newark area with, say, roughly comparable areas in Brooklyn or Queens? If so: how much buying power do us consumers in the Grove Street area really have? What kinds of additional businesses can we really support? Is it actually realistic to think that the new businesses that went into the Paseo (or new businesses that went into the existing empty storefronts on Newark) would be viable? Fourth, if the owners of the burned out lot want to keep their lot, would it be possible to put the Paseo somewhere else? Example: aren't there some parking lots behind the World Fruit Farm building, on the north side of Newark? Could someone put a Paseo there? Fifth: what if we let the owners of the burned out property rebuild but made them put a funky and/or high-end outdoor food court kind of area up on the roof? In other words, why couldn't we have a Paseo in the Sky rather than a Paseo in a Concrete Canyon? I think it's possible to want to see Newark Avenue improved without necessarily wanting
Posted on: 2008/9/24 15:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Well put Mark, we need repaving & beautification to Brunswick!
Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/24 14:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
JERSEY CITY CITY COUNCIL
Newark Ave. on agenda, but walkway out of plan Jersey Journal Wednesday, September 24 The paseo appears to be pass? - or perhaps, kaput. Jersey City City Council members indicated Monday they are prepared to introduce a redevelopment plan for the eastern end of Newark Avenue at tonight's council meeting - minus a proposed walkway, or paseo as city planners called it, between Christopher Columbus Drive and Newark Avenue. The cost and headache of seizing the burned-out lot at 141 Newark Ave. to put in the amenity just wasn't worth it, council members said. Besides, the owners - Larry Perlaki and Paul Del Forno - told council members Monday they are prepared to build a six-story building, with 10 residential units and a bar and restaurant on the ground floor. The owners first raised a ruckus about plans to take their land at a council meeting two weeks ago. Several City Council members said it was the first time they became aware the redevelopment plan included taking someone's property through eminent domain. An old three-story building on the property burned to the ground last October. The overall plan takes in two square blocks along Newark and Christopher Columbus Drive between Grove Street and Jersey Avenue. The goal is to spark retail and commercial development in the area. The paseo would have cut through the block between Grove and Barrow streets. Tonight's meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m., at Middle School 4, 107 Bright St. KEN THORBOURNE
Posted on: 2008/9/24 14:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'm curious as to how this can be correct since they haven't had their meeting yet to vote!
Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/24 14:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Downtown Jersey City walkway plan nixed
by Jersey Journal Wednesday September 24, 2008, 4:05 AM The Jersey City City Council has decided to eliminate plans for a walkway between Christopher Columbus Drive and Newark Avenue. Find out the details in today's Jersey Journal.
Posted on: 2008/9/24 13:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
I just want to clear the air a little bit.
Who am I and what is my agenda and affiliation? I am a resident of Downtown Jersey City since 1995. I live on Manila Avenue (Grove Street) near 3rd Street. Over the years I have made friends of many of the merchants in the area. I like the area and the people. In my free time I do some volunteer work and some of it is for the Historic Downtown Special Improvement District (HDSID). I think that they are doing good work and helping to improve the atmosphere in the neighborhood. They pay for sidewalk cleaning so the area looks better, not perfect, but better. The sponsor events like Groove on Grove and the Farmer?s Market and during them advertise for local businesses. The arrange for group advertising rates for local businesses. I have talked to a lot of the merchants and what they want are more customers. I never hear a desire for Newark Avenue to be one-way traffic because cars don?t stop. They want people walking past their shops so they will stop in and buy. They want the improvements to the sidewalks and the benches and the lighting. Anything that will make Newark Avenue and Grove Street an enjoyable place for people to come and shop. In short, I live here, I shop here, and I like it here and would like to see it better. I want to see the merchants we have stay open and to see more as time goes by. That being said. I do support the Newark Avenue Redevelopment Plan. It?s a start. We also need more. Yes we need to do the same thing farther up Newark Avenue, to Brunswick and beyond. We also need to extend it on Grove Street from 1st to Grand. It was the City and the HDSID working with the developers of Grove Pointe that got the Plaza at the Grove Street PATH Station build from the toilet of a park it was to what it is now. And it is a combination of the cleaning crews from the City, Grove Pointe, and HDSID that are keeping it clean. Things may not be moving a fast as you want or extending a far as you want it to go in this step but don?t forget Jersey City is large and Downtown is not the only area that needs improvement. The Plaza was step 1, and Newark Avenue to Jersey Avenue is step 2. I know that the HDSID does not want to stop there. I would like to see the plan passed at the next council meeting. Then while the work is being done we can begin raising the cash to plan out and do the next step. Rob
Posted on: 2008/9/24 6:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/10/5 21:01 Last Login : 2014/9/26 20:59 From 240 Newark Avenue
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
130
|
I'm pretty laid back about the whole thing... I can understand why the developers and residents right around the Grove PATH would want that block developed into a picture postcard perfect block of cafes and trees and cafes, but I don't know where all the new business owners would come from. The rents the owners are asking in that area are outrageous - one spot on Manila near Bay is going for $12000 a month. I imagine any new entrepreneurs moving into the area would be looking west. At Grove st. prices, the only businesses that could survive would be chain stores or bars, and we all know how hard it is to open a bar around here. I think the paseo to nowhere is a bad idea - again, outdoor cafe seating is nice, but what outdoor cafe will be able to afford the rent on the new space, and the paseo would just come out in the middle of a mural and garbage cans. I think making Newark one-way is a bad idea - I get a lot of people who say they were just driving by and saw my store, and making the street one way would cut in half the number of people seeing me 'just driving by'. If I was a restaurant I'm sure I'd feel differently.
I'd be happy seeing the street repaved, planters, benches, lighting and my Onion newspaper box back. We may have too many nail and hair salons, but we have a great little bookstore, art supply, tobacco/cigar store, hardware, vintage/consignment clothing stores, art gallerys/framing and a pretty damn nice music store. For restaurants we have french, vietnamese, thai, japanese, chinese, mexican, cuban, spanish, caribbean, italian and good old american all within 3-4 blocks of Grove. I don't think we need redevelopment so much as beautification. Mark.
Posted on: 2008/9/23 16:16
|
|||
|
www.JerseyCityMusic.com
----------------- |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2007/8/27 19:49 Last Login : 2009/6/10 14:44 From Under the Turnpike
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
69
|
Quote:
Mark, I am curious as to your thoughts on the Newark Avenue redevelopment stopping at Jersey Avenue. With all this talk of the passeo vs. extending the redevelopment westward on Newark or what merchants want vs. what the community wants - I'm wondering how you feel about the redevelopment proposal being a merchant west of Jersey Avenue.
Posted on: 2008/9/23 13:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
nickie, make it another +1 & +1
Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/23 13:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Sorry, the sarcasm flies so hot and heavy round here that I thought the opposite! Very well stated case. However I was "assured" by a retail real estate professional that not only do they not want 1 way, merchants don't like the big deep spaces of the blocks between Newark and Columbus. How crazy is that? My impression has been that true entrepreneurs are typically frustrated by how small downtown storefronts are. In a common 25 x 40 building you get at most 800 net ft plus a wet basement. Sawadee has just the kind of big space restaurants like, while Madam Claude's is more typical of the cramped downtown eatery. NYC is full of restaurants and businesses in 25 x95 spaces, but apparently JC just isn't ready, like they aren't ready for 1 way commercial streets.
Posted on: 2008/9/23 4:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/10/5 21:01 Last Login : 2014/9/26 20:59 From 240 Newark Avenue
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
130
|
Quote:
Who are the merchants that everyone is jumping on today? I think I'm the only Newark ave. merchant who's voiced an opinion in this thread and I never said anything about one or two way traffic. Makes no difference to me, and outdoor cafe seating on a one way street isn't the magical key that's going to flood Newark ave. with cute little cafes. Repaving, incentive and time. It's getting there... Mark.
Posted on: 2008/9/23 3:48
|
|||
|
www.JerseyCityMusic.com
----------------- |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
No, I really do think most people have no idea what the actually want, or even the best way to achieve what they do want when they have correctly identified their desires.
I strongly support a one way Newark Avenue between Grove and Jersey Avenue. The advantage for merchants would be huge. The parking would increase and allow for goods to be delivered more easily. Pedestrian traffic would increase because there would be less vehicular traffic, meaning more customers who can actually enter the store and buy goods. Less traffic would also make cafe seating more desirable -- increasing viability of restaurants, and as a result, more pedestrian traffic. The merchants who want to maintain two way traffic because they think it is good for business are overlooking the lack of parking, the increase in car free households, and the fact that a pedestrian is a better customer for a downtown business than the driver of a car. Its not 1975 anymore. Merchants don't really want two way traffic on Newark Avenue; they want more customers. For some reason they are misguided and believe two way traffic provides more customers, when in fact it detracts from their goals. As I said, most people don't know what they want.
Posted on: 2008/9/23 3:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think that has become readily apparent. We all want what is best for our neighborhood, and while we may disagree on what THAT is, some people are clearly either not revealing who they are/what their interests are/who they have cahoots with, or they're just out to pick a fight. It's unfortunate because I think we all (most) would like the big picture to be achieved (a better downtown) but hidden alliances bring everything into question and even what would otherwise be a good/creative/exciting idea is tarnished by alterior motives.
Posted on: 2008/9/23 1:59
|
|||
|
||||