vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I know exactly what you're saying, and your comparison does not and will never exist.

Even if it did, if I could get the same apartment, same price in NYC that I get in DTJC, I'd still live in JC over NYC. All my life I've said I love visiting NYC, but I love coming home to JC. I couldn't rest in the craziness of NYC, and think DTJC is an oasis amongst the NYC area bustle. I like having a yard, and a quiet neighborhood to which I come home.

Plus the fact that you can't see the NYC skyline when you're actually in NYC makes living there silly. I love my skyline view from my balcony.

That said, I think it's borderline insulting to call NYC $100 and JC $50. All of your points are subjective and based on many (incorrect) assumptions. From my POV, I just don't agree.

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I can afford to live in NYC, but I prefer to live in DTJC (over Hoboken), for many reasons.

Let me make it clearer. I think anyone can live in NYC. Starving artists and out of work actors and actresses live in NYC in shared 400 sq ft studios.

What I mean is, given your preference for city living, can you afford to live in the same sq footage with the same building amenities in NYC as you do in JC?

And by NYC, I mean the desirable parts - ex Bronx and parts of Brooklyn.

And if you answer yes, then why aren't you living there?

It's like someone offering you a 100 dollar bill and a 50 dollar bill and you taking the 50 dollar bill....

What if you could have a private fenced yard in NYC and your apartment is just as quiet as your apartment in JC.

With enough money, anything is possible in NYC. A view of central park, btw, is much more valuable than a view of NYC.

Imagine living on the 75th floor of one57 having a 360 unobstructed view of central park.

http://www.one57.com/

If 90 million dollars is chump change to you and you already live in a luxury condo building, why would you live in JC?

If you live in a townhome, there are beautiful townhomes in NYC too.

There is not one area where JC outshines NYC and I like JC too....restaurants, nightlife, transportation, etc.

I'm just saying...JC has the affordability factor going for it. But we can disagree, that is fine.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I know exactly what you're saying, and your comparison does not and will never exist.

Even if it did, if I could get the same apartment, same price in NYC that I get in DTJC, I'd still live in JC over NYC. All my life I've said I love visiting NYC, but I love coming home to JC. I couldn't rest in the craziness of NYC, and think DTJC is an oasis amongst the NYC area bustle. I like having a yard, and a quiet neighborhood to which I come home.

Plus the fact that you can't see the NYC skyline when you're actually in NYC makes living there silly. I love my skyline view from my balcony.

That said, I think it's borderline insulting to call NYC $100 and JC $50. All of your points are subjective and based on many (incorrect) assumptions. From my POV, I just don't agree.

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I can afford to live in NYC, but I prefer to live in DTJC (over Hoboken), for many reasons.

Let me make it clearer. I think anyone can live in NYC. Starving artists and out of work actors and actresses live in NYC in shared 400 sq ft studios.

What I mean is, given your preference for city living, can you afford to live in the same sq footage with the same building amenities in NYC as you do in JC?

And by NYC, I mean the desirable parts - ex Bronx and parts of Brooklyn.

And if you answer yes, then why aren't you living there?

It's like someone offering you a 100 dollar bill and a 50 dollar bill and you taking the 50 dollar bill....

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I can afford to live in NYC, but I prefer to live in DTJC (over Hoboken), for many reasons.

Let me make it clearer. I think anyone can live in NYC. Starving artists and out of work actors and actresses live in NYC in shared 400 sq ft studios.

What I mean is, given your preference for city living, can you afford to live in the same sq footage with the same building amenities in NYC as you do in JC?

And by NYC, I mean the desirable parts - ex Bronx and parts of Brooklyn.

And if you answer yes, then why aren't you living there?

It's like someone offering you a 100 dollar bill and a 50 dollar bill and you taking the 50 dollar bill....

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I can afford to live in NYC, but I prefer to live in DTJC (over Hoboken), for many reasons.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
How is raising the cost of a permit by 500% not considered a tax? Oh wait, yes, cause it doesn't affect you because you are too poor to afford a car. I forgot. Let's just have a non-poor man's tax and you can determine what is taxed okay?

Or maybe you're so irked by the suggestion because you're too poor to pay $200/month to park your car in a real lot/garage or too poor to afford a deeded parking spot. I say raise the fee to $1000. It doesn't affect me because I paid to OWN a spot. Only poor schmucks waste half their day moving their cars from one side of the street to the other, and then spend the other half kvetching on JC List when they get ticketed and booted.

I own a spot too in my luxury condo building, with an unobstructed view of NYC, in paulus hook, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in DTJC, the safest and most expensive area in JC. I would love to compare property values and then after, we can compare dick sizes too.

I do it because I want your attention, isn't it obvious?

Getting back on topic, it is easy to suggest a 500% increase in taxes when you are primarily not a driver and the tax doesn't affect you. Whether you own a spot, park in a garage, don't have a car, whatever, you are looking to pass on the tax.

If I suggest a 500% increase in the garage fee YOU PARK IN, I'm sure you will not be happy. I can argue that garages only promote driving and more CO2 emissions, whatever.

So you're finally acknowledging that people disagree with you not because they're "too poor" (one of your favorite, illogical arguments on any topic) but because you're a big dick? Thanks for clearing that up!

When someone proposed a 500% tax on something that does not directly affect them, it could be for many reasons:

1) They are retarded
2) They do not have a car for many reasons, one of them could actually be because they cannot afford one
3) The tax does not affect them and they could care less for other people

In all honestly, I'm actually very much pro-middle class. I just know the reality of things. If you want to live in an urband city and enjoy living in an urban city and work in the metro area, everyone's #1 choice is NYC. If you don't live in NYC, you are too poor to do it. I myself fall in this category.

I've thrown out the poor card because people here think people actually prefer JC over NYC which in response, I say, "No, if you work in the area and want to live in a city, it's because you're too poor to live in NYC."

Now, within JC, people have said they "prefer to live in Greenville versus DTJC" and in response I say, "No, it is because you are too poor to live in DTJC"

Money is not limitless so everyone is poor compared to someone else. I'm just here to speak the truth.

I appreciate you thinking I'm a dick though. Quick question, is it because my property is worth more than yours? haha jk :)

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

I own a spot too in my luxury condo building, with an unobstructed view of NYC, in paulus hook, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in DTJC, the safest and most expensive area in JC. I would love to compare property values and then after, we can compare dick sizes too.
I do it because I want your attention, isn't it obvious?

What makes a condo a luxury condo ? What is the difference between one that is not ?

A combination of Pricing, Finishes, Amenities, and Views of NYC as compared to other condos in the area.

heights wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

I own a spot too in my luxury condo building, with an unobstructed view of NYC, in paulus hook, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in DTJC, the safest and most expensive area in JC. I would love to compare property values and then after, we can compare dick sizes too.
I do it because I want your attention, isn't it obvious?

What makes a condo a luxury condo ? What is the difference between one that is not ?

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
How is raising the cost of a permit by 500% not considered a tax? Oh wait, yes, cause it doesn't affect you because you are too poor to afford a car. I forgot. Let's just have a non-poor man's tax and you can determine what is taxed okay?

Or maybe you're so irked by the suggestion because you're too poor to pay $200/month to park your car in a real lot/garage or too poor to afford a deeded parking spot. I say raise the fee to $1000. It doesn't affect me because I paid to OWN a spot. Only poor schmucks waste half their day moving their cars from one side of the street to the other, and then spend the other half kvetching on JC List when they get ticketed and booted.

I own a spot too in my luxury condo building, with an unobstructed view of NYC, in paulus hook, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in DTJC, the safest and most expensive area in JC. I would love to compare property values and then after, we can compare dick sizes too.

I do it because I want your attention, isn't it obvious?

Getting back on topic, it is easy to suggest a 500% increase in taxes when you are primarily not a driver and the tax doesn't affect you. Whether you own a spot, park in a garage, don't have a car, whatever, you are looking to pass on the tax.

If I suggest a 500% increase in the garage fee YOU PARK IN, I'm sure you will not be happy. I can argue that garages only promote driving and more CO2 emissions, whatever.

So you're finally acknowledging that people disagree with you not because they're "too poor" (one of your favorite, illogical arguments on any topic) but because you're a big dick? Thanks for clearing that up!

vindication15 wrote:

I own a spot too in my luxury condo building, with an unobstructed view of NYC, in paulus hook, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in DTJC, the safest and most expensive area in JC. I would love to compare property values and then after, we can compare dick sizes too.
I do it because I want your attention, isn't it obvious?

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
How is raising the cost of a permit by 500% not considered a tax? Oh wait, yes, cause it doesn't affect you because you are too poor to afford a car. I forgot. Let's just have a non-poor man's tax and you can determine what is taxed okay?

Or maybe you're so irked by the suggestion because you're too poor to pay $200/month to park your car in a real lot/garage or too poor to afford a deeded parking spot. I say raise the fee to $1000. It doesn't affect me because I paid to OWN a spot. Only poor schmucks waste half their day moving their cars from one side of the street to the other, and then spend the other half kvetching on JC List when they get ticketed and booted.

I own a spot too in my luxury condo building, with an unobstructed view of NYC, in paulus hook, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in DTJC, the safest and most expensive area in JC. I would love to compare property values and then after, we can compare dick sizes too.

I do it because I want your attention, isn't it obvious?

Getting back on topic, it is easy to suggest a 500% increase in taxes when you are primarily not a driver and the tax doesn't affect you. Whether you own a spot, park in a garage, don't have a car, whatever, you are looking to pass on the tax.

If I suggest a 500% increase in the garage fee YOU PARK IN, I'm sure you will not be happy. I can argue that garages only promote driving and more CO2 emissions, whatever.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
How is raising the cost of a permit by 500% not considered a tax? Oh wait, yes, cause it doesn't affect you because you are too poor to afford a car. I forgot. Let's just have a non-poor man's tax and you can determine what is taxed okay?

Or maybe you're so irked by the suggestion because you're too poor to pay $200/month to park your car in a real lot/garage or too poor to afford a deeded parking spot. I say raise the fee to $1000. It doesn't affect me because I paid to OWN a spot. Only poor schmucks waste half their day moving their cars from one side of the street to the other, and then spend the other half kvetching on JC List when they get ticketed and booted.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

jklm wrote:
Jersey City charges $15 a year for resident's zone parking permit. Non-resident pays $300 (Proof of employment in Jersey City Business, must include copy of current W-2). Permits only available to those eligible.

Osborne's Pedestrian Plan does not mention anything about raising fees to $100. Raising the fee was just one suggestion to help pay for enforcement of permit parking and ticketing those who park too close to intersections - since people are complaining that there is no money for any of the Pedestrian Plans - this could make a very small dent. You gotta start somewhere without raising taxes.

How is raising the cost of a permit by 500% not considered a tax? Oh wait, yes, cause it doesn't affect you because you are too poor to afford a car. I forgot. Let's just have a non-poor man's tax and you can determine what is taxed okay?

vindication15 wrote:
How is raising the cost of a permit by 500% not considered a tax? Oh wait, yes, cause it doesn't affect you because you are too poor to afford a car. I forgot. Let's just have a non-poor man's tax and you can determine what is taxed okay?

Fewer young people want cars. In 1995 people age 21 to 30 drove 21 percent of all miles driven in the U.S.; in 2009 it was 14 percent, despite consistent growth of the age group. Living car-free in walkable areas fits younger lifestyles. [Advertising Age, 2010] A 10-point increase in Walk Score increases commercial property values by 5 percent to 8 percent. [University of Arizona & Indiana University, 2010] Homes in walkable urban neighborhoods have experienced less than half the average decline in price from the housing peak in the mid-2000s. [Brookings Institution, 2011] (See also this analysis.) http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neig ... en-case-walkability/1757/

jklm wrote:
Jersey City charges $15 a year for resident's zone parking permit. Non-resident pays $300 (Proof of employment in Jersey City Business, must include copy of current W-2). Permits only available to those eligible.

Osborne's Pedestrian Plan does not mention anything about raising fees to $100. Raising the fee was just one suggestion to help pay for enforcement of permit parking and ticketing those who park too close to intersections - since people are complaining that there is no money for any of the Pedestrian Plans - this could make a very small dent. You gotta start somewhere without raising taxes.

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
I'm a driver and a walker. I drive everyday to work. I was hit by a car by the tunnel.

There's plenty of blame on both sides. In my mind, the bikes are probably the worst, since they often will just drive down the sidewalk or the middle of the street and not care about anything else.

I am all for calming of traffic. But there are JC taxpayers like me that drive to the burbs for work that don't appreciate it when people run into the street, just like I don't appreciate when drivers disobey stop signs.

Also, Hoboken charges $15 a year for street parking...when they are far denser, far wealthier, and far more pressed for space. Yet JC should charge $100?

Actually the benefit of living in JC vs NYC, among others, is that it's more affordable and reasonable to have a car here.

You make it harder to have a car, people will leave the city, property values will be hurt. Enough with the social engineering.

JPhurst wrote:
Whatever the "complete streets" plan, it wasn't working well. The Healy administration turned Grand Street into a death trap by removing parking and expanding the number of driver lanes. I fail to see how undoing that decision costs the taxpayers money.

arcy wrote:
Back to the original topic,
Jersey City passed a complete streets resolution in 2011

The resolution stipulates that all new construction and reconstruction in the city must be designed to safely accommodate all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists.

http://njbikeped.org/wp-content/uploa ... te-Streets-Resoultion.pdf

tp://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... -streets%E2%80%99-policy/

In 2013, The Jersey City Police Department has received a $27,900 grant from the New Jersey Division of Highway to beef up pedestrian and traffic safety in the city.
http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... s_jersey_city_police.html

Jersey City has been chosen as a focus city by the FHWA and the NJTPA and they will be participating in a Pedestrian Safety Pilot program

And Jersey City is part of a Pedestrian Safety Pilot program with the DOT
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/p ... ction/njersey/njersey.pdf


More info re: Complete Streets
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation ... ydevelopmentguide2012.pdf

CandiceOsborne wrote:
Hi everyone -

Here is a link to the recommendations. These recommendations will be vetted with the traffic and engineering departments next week. It surely is not perfect, but I wanted to start somewhere.

We will measure the results, we won't just place things out there and hope for the best. As a part of phase 2 analysis, we will look at those results and the community feedback and do a "start/stop/continue".

http://www.slideshare.net/candiceosbo ... recommendationswardefinal

Best,
Candice