NewportNJ wrote:
All I know is the PATH to 33rd will be a sh it show in about a year or two.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

SilveryJessica wrote:
Quote:

Binky wrote:
Actually, when I moved in to my house 15 years ago there was no net increase in the number of people living here.
It is the people who have moved into the new construction who have increased the population. And it is the poor planning of the new construction and the necessary infrastructure that is the issue here.

Yes. Those of us who moved here 15 years ago didn't buy new construction. We replaced outgoing residents. We didn't contribute to the surge in population, congestion, FILTH, crime, etc. Yes, there are wonderful new shops, restaurants, cultural options that didn't exist and I appreciate those, but the fact remains that the people who came here initially and paved the way for all the other more recent growth didn't want density. We wanted what JC had at that time which was convenience without the assault on our personal space that living here has become. One of the attractions of living here was the fact that you didn't have to kill someone to get on or off a train, listen to horns honking on the streets, get knocked over on the effing sidewalk when a bike came charging at you, etcetera. Living here was pleasant and quiet, and it isn't any longer. Yes, the changes have come with associated benefits too, but the lifestyle that a lot of people moved here for is gone.

Guess what, wherever you move, you don't get to preserve it amber for the rest of time. In cities of all places, you have to accept that the area could and probably will change.

JC_Man wrote:
Another Cluster-eff for traffic - I'm sure the great minds in JC will allow construction vehicle access on Marin Blvd instead of 8th or 9th St - similar to the mess they created on Columbus Drive with construction of 70 Columbus high-rise. Always let the developers have their way.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Another pre-fab 'kit' building that will be a nightmare for the eventual owners after the warranty period is over ... noting most of the public housing is structurally more sound and cheaper to maintain and over 50 years old!

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
unless the project was downsized, the original post is correct, 17 stories.

correct. tax abatement application says 17 stories.

Terrence, one of your earlier news reports indicated 190 feet. See: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... wer_on_manila_avenue.html

Architects generally use 10 feet per story, as a rule of thumb, so that's 19 stories. However figured it's a much bigger building than 12 stories. So big it needed amendments passed to the Master Plan for than area.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Architects generally use 10 feet per story, as a rule of thumb, so that's 19 stories. However figured it's a much bigger building than 12 stories. So big it needed amendments passed to the Master Plan for than area.

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
unless the project was downsized, the original post is correct, 17 stories.

correct. tax abatement application says 17 stories.

DanL wrote:
unless the project was downsized, the original post is correct, 17 stories.

MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:

by bustjc on 2015/12/21 12:06:51

They applied for variances, got tax breaks and abatements for temporary affordable housing. The time to complain and block it is passed.

Also OP should check his information. The building is not seventeen stories; I recall it being twelve or thirteen.

And if his issue is with trees being cut down, the developers are building a park onsite which will be open to the public. That land has been fenced off and unusable since I moved to the neighborhood 18yrs ago. Now anybody will be able to enjoy it.

MattSchapiro wrote:


Also OP should check his information. The building is not seventeen stories; I recall it being twelve or thirteen.

by bustjc on 2015/12/21 12:06:51

They applied for variances, got tax breaks and abatements for temporary affordable housing. The time to complain and block it is passed.

Stringer wrote:

Downtown Jersey City tower getting 30-year tax break

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal The Jersey Journal 
August 14, 2015 at  8:02 AM

The City Council next week is expected to give initial approval to a 30-year tax break for a 17-story residential tower KRE Group is building near Hamilton Park.

The developer, who received a $40 million tax break from the state last month, has pledged to make 20 percent of the tower's 397 units affordable. Mayor Steve Fulop, who for years as a councilman criticized long-term tax breaks for Downtown developments, has said he now supports them if developers build affordable units on-site.

Instead of conventional taxes, KRE would pay a service charge, which in the first year is estimated to be $1.1 million. Conventional taxes would be $2.1 million. KRE could save as much as $41 million over the course of the deal.

http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... ax_break_planned_for.html

moobycow wrote:
A green space behind a perertually locked fence might as well be a parking lot. This new building is going to have a park that is open to the public so hopefully it will actually be used.

I do agree though, we could use some more public spaces downtown. Like, say a pedestrian plaza.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
The problem with Ayn Rand is that she starts from the idea that private action always good, public action always bad, and that the masses are the equivalent of thieves. Of course, she wound up destitute and on welfare.

Have you actually read her work or are you just reacting to what you've heard? ...

I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I can see why we should, we should know why and how people come to crazy conclusions if they're kind enough to write them out for us. There's a lot of crazythink out there, and some of them, like Paul Ryan & Rand Paul, are seriously dangerous.

Well, you had me up till the Mein Kampf.

By the way, surely, you are aware that Main Kampf is the writing of a socialist, someone who believed that people must be forced to do what their leaders define as "Common Good", and that personal rights have no value compared to that "Common Good", - while people like Ryan and especially Paul are on the direct opposite side of the political scale and build their views starting from human rights being having the highest value.

Glad I lost you then. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I was no more endorsing Objectivism than I was National Socialism. I was saying is it's instructive to study how people can analyze a situation and come to WRONG & DANGEROUS conclusions!

I am sorry but seeing how I never claimed that you "endorsed" nazism nor objectivism, I don't think you are a person who should be lecturing me on my reading skills.

Second, you didn't just claimed that "oh, people may come to wrong and dangerous conclusions", - you specifically compared Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, to Ayn Rand, to Hitler. Yet, if you haven't noticed there is a huge difference between them, they come from the polar opposite viewpoint. One viewpoint is based on an assumption that people are not equal and that one person may have the power to own another and to violate his rights if he thinks it is a good idea. Another viewpoint is that human rights are of the highest value and that all people are equal and that means the Government has only one legitimate role, - that is to secure those rights.

I see how the adherents of the first idea may be dangerous... well, not "may be" actually. Anyone who believes that he is entitled to rule others is dangerous right out of the box. I do not see how the other side may harm you? If someone believes that he can't own you, and can't rule you, and can take away neither your possessions nor your freedom, - how is that may possibly be dangerous?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
The problem with Ayn Rand is that she starts from the idea that private action always good, public action always bad, and that the masses are the equivalent of thieves. Of course, she wound up destitute and on welfare.

Have you actually read her work or are you just reacting to what you've heard? ...

I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I can see why we should, we should know why and how people come to crazy conclusions if they're kind enough to write them out for us. There's a lot of crazythink out there, and some of them, like Paul Ryan & Rand Paul, are seriously dangerous.

Well, you had me up till the Mein Kampf.

By the way, surely, you are aware that Main Kampf is the writing of a socialist, someone who believed that people must be forced to do what their leaders define as "Common Good", and that personal rights have no value compared to that "Common Good", - while people like Ryan and especially Paul are on the direct opposite side of the political scale and build their views starting from human rights being having the highest value.

Glad I lost you then. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I was no more endorsing Objectivism than I was National Socialism. I was saying is it's instructive to study how people can analyze a situation and come to WRONG & DANGEROUS conclusions!

borisp wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
The problem with Ayn Rand is that she starts from the idea that private action always good, public action always bad, and that the masses are the equivalent of thieves. Of course, she wound up destitute and on welfare.

Have you actually read her work or are you just reacting to what you've heard? ...

I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I can see why we should, we should know why and how people come to crazy conclusions if they're kind enough to write them out for us. There's a lot of crazythink out there, and some of them, like Paul Ryan & Rand Paul, are seriously dangerous.

Well, you had me up till the Mein Kampf.

By the way, surely, you are aware that Main Kampf is the writing of a socialist, someone who believed that people must be forced to do what their leaders define as "Common Good", and that personal rights have no value compared to that "Common Good", - while people like Ryan and especially Paul are on the direct opposite side of the political scale and build their views starting from human rights being having the highest value.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
The problem with Ayn Rand is that she starts from the idea that private action always good, public action always bad, and that the masses are the equivalent of thieves. Of course, she wound up destitute and on welfare.

Have you actually read her work or are you just reacting to what you've heard? ...

I haven't read Mein Kampf, but I can see why we should, we should know why and how people come to crazy conclusions if they're kind enough to write them out for us. There's a lot of crazythink out there, and some of them, like Paul Ryan & Rand Paul, are seriously dangerous.