caj11 wrote:
Does anyone know the ordinance number, and where we can see the text of this ordinance? I looked at this past week's council agenda and all the ordinances and I cannot find it.

caj11 wrote:
Back on topic here--

Say you have a building where two commercial tenants that are part of a chain get settled in, and the city discovers that they occupy more than 30% of the building's space (is the city going to conduct periodic audits for this?). Are they going to have the local police raid the business and force one of the tenants out? Impose fines on the landlord repeatedly, only to have the landlord challenge and refuse to pay the fines? Send the landlord to jail, only to have a prosecutor not bother with seeking an indictment?

Furthermore, what if, as it was previously suggested, it's just not possible to parcel out the space so that only 30% or less of it is rented to a particular tenant? Not all buildings are made of Legos, where you can just change the walls and floors at will to accommodate everybody.

I would just love to know how the city thinks they're going to enforce this stupid ordinance. Candace, if you're reading this, would you like to explain?

I really miss Il Chilango. Thanks alot jerk off.

caj11 wrote:
Back on topic here--

Say you have a building where two commercial tenants that are part of a chain get settled in, and the city discovers that they occupy more than 30% of the building's space (is the city going to conduct periodic audits for this?). Are they going to have the local police raid the business and force one of the tenants out? Impose fines on the landlord repeatedly, only to have the landlord challenge and refuse to pay the fines? Send the landlord to jail, only to have a prosecutor not bother with seeking an indictment?

Furthermore, what if, as it was previously suggested, it's just not possible to parcel out the space so that only 30% or less of it is rented to a particular tenant? Not all buildings are made of Legos, where you can just change the walls and floors at will to accommodate everybody.

I would just love to know how the city thinks they're going to enforce this stupid ordinance. Candace, if you're reading this, would you like to explain?

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Oh my god you people need to get over it. You realize Madame Claude's doesn't care because it's now being regulated right? That was the whole point in moving it to the lot by their restaurant.

The Farmers Market is not the same thing as a group of unregulated food trucks so stop lumping it in with your whiny, tired arguement in an attempt to make it a valid complaint. No one is complaining about anyone trying to take away produce- they are complaining about floating traveling restaurants taking up shop in areas where brick and mortar stores are paying a whole lot of money to contribute to the neighborhood.

Speak for yourself on what the "community" wants. A lot of us want shops and restaurants that are here 24/7 to stay in a business. Those businesses are happy with the food trucks setting up on a Saturday in a lot because it means it's regulated- which is what everyone on that list was asking for! I'm sure you'll just continue repeating yourself and refusing to comprehend this logic because...empanadas!

DAllen wrote:
Aaron, I don't know what's so hard to understand
1) The farmers market in its previous form was in place before you and many of your cronies took occupancy in Jersey City. Its not like this is new. You came in and are trying to change the competitive landscape AFTER the fact.
2) The government subsidy is for the BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY. The community wants more options, you are denying this. Do you know what was so great about the farmers market? If I got home at a decent time, I could hit the farm stands and grab items to cook at home. If I got home late and was too tired to cook, there were MANY options where I could grab a quick meal to bring home that wasn't pizza.
3) You have the choice to compete. In this discussion, both Taqueria and Madame Claude's have offered and encouraged Food Trucks to set up right across the street from them. Mi Casa got their own food truck. Legal Beans used to set up at the market. You and your cronies went crying to the government.

If you could please post the most recent list of the businesses whose greed is fighting to limit the community's choices and options, it would be most appreciated so I and the others who feel strongly about this, can continue to ensure that our money does not go to any of you. Thanks.

TwoBootsJC wrote:
Hey "Who Else Could it Be" or whoever you are. You don't understand the point that I and 20 other restaurants, including chains, were making. For the umpteenth time, the food trucks and stands were getting a massive government rent subsidy which enabled them to unfairly compete (in the best location in JC no less, during our peak hours) with both mom and pops and chains.

How many times do I have to repeat this simple and completely reasonable point?

TwoBootsJC wrote:
Hey "Who Else Could it Be" or whoever you are. You don't understand the point that I and 20 other restaurants, including chains, were making. For the umpteenth time, the food trucks and stands were getting a massive government rent subsidy which enabled them to unfairly compete (in the best location in JC no less, during our peak hours) with both mom and pops and chains.

How many times do I have to repeat this simple and completely reasonable point?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
How is this going to be enforced? When a landlord is considering renting to a new tenant that is part of a chain, does he have to do this calculation:

square footage of his space plus square footage of other spaces in the neighborhood renting to chains divided by square footage of all rented commercial space in neighborhood, and then make sure it comes to less than 30%? How will that happen?

For that matter, I hope landlords openly defy this ordinance because it is just stupid, stupid, stupid.

It's actually worse: the 30% restriction is for each individual building/space. So, if 70 Columbus has 10,000 sf of retail space available, they can not rent more than 3,000sf to what is deemed a chain. To all commercial landlords: good luck trying to parcel out your available space in a way that meets this restriction without losing potential revenue.

Going back to my example: if 70 Columbus had two interested parties, each wanting 2000sf, they would have to turn one away because combined, they would go over the 30% limit. I really, really hope commercial landlord and buildings join forces and take the city to court over this overreach.

caj11 wrote:
How is this going to be enforced? When a landlord is considering renting to a new tenant that is part of a chain, does he have to do this calculation:

square footage of his space plus square footage of other spaces in the neighborhood renting to chains divided by square footage of all rented commercial space in neighborhood, and then make sure it comes to less than 30%? How will that happen?

For that matter, I hope landlords openly defy this ordinance because it is just stupid, stupid, stupid.

Attention?.Attention?

Applebee?s or Houlihan's please set up shop in Journal Square.

I would even welcome one of those hipster favorites Chipotle Mexican Grill if Downtown doesn?t want it.

(you would be surprised at how many people up the Square (area) are dying for a good juicy burger or steak with brew (bud or miller only) in a familiar sit-down restaurant)

jerseymom wrote:
By Patrick McGovern | The Jersey Journal
on May 15, 2015 at 4:24 PM

JERSEY CITY -- The City Council has approved a controversial ordinance proposed by Mayor Steven Fulop's administration limiting chain stores in the Downtown section of the city.

The ordinance would limit chain stores to a maximum of 30 percent of ground-floor commercial space in Downtown buildings, although some portions of the Waterfront -- including Newport -- will be exempt.

The council voted 8-1 Wednesday to approve the measure that adopts "amendments to various redevelopment plans to add formula business restrictions" despite numerous pleas against the ordinance from audience members at the Wednesday night meeting. Ward C councilman Rich Boggiano cast the lone dissenting vote.

"This is a solution in search of a problem," said Aaron Morrill, co-founder of Civic JC and owner of a Two Boots franchise pizzeria in Jersey City. "The notion that chain stores are going to come in and run mom and pop stores out of business is wrong."

More - Jersey Journal

Yvonne wrote:
It passed although many in the council including Osborne said they have misgivings about the ordinance. Only Boggiano voted against this. Yun said he wants the chain stores to come to the Heights.

Yvonne wrote:
It passed although many in the council including Osborne said they have misgivings about the ordinance. Only Boggiano voted against this. Yun said he wants the chain stores to come to the Heights.