I think the jersey extension is still a go... but not sure as I have not been to any meetings recently. From what I have heard at other meetings there are various reasons why people are in favor of it or oppose it.
I think that the engineers and traffic planners have a study on what is best on flow of traffic and I trust that the experts can come up with something feasible and more convenient. I can say that the Lafayette residents would love an easier, safer, and WELL LIT walk to the PATH and second some have argued that the traffic is not for Lafayette it is meant for downtown, meaning if you live in downtown you should expect the highly congested rush hour "NY" feel on the streets. I don't think there is anyway you will get a suburban feel ever in some of the busy streets down there but yet people are still willing to pay double rent on Jersey Avenue then let's say Pacific. Let's be honest here please.

I rather have the traffic than what we have here on the other side, which is lack of services, lack of food places and hang out spots, and and more crime and drug dealing. We have a light rail stop that services outsiders and commuters and not the residents. I can keep going with this...regardless it certainly isn't the Lafayette residents that have a voice. We haven't had a voice in years.
That's my 2 cents.

Quote:

I assume Lafayette was shifted into Ward F because Ward E has grown significantly over the past 20 years.

I have no problem with Lafayette in Ward E or wherever. It's borders are as "natural" as any other boundaries. Grand Street and the Pacific Avenue bridge are as reasonable a border as any other. And Lafayette is a distinct neighborhood of its own. I do remember that some Lafayette residents wanted their neighborhood group to be eligible to join the Downtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations because they felt more affinity with DCNA then any group in Ward F.

If there is any sanity, the city will now stop the Jersey Avenue extension. Though if anything that shows a difference between Lafayette, whose residents want the extension for easy car access, and downtown residents, who oppose it for safety reasons.

Perhaps if some of those downtown residents are now in Ward F, the council representatives from that area will have to listen to them and not blow them off.

The Lafayette Section was always part of Ward E until it was also bundled into Ward F. No one knows the reason for this. They should of left it as it was. We are already serviced by the East district police department and have natural borders adjacent to Grand and the future opening of Jersey Avenue into Liberty State Park.
Regardless, we are a city. A ward is not a city and all wards and council members should work to make the ENTIRE city work not just one section.

The machine is asking itself right now if they must concede Ward E forever and strengthen their other wards or if they can weaken E enough to make it competitive when Fulop is Mayor.

Quote:

I thought of that too. But Liberty Harbor just doesn't have significant population right now. If you have to go into VVP then Jersey and Columbus are logical borders.

The pushing of Ward F into half of Van Vorst Park area already takes into account Ward B taking a portion of Ward F. That portion is along the west side of Bergen. Everything West of Bergen that is now ward F north of Audobom would become Ward B.

The Part of Ward E that becomes C is a reversal of what ward E took from C 10 years ago and it doesn't break up any neighborhoods.

I was hoping they would put Liberty Harbor North into Ward F first before going into Van Vorst Park, even if it isn't enough. I think they should try their best to leave VVP neighborhood as untouched as possible.

As the population grows, and becomes more concentrated downtown, it might make sense eventually to have another ward. It won't make much sense if downtown areas start getting grouped in with Greenville or other neighborhoods.

Apparently, the proposed new boundaries would go even further than ripple suggests. Half of the Van Vorst Park district, south of Columbus and west of Jersey, would be shifted to Ward F. Ward E would also likely lose its extension west of the turnpike to C.

Remember, Ward B has to pick up population as well, which means that if it extends its boundaries into F or C, those wards have to pick up even more population.

Thanks! this is very helpful.

If the map I link to below is correct, what makes sense is to move ward E's boundary east so that it follows the turnpike extension from north to south-- seems like a "natural boundary" to me, but I doubt that a whole 4000 people live in that area. Other obvious options are to lose everything north of 78, or perhaps everything south of columbus and west of brunswick.

http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... /06/jersey-city-ward-map/

Only two of Jersey City?s six wards have the proper number of residents, with Ward E exceeding the maximum number by more than 4,000 at least, City Clerk Robert Byrne told the City Council last night.
Byrne is working with the commission tasked with re-drawing the city?s six wards, a process that occurs every 10 years after new Census figures are released. The commission will meet tonight, and plans to finalize the new ward map next week, Byrne said.
The city?s population is roughly 237,000, and each ward must have a population within 10 percent of 41,266, according to Byrne.
Ward A and Ward D are compliant, but Ward B, Ward C and Ward F require more residents. Ward E, which encompasses much of Downtown, has about 4,200 residents too many.
?The least change is the best change but Ward E has to lose about four city blocks,? Byrne said tonight.
Councilman Steve Fulop, a mayoral hopeful, is the ward?s council representative.
The city can?t monkey around with ward boundaries too much, Byrne noted last night, saying they must be compact and contiguous, and they must respect natural boundaries.
There will be no Congressional-like gerrymandering, he said.
U.S. Rep. Albio Sires ?was representing Union City and Perth Amboy. How does that happen?? he joked.
Fulop?s ward could lose even more residents, pending the outcome of the city?s appeal of its 2010 Census figures. The city believes that as many as 20,000 residents went uncounted, and many of those may live in Ward E, city officials believe.
Ward E?s population has seen rapid growth since the last Census, according to Byrne. That doesn?t surprise Fulop, but he expressed some concern that it may be too much growth.
?The development in Jersey City is not evenly spread out throughout the city, unfortunately,? he said. ?That needs to be corrected.?
The Jersey City Ward Commission meets tonight at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 280 Grove St.