vindication15 wrote:

People here claim they want JC to succeed but are arguing for policies that make us more like Newark and less like Hoboken.

Just think about it...sheesh.

Yvonne wrote:
You don't receive a colonoscopy or give birth five days out of seven. If you work straight for 20, 30, or 40 years and take the PATH to NYC, five of the seven days then a colonoscopy or giving birth is a snap.

Prismatic wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
NYC is hub of the world - - how arrogant, give me a break. Some people consider NYC a sh_thole next to London, Paris or Hong Kong or Singapore.

Because it is. Only very few parts of NYC would actually be worth it. NYC feels just like Hoboken times 1000, fake and polished.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What I find amazing is the number of people who use cars, then support projects that have limited or no parking!

Why? I can use something and still not have it be my #1 priority. If parking and my car were a primary concern I wouldn't live in JC, I would live in Maplewood (insert suburb of choice).

Unless you are insanely wealthy the chances are your living arrangements involve some sort of trade-off. The increased density and population that comes with these developments bring a lot of benefits to the neighborhood (better restaurants, better stores, more vibrant street life, more farmer's markets, more public concerts and festivals...) All of this is more important to me than my car.

Adding parking to these buildings involves large unsightly parking decks which limit retail space, make walking less desirable and creating dead spots. More cars generally do not make cities nicer places to live, even if the cars are in decks.

We already have all those things except Whole Foods(Overrated anyway). People who live in DTJC and who support towers in JSQ are basically begging to have no room on the PATH trains.

We have more of them now because of development and will have even more in the future if we don't shut down these projects.

I'm not concerned about the train, I've never once even come close to not being able to get on the PATH because of crowding except when there is a delay of some kind.

As your name implies I think you're full of sh**. I barely ride the trains at rush hour but every time I have lately they're packed full. Literally FULL. The PATH is doomed and JSQ development with the promise of an easy commute will mean disaster for downtown residents. You have been warned.

Vigilante wrote:

Been riding that train for 25+ years and it's never been worse and it's not advice it's a promise. The PATH system is doomed without billions of $$$$$$ of investment.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:

We have more of them now because of development and will have even more in the future if we don't shut down these projects.

I'm not concerned about the train, I've never once even come close to not being able to get on the PATH because of crowding except when there is a delay of some kind.

As your name implies I think you're full of sh**. I barely ride the trains at rush hour but every time I have lately they're packed full. Literally FULL. The PATH is doomed and JSQ development with the promise of an easy commute will mean disaster for downtown residents. You have been warned.

Thanks I'll be sure to head the advice of the guy who rarely rides the trains yet calls me full of sh**. I ride it every day, it is very crowded, not so crowded that I ever can't get on.

Maybe I'm lucky, maybe I'm not getting on a the very peak, but I always get on. I generally get on early, but often get on between 8-9, which I assume is peak time, and I haven't missed a train yet (get on in the back, it's less crowded).

If it gets too nuts I suppose I'll take the WTC train, there seems to be a lot more room and I can then take the subway uptown.

hero69 wrote:
NYC is hub of the world - - how arrogant, give me a break. Some people consider NYC a sh_thole next to London, Paris or Hong Kong or Singapore.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:

We have more of them now because of development and will have even more in the future if we don't shut down these projects.

I'm not concerned about the train, I've never once even come close to not being able to get on the PATH because of crowding except when there is a delay of some kind.

As your name implies I think you're full of sh**. I barely ride the trains at rush hour but every time I have lately they're packed full. Literally FULL. The PATH is doomed and JSQ development with the promise of an easy commute will mean disaster for downtown residents. You have been warned.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

A good job to me is one where I do not have to worry about money. To me, that is 180k+ a yr. at least.

Yikes.....

Yes, huge revelation that the world runs on money and not hugs and kisses.

This is a straw man's argument by the way, and therefore, a fallacious statement.

The world doesn't simply run on money, by the way. Money that isn't backed up by anything is worthless.

Also, there's no evidence that says people are happier at 250K income compared to 75K.

I'm not arguing that people who make 250k are happier than those who make 75k

What I am saying is not even up for argument. It IS FACT.

The majority of people who make 250k prefer to live in Manhattan, NY over JC, NJ. What do I have to back that up with? Umm.how about median income figures.

Now are there people who make over 250k and prefer city living and want to live in JC over NYC? YES, there are. The same way there was a 5 foot 5 inch basketball player in the NBA. Congrats, you are the mugsby bogues if you choose to live in JC over NYC and make over 250k a year.

Why do people like to argue over fact? I think if you are making 20k a year and as a job, give candy to cancer kids - it's extremely noble and you are a saint. I'm not talking about those people...

Um, okay. But that's different than what you originally said:

Quote:

If you have a good job in manhattan and have a choice between JC and NYC, why on earth would you be here?

I was never arguing facts because you never presented the argument that more people making 250K+ prefer to live in NYC compared to JC. You just brought that up now and I agree.

Try to stick to a consistent argument - you just change the goal posts whenever your points get picked apart.

I thought I was just offering more clarification as evidenced in me defining what a good job was... but okay, whatever works.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What I find amazing is the number of people who use cars, then support projects that have limited or no parking!

Why? I can use something and still not have it be my #1 priority. If parking and my car were a primary concern I wouldn't live in JC, I would live in Maplewood (insert suburb of choice).

Unless you are insanely wealthy the chances are your living arrangements involve some sort of trade-off. The increased density and population that comes with these developments bring a lot of benefits to the neighborhood (better restaurants, better stores, more vibrant street life, more farmer's markets, more public concerts and festivals...) All of this is more important to me than my car.

Adding parking to these buildings involves large unsightly parking decks which limit retail space, make walking less desirable and creating dead spots. More cars generally do not make cities nicer places to live, even if the cars are in decks.

We already have all those things except Whole Foods(Overrated anyway). People who live in DTJC and who support towers in JSQ are basically begging to have no room on the PATH trains.

We have more of them now because of development and will have even more in the future if we don't shut down these projects.

I'm not concerned about the train, I've never once even come close to not being able to get on the PATH because of crowding except when there is a delay of some kind.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What I find amazing is the number of people who use cars, then support projects that have limited or no parking!

Why? I can use something and still not have it be my #1 priority. If parking and my car were a primary concern I wouldn't live in JC, I would live in Maplewood (insert suburb of choice).

Unless you are insanely wealthy the chances are your living arrangements involve some sort of trade-off. The increased density and population that comes with these developments bring a lot of benefits to the neighborhood (better restaurants, better stores, more vibrant street life, more farmer's markets, more public concerts and festivals...) All of this is more important to me than my car.

Adding parking to these buildings involves large unsightly parking decks which limit retail space, make walking less desirable and creating dead spots. More cars generally do not make cities nicer places to live, even if the cars are in decks.

We already have all those things except Whole Foods(Overrated anyway). People who live in DTJC and who support towers in JSQ are basically begging to have no room on the PATH trains.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

A good job to me is one where I do not have to worry about money. To me, that is 180k+ a yr. at least.

Yikes.....

Yes, huge revelation that the world runs on money and not hugs and kisses.

This is a straw man's argument by the way, and therefore, a fallacious statement.

The world doesn't simply run on money, by the way. Money that isn't backed up by anything is worthless.

Also, there's no evidence that says people are happier at 250K income compared to 75K.

I'm not arguing that people who make 250k are happier than those who make 75k

What I am saying is not even up for argument. It IS FACT.

The majority of people who make 250k prefer to live in Manhattan, NY over JC, NJ. What do I have to back that up with? Umm.how about median income figures.

Now are there people who make over 250k and prefer city living and want to live in JC over NYC? YES, there are. The same way there was a 5 foot 5 inch basketball player in the NBA. Congrats, you are the mugsby bogues if you choose to live in JC over NYC and make over 250k a year.

Why do people like to argue over fact? I think if you are making 20k a year and as a job, give candy to cancer kids - it's extremely noble and you are a saint. I'm not talking about those people...

Um, okay. But that's different than what you originally said:

Quote:

If you have a good job in manhattan and have a choice between JC and NYC, why on earth would you be here?

I was never arguing facts because you never presented the argument that more people making 250K+ prefer to live in NYC compared to JC. You just brought that up now and I agree.

Try to stick to a consistent argument - you just change the goal posts whenever your points get picked apart.

vindication15 wrote:
I think a huge problem with people on here is that we don't know who JC is competing with..

JC is a city so we are not competing with the suburbs. We don't have the quality schools to do that..

Due to our vicinity to NYC, the hub of the world, JC is competing with cities along the PATH -Newark, Hoboken, Harrison, etc.

Among these cities, who has the best reputation, attracts the middle to high income individuals, best businesses, etc. Why?

People here claim they want JC to succeed but are arguing for policies that make us more like Newark and less like Hoboken.

Just think about it...sheesh.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

A good job to me is one where I do not have to worry about money. To me, that is 180k+ a yr. at least.

Yikes.....

Yes, huge revelation that the world runs on money and not hugs and kisses.

This is a straw man's argument by the way, and therefore, a fallacious statement.

The world doesn't simply run on money, by the way. Money that isn't backed up by anything is worthless.

Also, there's no evidence that says people are happier at 250K income compared to 75K.

I'm not arguing that people who make 250k are happier than those who make 75k

What I am saying is not even up for argument. It IS FACT.

The majority of people who make 250k prefer to live in Manhattan, NY over JC, NJ. What do I have to back that up with? Umm.how about median income figures.

Now are there people who make over 250k and prefer city living and want to live in JC over NYC? YES, there are. The same way there was a 5 foot 5 inch basketball player in the NBA. Congrats, you are the mugsby bogues if you choose to live in JC over NYC and make over 250k a year.

Why do people like to argue over fact? I think if you are making 20k a year and as a job, give candy to cancer kids - it's extremely noble and you are a saint. I'm not talking about those people...

If you have a good job in manhattan and have a choice between JC and NYC, why on earth would you be here?

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
Just posted on Jersey Journal. But wanted to share here. 35 years for a tax abatement for LUXURY LIVING is way too long. And the city's middle class is getting shortchanged once again.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Welcome to Jersey City.

Once again the City of Jersey City is going to proverbially ?give away the store? to wealthy developers to build market rate ?luxury? apartment rentals in Journal Square.

The project is looking to get a 35-year tax abatement and will create 540 units. This keeps their taxes stable, and hurts non-abated property owners (primarily working, middle class) who have had to consistently make up the difference. 35 years is way too long for a tax abatement.

For easy math, 540 units at $2000 a month, times 12 months a year = $12,960,000 in rental revenue. Yet they are only going to have to pay $650,000 annually in PILOTS? That?s barely 5%. And you know some of those units will be well over $2,000 a month in rent. And while their taxes will be fixed for 35 years, you know the rents will go up annually, making the percentage they pay the city even less. How is this fair to the regular residents of Jersey City who might live in a brownstone or one or two family dwelling? We?ve seen our taxes skyrocket the past decade. How about a tax abatement and tax relief and stability for US?

In 2009 the New Jersey Policy Perspectives issued a very critical report on how the misuse of tax abatements actually shortchanges the City of Jersey City, Hudson County, and also shortchanges our schools and the children. That report can be found here: http://www.njpp.org/reports/all-that-glitters-isnt...

First and foremost, tax abatements are supposed to be given to blighted areas. Journal Square is hardly a ?blighted? area, and given this development will be literally right next door to the Journal Square PATH transportation hub, this is prime property ? a commuter?s paradise.

Another thing with these developments, the promised jobs for Jersey City residents almost NEVER materialize. And instead of including affordable housing units in the development themselves, they make a small payment to the affordable trust fund, which then builds housing in undesirable areas and creates pockets of crime and poverty in Jersey City. Mayor Fulop (and the rest of his team) when running for election said we were going to be moving away from this practice. Guess not. Same old, same old.

Yes, they are going to make a $2.5 million contribution to help revamp the Lowes. However, given similar restorations at some NYC movie palaces have cost upwards of $20 million, this is really not enough to do the job right.

Two things need to happen here. Either Jersey City needs to demand more community givebacks and/or an increased contributions to the Lowes restoration and other programs, or the duration needs to be cut to 15-20 years tops. 35 years is just too excessive for the PRIME area that is Journal Square for "luxury living" geared towards the upper class.

Finally, look at what happens with the deals that have already been cut. Enforcement has become a major problem area. Already, audits have shown developers ? including Newport and others ? have not been keeping their end of the agreements and have been underpaying the City. Kudos to the Fulop Administration for recovering those funds, but why in the world would we want to continue this practice of short changing our city and creating tax inequality for the middle class who have to make up the difference for this giveaway?

Fletcher Gensamer

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

A good job to me is one where I do not have to worry about money. To me, that is 180k+ a yr. at least.

Yikes.....

Yes, huge revelation that the world runs on money and not hugs and kisses.

This is a straw man's argument by the way, and therefore, a fallacious statement.

The world doesn't simply run on money, by the way. Money that isn't backed up by anything is worthless.

Also, there's no evidence that says people are happier at 250K income compared to 75K.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

A good job to me is one where I do not have to worry about money. To me, that is 180k+ a yr. at least.

Yikes.....

Yes, huge revelation that the world runs on money and not hugs and kisses.

vindication15 wrote:
Before I get the, "you are not living in reality, blah blah blah"

http://gothamist.com/2013/01/19/do_yo ... 5000_congrats_youre_m.php

So I would actually like to revise my statement, A good job, to me, is if you make over 250k then there is no comparison between NYC and JC if you prefer city living

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

A good job to me is one where I do not have to worry about money. To me, that is 180k+ a yr. at least.

Yikes.....

Yes, huge revelation that the world runs on money and not hugs and kisses.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What I find amazing is the number of people who use cars, then support projects that have limited or no parking!

Why? I can use something and still not have it be my #1 priority. If parking and my car were a primary concern I wouldn't live in JC, I would live in Maplewood (insert suburb of choice).

Unless you are insanely wealthy the chances are your living arrangements involve some sort of trade-off. The increased density and population that comes with these developments bring a lot of benefits to the neighborhood (better restaurants, better stores, more vibrant street life, more farmer's markets, more public concerts and festivals...) All of this is more important to me than my car.

Adding parking to these buildings involves large unsightly parking decks which limit retail space, make walking less desirable and creating dead spots. More cars generally do not make cities nicer places to live, even if the cars are in decks.

Yvonne wrote:
What I find amazing is the number of people who use cars, then support projects that have limited or no parking!