littlemissmarker wrote:
Since development started at least in the 1890's Jersey City is clearly Matured and has passed from childhood to Adulthood. It may be changing but it is not maturing and moving toward adult hood. More like a face lift that will leave it totally unfamiliar to those who knew it before the face lift. But it will look younger and more attractive to some.
So in some ways Jersey City is regressing from Adulthood to childhood again. No?

littlemissmarker wrote:
There are rules about the number of people living in x number of bedrooms. But Housing Code Enforcement and the Quality of Life Task force-- look the other way.
No body cares about over crowding. Just bring in the money.

littlemissmarker wrote:
1. Jersey City is NOT A GROWING CITY. It is all Grown UP there are houses in this city that are well over 100 years old. So it ain't growing.

littlemissmarker wrote:
Granted I have read only a few posts on this subject, however, even those posts lead me to say something.
1. Jersey City is NOT A GROWING CITY. It is all Grown UP there are houses in this city that are well over 100 years old. So it ain't growing.
What it is doing is becoming Gentrified. Tear it down; build it up. Make it new and shiny.
Make my house become a cash cow for me. Increase the value of the Real Estate.
Neighborhood? What's a Neighborhood?
Community ? What's that?
I just want my house to be worth more.
Now that's the truth.

JCishome wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
I struggle with this too. Calling a spade a spade, that's an ugly-ass neighborhood. But they're peoples' homes. So I get what they're saying.

I think you need to stop such elitist remarks for a minute at look at the area on a street view in google maps. put in 121 Magnolia for a proximity which is part of a row of lovely brownsotnesThat is a nice tree lined street. Houses look pretty well kept. Overall that is a nice quiet neighborhood.I don't blame these people one little bit.

And brownstones are not the only "pretty" houses in JC.

Now hold on before you start tossing "elitism" around. JSQ - like almost all of JC - has some beautiful/charming architecture. A lot of houses are pretty run-down, though, and developments like the towers are going to raise values in the entire neighborhood. Over time, that will benefit those homeowners. But change is hard, I know.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
I struggle with this too. Calling a spade a spade, that's an ugly-ass neighborhood. But they're peoples' homes. So I get what they're saying.

I think you need to stop such elitist remarks for a minute at look at the area on a street view in google maps. put in 121 Magnolia for a proximity which is part of a row of lovely brownsotnesThat is a nice tree lined street. Houses look pretty well kept. Overall that is a nice quiet neighborhood.I don't blame these people one little bit.

And brownstones are not the only "pretty" houses in JC.

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
I struggle with this too. Calling a spade a spade, that's an ugly-ass neighborhood. But they're peoples' homes. So I get what they're saying.

I think you need to stop such elitist remarks for a minute at look at the area on a street view in google maps. put in 121 Magnolia for a proximity which is part of a row of lovely brownsotnesThat is a nice tree lined street. Houses look pretty well kept. Overall that is a nice quiet neighborhood.I don't blame these people one little bit.

And brownstones are not the only "pretty" houses in JC.

JCishome wrote:
I struggle with this too. Calling a spade a spade, that's an ugly-ass neighborhood. But they're peoples' homes. So I get what they're saying.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

210 Pavonia Ave, which is one of the raided homes, is a one family home Downtown. The Milburn couple that owns it paid $240,000 for it in 1990.
354 Wayne St. is a large two family home. The couple that owns it paid $89,900 for it in 1981.
Are you trying to say that what these two couples did was because they couldn't make any money renting or selling their homes legitimately? Really?

Not sure if you are asking me but obviously the buildings were vastly overcrowded. I am sure that like many landlords the people may have thought they were renting legitimately but then you would have to ask them. My first landlord lived in North Carolina. We could have had 20 people living in our place and they would never have known. And many out of town landlords NEVER check on their properties.

Yes, I was asking you because you wrote that the owners were breaking the law because they couldn't make money legitimately. Those owners own very valuable properties and the owners can most definitley rent and or sell for profit.
Here's another question: why did you make it a point of mentioning Asians and Indians (BTW, Indians are Asian) when you could have not made any reference to nationality and it would have had the same effect? It came across as racist to me.

I never ONCE said that they couldn't make money legitimately. I never once said they were breaking the law. I didn't need to as the city obviously exposed that. I think you may be imaginening things that are not there. As for people's racial sensitivities? That's their burden.

PEC0905 wrote:
Whether or not you believe these towers should be built, it's going to happen and the result is to be determined.....

Regarding overcrowding, I see nothing wrong or prejudice with what Vigilante said because unfortunately, it is the truth.

Indians are notorious for overcrowding, and that is negative for the buildings and neighborhoods. Take a walk past Montgomery Towers (large buildings on the square blocks between Montgomery and Columbus from Marin to Warren. You will see multiple sets of 2 young parents walking with 2 or 3 children as well as the grandparents coming and going. That's overcrowding into small apartments, no other way to put it.

Buildings are becoming aware of this and finally cracking down due to complaints. Newport has improved over the past year or so...

On another note let's not forget to address the smell of curry in hallways of these buildings (towel the doors if you feel the need to cook with that much curry) or the obnoxiously large backpacks on the PATH during rush hour. Being respectful of your neighbors is vital to living in a multicultural community. Overcrowded apartments emitting strong odors keep away new residents, and bring down home values, and that is a problem.....

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
Is anyone else concerned with the anti-Indian sentiment being expressed here? I would like to apologize to any Indians reading this thread, I'm mortified to see this offensive content. Someone recently was complaining that they see "two and three indian parents with baby strollers" in some neighborhood, like its a crime for parents to have kids, or to have an ethnicity? I live in an Indian part of town near Journal Square and I see the Indian community as one of the nice aspects of this area. Retail in this part of the town would suffer greatly if you took the Indian businesses out of the picture. The shops and restaurants on Newark are an asset that adds greatly to Jersey Cities character. Need I mention that Indians have as much a right to live here as anyone?

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

210 Pavonia Ave, which is one of the raided homes, is a one family home Downtown. The Milburn couple that owns it paid $240,000 for it in 1990.
354 Wayne St. is a large two family home. The couple that owns it paid $89,900 for it in 1981.
Are you trying to say that what these two couples did was because they couldn't make any money renting or selling their homes legitimately? Really?

Not sure if you are asking me but obviously the buildings were vastly overcrowded. I am sure that like many landlords the people may have thought they were renting legitimately but then you would have to ask them. My first landlord lived in North Carolina. We could have had 20 people living in our place and they would never have known. And many out of town landlords NEVER check on their properties.

Yes, I was asking you because you wrote that the owners were breaking the law because they couldn't make money legitimately. Those owners own very valuable properties and the owners can most definitley rent and or sell for profit.
Here's another question: why did you make it a point of mentioning Asians and Indians (BTW, Indians are Asian) when you could have not made any reference to nationality and it would have had the same effect? It came across as racist to me.

JCCheerleader wrote:
Nah, this has nothing to do with emotions and it's not rocket science. Add 1000 people to the neighborhood and you're going to get more traffic. And I haven't been talking about the towers going in on the PATH side, I'm talking about the tower going in on the East side of Summit Ave.
As my very smart husband says, if he was working in one of those buildings while he was living in Fort Lee, he'd have no choice but to drive to the building because there is no transportation from Fort Lee to Journal Square.

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

210 Pavonia Ave, which is one of the raided homes, is a one family home Downtown. The Milburn couple that owns it paid $240,000 for it in 1990.
354 Wayne St. is a large two family home. The couple that owns it paid $89,900 for it in 1981.
Are you trying to say that what these two couples did was because they couldn't make any money renting or selling their homes legitimately? Really?

Not sure if you are asking me but obviously the buildings were vastly overcrowded. I am sure that like many landlords the people may have thought they were renting legitimately but then you would have to ask them. My first landlord lived in North Carolina. We could have had 20 people living in our place and they would never have known. And many out of town landlords NEVER check on their properties.

Yes, I was asking you because you wrote that the owners were breaking the law because they couldn't make money legitimately. Those owners own very valuable properties and the owners can most definitley rent and or sell for profit.
Here's another question: why did you make it a point of mentioning Asians and Indians (BTW, Indians are Asian) when you could have not made any reference to nationality and it would have had the same effect? It came across as racist to me.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

210 Pavonia Ave, which is one of the raided homes, is a one family home Downtown. The Milburn couple that owns it paid $240,000 for it in 1990.
354 Wayne St. is a large two family home. The couple that owns it paid $89,900 for it in 1981.
Are you trying to say that what these two couples did was because they couldn't make any money renting or selling their homes legitimately? Really?

Not sure if you are asking me but obviously the buildings were vastly overcrowded. I am sure that like many landlords the people may have thought they were renting legitimately but then you would have to ask them. My first landlord lived in North Carolina. We could have had 20 people living in our place and they would never have known. And many out of town landlords NEVER check on their properties.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

Asif wrote:
To vigilante...I kinda of would have to agree with Ianmac47
about your earlier post....not really cool.
I mean u did single out Asians and then were a bit more specific saying "indians".
I think the real issue is the lack of decent and affordable housing.
I can assure you that every immigrant group and even long established residents have lived all bunched up at one time or another.......many even now.
Example: College students, hispanics, Africans, African-Americans, Caucasians, etc.....

That would be me. Moved here 25 years ago, shared a brownstone downtown with 4 roommates. Each had our own room and paid $200.00 each per month. Nowadays that wouldn't get you a 1 bedroom downtown. Thus many of the newer residents, many of them immigrant transient workers are living stacked in too small apartments. More apartments doesn't solve the problem unless the rent is $200.oo a month. Have you seen how some of the Moishe's workers live? And yes, many of those same young residents are Indian and Asian.