I see the confusion. In the ordinance it states the spaces on Christopher Columbus Dr. The spaces are in the building and have been there since inception. I believe the actual permits are the same for the building as for the rest of the reserve spaces.

I see that the ordinance was not challenged during the first reading. The vote for the ordinance to go to a second reading went (8) eight for the ordinance and (0) zero against with Councilwoman Ahmed absent. Why was not issue brought up then before it went to the public? If there were questions why was the JCPA not contacted before the 2nd reading or even before that at the Caucus two days prior?? Why was it questioned only at the Public Debate part of the Council meeting ? If there was any problem with anything ASK the people who know!!! Dont ASSUME because you know what happens when you ASSume.

Also after further review....... this was sent to vote and passed without question for the last 5 years?? The only new members of the City Council are just a few, the rest never had a problem with it.

Again Im sorry for the rant, but when you dont have an answer for a question dont make one up or ASSume one.

The spaces are in the Mack-Cali building , Plaza 4a. The agreement is between the JCPA and the building management. The spaces were for the city employees . If the city doesnt want to renew this agreement , the JCPA could have those spaces filled by other occupants. Its the lease agreement is for the JCPA to designate the permit holders.

Quote:

The original article says the opposite; that the spaces are "along Columbus Drive".

If these are in fact indoors, what garage in what building are they in? Are these spaces being rented from a building Owner (Mack-Cali, etc.) by the JCPA and then being proposed to be rented again to the City?

The reserve spaces we are hearing about are the indoor spaces . They are rented by the JCPA and the spaces are occupied by City employees. The City pays the JCPA for the spaces. So im guessing the question is ?Why doesn?t the City just handle the permits and the enforcement of the spaces.? Well the answer is it would cost the exact same thing, #1 the spaces would still have to be paid for. #2 there would have to be a city employee handling the day to day on these spaces. The JCPA was put together for this reason. , to handle the day to day operation of Parking within the City of Jersey City.

There has been statements that the JCPA is here to cater to the ?out of towners? . That couldn?t be more wrong. The permit parking is enforced, for the majority , from 9 to 5pm except in certain places by the light rail stations where it is ?Resident Only? parking. That is because the ?out of towners? cant use the city streets as the ?Free Parking? space like on the Monopoly board , park in Jersey City , hit the trains and head to New York.


The following information has taken a bit of time to put together. I have used newspaper articles, posts on different threads /sites along with answers from the JCPA.

If you have a business that covers its entire budget, has no debt except for a building that the business occupies and continues to provide 6 to 7 million dollars to its Mother company it would be considered VERY SUCCESSFUL in these times.

That is what the JCPA does . The JCPA generates approx 15 million dollars a year . This is being accomplished with under 95 employees . This is through permits , enforcement , signs and meter bags for construction companies along with Movie companies and special events ( street fairs , festivals and parades). The overhead is just under 7 million for all employees, equiptment, vehicles , insurance office staff, improvements to parking lots which it is bought and paid for property plus the building on Central ave which is currently being occupied by CCTV and the Post Office. The rest of the money is turned over to the City of Jersey City. The JCPA is a non profit organization.

I see some of the people on here want the Police Department to take the jobs over. That is foolish!!!
A parking enforcement officer makes roughly 35,000 to 40,000 thousand and is supervised by people making about 50,000 to 55,000 thousand dollars. So you want a police officer who makes 100,000 thousand dollars a year and who is supervised by a person who makes 115,000 a year. That isnt so smart , is it?

I also see on here that you think we need more police on the streets. I agree but in one breath you want them to do parking and the other you want crime cleaned up. Which do you want. Do you want to police officer not to go to the emergency call or write the ticket. We need both , don?t you agree.

Thank you for allowing me to rant . Im sure there will be some moronic replies to this and its expected. But if any doubt the numbers here go back and read all the articles on line about how much money the employees of both agencies make. Also you call the JCPA as I did for the answers. I know there are people on here that can back up this rant some of it if not all . So if you can please do.

Why do we have a parking authority? Why don't the police do this job like in many other cities?

Quote:

We live uptown, but it's hard to find quality childcare close to home, so we have to go downtown. We leave the car there and take the PATH from Grove to commute into the city.

I'd guess that the majority of permit holders are from out-of-town, but probably also a good number of non-downtown residents taking advantage of it. At $125/month it works out to about $6 per weekday. I don't think there's cheaper parking near any of the Jersey City PATH stations. Anyone know what the lots in Harrison cost? If I was coming from deeper in NJ, I think I'd be aiming there, not JC.

The Parking Authority has the data in terms of resident/non-resident (the permits are mailed, so they have everyone's address) but good luck getting it from them.

Are you just parking downtown to ride PATH into the city? Or do you work downtown? Just trying to figure out who actually buys these monthly permits.


Quote:

Quote:

Agreed 100%. They are totally incompetent. You should go to their office in the Heights and interact with the office staff some time. It's like you have people there who are only qualified for no-show jobs, but some of them are showing up. One time I had to get my parking permit in person and the employee was having trouble printing it out. I recommended that she reboot the computer. She turned off her monitor, counted to three, and turned it back on. Genius.

There's also a lot that could be said about their history of selling real estate instead of developing parking lots/garages on the land as they are supposed to be doing.

Quote:

Some of us live here, elsewhere in the city, and just need parking downtown. It's cheaper than the garages.

Quote:

The fact that the JCPA isn't already a cash cow for the city is the real scandal. For the employees of an agency that can basically mint money by writing parking tickets to have such low productivity that they can't even pay their own salaries is criminal.

CC and all city roads should be opened up to any resident with any zoned residential permit for up to 2 hours.. The City needs to realize it?s the citizen that pays the taxes not the daily commuter..

These deals made with JCPA were made before the building boom happened near the waterfront between Newport area and Paulus Hook. Now that there are public parking garages along Christopher Columbus, residential high-rises, along Washington Street as well. The entire parking conversation must change to plan for the recent and future development (empty lots still have some potential to become buildings) - get the cars in the garages and leave parking on streets for short-term and residential. Establish overnight parking on Greene and Washington. There are a lot of possibilities and the first thing is to get these spots out of JCPA control.

It all begs the larger question: Why the hell do we have a parking authority to begin with? I understand the original motivation but shifting responsibilities (and budgets!) away from the purview of the city government is begging for trouble. Good place to stash a friend on the payroll, hand out cars, etc. Same with the JCIA.

this is the stupidest god damned thing I've heard of all month. Thank goodness for Fulop.

Quote:

100%

The whole idea sounds stupid. As for it essentially being a "transfer" of 80K, that is definitely one instance where I would trace the $$$. I guarantee you part of it will end up in just a few pockets.

Sounds like nothing more than a money laundering/racketeering/kickback scheme.

If it's public spots / land, then the public has a right to them and not the exclusive right to those with the bucks.

Isn't the real question whether a parking space should be part of the benefits package given to these city employees and the spots taken away from residents and other businesses? instead of the city paying for the spots, if the city thinks residents and local businesses do not need the spots, shouldn't they be rented out to raise funds for the JCPA?

So does the neighborhood get the parking spaces back - so that Zone 4/Zone I and two-hour parking for visitors be permitted to park on Christopher Columbus?

Maybe some meters for the local businesses and their customers to get short-term parking spots?

Or will they still be hijacked by JCPA and rented out to non-resident commuters willing to pay the monthly price to JCPA?

Quote:

Amen to that.


On another note, I really don't get this proposal at all.

What is the point of the city paying the Parking Authority, which is an autonomous city agency, any amount of money? Isn't that just like taking some money out of one pocket and putting it in another?

Quote:

Bingo.

A step further - why should public employees get free parking spaces when no-one else does?

I've said it before: it's sad that Fulop is the lone voice of reason, but thank goodness we at least have one.

Jersey City City Council tables city's plan to rent 95 parking spaces for $7,125 per month

Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 7:32 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald

The Jersey City Parking Authority would have received $7,125 monthly under a plan tabled by the City Council tonight.

The Jersey City City Council tonight postponed approval of the city's plan to rent 95 parking spaces from the Jersey City Parking Authority at a cost of $7,125 per month.

The spaces, along Christopher Columbus Drive, were intended for city employees who work at offices the city rents Downtown at 30 Montgomery St.

The ordinance, which was introduced unanimously two weeks ago, was tabled after Councilman Steven Fulop questioned why the city was paying JCPA for parking spaces located on city streets.

"The city owns the parking spots. They own the city streets," Fulop said tonight. "You're transferring $80,000 for nothing, that's really what you're doing here."

The city would have rented the 95 spots for 10 months, with the option to end the contract at any time, at a total cost of $71,125.

Business Administrator Jack Kelly said he would have to research the city's contract with the Parking Authority to determine whether the city owns the spots or whether it transferred ownership of them to the JCPA.

Several residents who spoke out tonight against the proposal said that the city should encourage its employees who work on Montgomery Street to utilize public transportation.

The city should not lay off workers and simultaneously pay for parking spaces, said John Seborowski.
"What's more important to people: paid parking spaces or jobs?" Seborowski said.

The list of employees that would have used the parking spaces include attorneys for the Planning and Zoning boards, 34 inspectors who are in the field daily and city Chief of Staff Rosemary McFadden.

After tabling the ordinance, Council President Peter Brennan asked that Kelly return to the council with a reason why the city should have to pay for the spaces.