Poncho11 wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I personally do not like people using JC for their personal agenda.

Damn, I just choked and spit all over my screen.

Thankfully most of our elected officials and the vast majority of new residents are smarter than fat slobs like Yvonne. They do desire all the things she's against, like reduced dependence on cars, vibrant street life and walkable communities with fun things to do. Demographics and market forces are more powerful than she is, as are the realities of building a sustainable and economically competitive city in the 21st century.

She's already lost her war, she's just too dumb and too self-righteous to realize it.

I hope Candice sees this and realizes most of us are on her side.

Why would you speak to Yvonne in that way ? If you have something to say go to a meeting and kiss Ms. Candice's ass if you wish. Why don't you put up your photo so we can judge you on your looks, better yet, a picture of your Mother so we can describe her in the same manner in which you did. Would that offend you ? Would you like that ?

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I personally do not like people using JC for their personal agenda.

Damn, I just choked and spit all over my screen.

Thankfully most of our elected officials and the vast majority of new residents are smarter than fat slobs like Yvonne. They do desire all the things she's against, like reduced dependence on cars, vibrant street life and walkable communities with fun things to do. Demographics and market forces are more powerful than she is, as are the realities of building a sustainable and economically competitive city in the 21st century.

She's already lost her war, she's just too dumb and too self-righteous to realize it.

I hope Candice sees this and realizes most of us are on her side.

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Show me the city ordinance that says no one can have free parking. As I said before in my letter to the editor, if someone has to pay for parking to attend a public meeting, then it is similar to a poll tax.

Show me the city ordinance where it says you are owed free parking.

And a POLL TAX? Are you freaking kidding me? Unless you walk there, you're paying to get there somehow. Gas money, taxi fare, bus fare, subway, anything. You're completely off your rocker.

Yvonne wrote:
Show me the city ordinance that says no one can have free parking. As I said before in my letter to the editor, if someone has to pay for parking to attend a public meeting, then it is similar to a poll tax.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

itgirl wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Killtown wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Show me the ordinance that says no one can have free ice cream. You can't?

Yvonne - just answer the question so we can all move on with our ice cream

Ice cream is not on the agenda, what was on the agenda was permit parking to 11:00 PM.

I'm confused. I thought ice cream was always on the agenda.

I think it'd be hilarious if the city hired a world-renowned city planner and the first thing that person said is that parking minimums should be eliminated altogether. I can't imagine a bigger f-you to Yvonne and her parking nazi cartel. Her head might explode and we'd be rid of her stupidity for good.

itgirl wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Killtown wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Show me the ordinance that says no one can have free ice cream. You can't?

Yvonne - just answer the question so we can all move on with our ice cream

Ice cream is not on the agenda, what was on the agenda was permit parking to 11:00 PM.

I'm confused. I thought ice cream was always on the agenda.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Killtown wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Show me the ordinance that says no one can have free ice cream. You can't?

Yvonne - just answer the question so we can all move on with our ice cream

Ice cream is not on the agenda, what was on the agenda was permit parking to 11:00 PM.

La_Verdad wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:

Ice cream is not on the agenda, what was on the agenda was permit parking to 11:00 PM.

Don't change the subject, Yvonne - show me the ordinance that says we can't have free ice cream? Your free parking jihad will just have to wait.

Yvonne wrote:

Ice cream is not on the agenda, what was on the agenda was permit parking to 11:00 PM.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Killtown wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Show me the ordinance that says no one can have free ice cream. You can't?

Yvonne - just answer the question so we can all move on with our ice cream

Ice cream is not on the agenda, what was on the agenda was permit parking to 11:00 PM.

Killtown wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Show me the ordinance that says no one can have free ice cream. You can't?

Yvonne - just answer the question so we can all move on with our ice cream

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I personally do not like people using JC for their personal agenda.

Damn, I just choked and spit all over my screen.

Yvonne wrote:
I personally do not like people using JC for their personal agenda.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Show me the ordinance that says no one can have free ice cream. You can't?

Yvonne wrote:
Who said I am unhappy? I personally do not like people using JC for their personal agenda. I speak up because many people throughout the 200 plus years of democracy gave me that right to speak up. I appreciate their sacrifice and attend to be an active citizen in government.

Yvonne wrote:
I personally do not like people using JC for their personal agenda.

cocopele wrote:
Bowling alley/brewery? Where is this going to be? Nice!!!

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
another 99 year lease for one dollar a year for a bowling alley and brewery.

Yvonne wrote:
Show me the city ordinance that says no one can have free parking.

Yvonne wrote:
another 99 year lease for one dollar a year for a bowling alley and brewery.

Yvonne wrote:
Show me the city ordinance that says no one can have free parking. As I said before in my letter to the editor, if someone has to pay for parking to attend a public meeting, then it is similar to a poll tax.

Yvonne wrote:
Parking for the public is not a sweetheart deal since cars have been parking on the streets since the beginning.

Yvonne wrote:
Show me the city ordinance that says no one can have free parking.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Show me the city ordinance that says no one can have free parking. As I said before in my letter to the editor, if someone has to pay for parking to attend a public meeting, then it is similar to a poll tax. If Mayor Fulop and the rest of the city council can find redevelopment loans for developers plus 30 years tax abatements, then they can figure out a way to put the public first. And let's us not forget, giving 99 year lease for a dollar a year for a charging station on 2nd Street and another 99 year lease for one dollar a year for a bowling alley and brewery. These are the sweetheart deals. Parking for the public is not a sweetheart deal since cars have been parking on the streets since the beginning. By the way, the mayor and the city council have parking spaces. Let them lead by example.

Seriously - why do you keep living here? You don't have a single positive thing to say about this city or anybody living in it. If you dislike it here that much, why not pack up and move to an area where you'll be happier and people here who do want to have rational discussions on how to make things better can be spared from your misery?

You are telling me parking is not free. I said show me the ordinance. If not that is your personal opinion which has no value. As it is right now parking is free for local residents, especially after 5:00 PM. It is the law.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Show me the city ordinance that says no one can have free parking. As I said before in my letter to the editor, if someone has to pay for parking to attend a public meeting, then it is similar to a poll tax. If Mayor Fulop and the rest of the city council can find redevelopment loans for developers plus 30 years tax abatements, then they can figure out a way to put the public first. And let's us not forget, giving 99 year lease for a dollar a year for a charging station on 2nd Street and another 99 year lease for one dollar a year for a bowling alley and brewery. These are the sweetheart deals. Parking for the public is not a sweetheart deal since cars have been parking on the streets since the beginning. By the way, the mayor and the city council have parking spaces. Let them lead by example.

Seriously - why do you keep living here? You don't have a single positive thing to say about this city or anybody living in it. If you dislike it here that much, why not pack up and move to an area where you'll be happier and people here who do want to have rational discussions on how to make things better can be spared from your misery?

Yvonne wrote:
Show me the city ordinance that says no one can have free parking. As I said before in my letter to the editor, if someone has to pay for parking to attend a public meeting, then it is similar to a poll tax. If Mayor Fulop and the rest of the city council can find redevelopment loans for developers plus 30 years tax abatements, then they can figure out a way to put the public first. And let's us not forget, giving 99 year lease for a dollar a year for a charging station on 2nd Street and another 99 year lease for one dollar a year for a bowling alley and brewery. These are the sweetheart deals. Parking for the public is not a sweetheart deal since cars have been parking on the streets since the beginning. By the way, the mayor and the city council have parking spaces. Let them lead by example.

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I did not call Candice a racist, I said it is wrong for any taxpayer who do not live in the immediate Van Vorst or Paulus Hook area to have this ordinance. Public meetings have no time limit. As Councilwoman Watterman said when she voted, she understands why Candice proposed this ordinance but you are not giving a solution to the problem. The problem Watterman referred to where do people from other parts of the city park their cars? Voting yes on this ordinance means only the immediate residents of downtown counts, no one else matters. For the amount of money I have paid in taxes to JC, over the decades, I and others deserve better. My rights are just as important as others. Besides, I did not create the problem. The shortage of parking spaces lies with government. I have repeatedly spoken against the deals that do not address this problem. The ordinances that passed did not require developers to give parking as a courtesy. Instead, the developers who received lucrative tax abatements are charging for it. When Candice voted to reduce parking she is also part of the problem.I am only being attacked because I have the courage to speak my mind using my real name and people here on this blog, don't. They use phony names.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE PARKING WHEREEVER YOU WANT.

For the love of god. Pay for parking, or take a cab, or take a bus. Nobody owes you a free parking spot downtown.

Yvonne wrote:
I did not call Candice a racist, I said it is wrong for any taxpayer who do not live in the immediate Van Vorst or Paulus Hook area to have this ordinance. Public meetings have no time limit. As Councilwoman Watterman said when she voted, she understands why Candice proposed this ordinance but you are not giving a solution to the problem. The problem Watterman referred to where do people from other parts of the city park their cars? Voting yes on this ordinance means only the immediate residents of downtown counts, no one else matters. For the amount of money I have paid in taxes to JC, over the decades, I and others deserve better. My rights are just as important as others. Besides, I did not create the problem. The shortage of parking spaces lies with government. I have repeatedly spoken against the deals that do not address this problem. The ordinances that passed did not require developers to give parking as a courtesy. Instead, the developers who received lucrative tax abatements are charging for it. When Candice voted to reduce parking she is also part of the problem.I am only being attacked because I have the courage to speak my mind using my real name and people here on this blog, don't. They use phony names.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Lima17 wrote:
Mass transit can get you to city hall within an hour from anywhere in the city.

There is NO mass transit in JC. Yvonne said so using her REAL NAME, so it must be true!

She will not rest until Jersey City mirrors her urban paradise of half-full surface parking lots and nothing but medical offices. All bars, restaurants and anything even remotely fun or interesting will be driven out in the name of his holiness, Parking, and anybody under the age of 40 will not be allowed to lease or purchase property if she had her way. Baby boomers with multiple SUVs and old people are the only "acceptable" residents to her.