elgoodo wrote:
Quote:

mimosa wrote:
i agree w/the others...as a former resident of newark, i had my doubts about JC back in the day, downtown was much more sketchy than my old neighborhood. but nyc has spread, and jc benefited. newark has been poised, even named 'the renaissance city', and i think now that people are looking outside of JC for a deal (and access to PATH) newark will prosper....and sharpe will finally get out of office...
a walk in downtown newark, and along ferry street will tell you the better...(so long as you have a base of comparison)

From what I know (admittedly, not much) about the subject, I do agree that getting Sharpe James out of office would be a decent start. And yeah, I'm well aware that there are relatively safe, relatively nice sections of Newark.

I do wonder if the stigma of Newark is as strong for people who haven't lived around here forever. If you say the words "Newark, New Jersey" to someone who grew up in Boston, does it mean the same thing to them as it does to people around here? The fact is the stigma is so strong that you couldn't pay most people around here to live in Newark. JimmyConway's reaction is typical. But the same was once true of many places. People used to say "Alphabet City" as if you needed a bullet proof jacket to walk from Avenue B to Avenue C.

And yeah, I have friends who grew up in Jersey City who used to talk about downtown in similar terms. 20 years ago, there were people who grew up and lived in Jersey City who were frightened to set foot in downtown after dark. So there you go. A lot of it is perception, and I think the perception of Newark has to change before the city actually does.

mimosa wrote:
i agree w/the others...as a former resident of newark, i had my doubts about JC back in the day, downtown was much more sketchy than my old neighborhood. but nyc has spread, and jc benefited. newark has been poised, even named 'the renaissance city', and i think now that people are looking outside of JC for a deal (and access to PATH) newark will prosper....and sharpe will finally get out of office...
a walk in downtown newark, and along ferry street will tell you the better...(so long as you have a base of comparison)

JimmyConway wrote:
I dont care how high the rents go, I would never move to Newark. It will be a very, very long time before Newark becomes gentrified, if ever.

rory_bellows wrote:
Funny, I was just talking to someone who grew up in Newark and still lives there, and says the real estate there is soaring (relative term). Seriously, hard as that may be to believe to anyone who grew up around here. And Metro Homes, the place that's partnering with Trump in JC, is building this monstrous... neighborhood, really, in Newark. Things are just insane. Get 'em while they're still affordable, while you still can! Look out Utica, Newark's a city on the grow!

Pisces1979 wrote:
...um that's why I said "new yorker" in quotes...

for example, Brit/french/indian/etc. expat comes to Manhattan works for bank realizes that he can't raise his family in the overpriced manhattan rental they have had for the whole three months they have been here, hears about new jersey and gets suckered into paying waaaay to much for a house in the heights, by realtor who passes it off as suburban because it has a backyard.

JimmyConway wrote:
I dont care how high the rents go, I would never move to Newark. It will be a very, very long time before Newark becomes gentrified, if ever.

Pisces1979 wrote:
... I see alot of the Expats from India or England who come over here to work for the banks, and buy and/or rent in Jersey City and the realtors pass the neighborhoods off as suburban to them because they really don't know any better, especially in places like the heights.
"Look this place has backyards and nice historic houses, it's very suburban!"

super_furry wrote:
The JCLIST Webmaster gives the Genius Awards once a year. You are a shoe in since Bouncing Soul/aka MrT no longer posts!

super_furry wrote:
IThe JCLIST Webmaster gives the Genius Awards once a year. You are a shoe in since Bouncing Soul/aka MrT no longer posts!

Pisces1979 wrote:I feel they are tricked into moving to Jersey City, because this City is often misrepresented as a "suburb".

Pisces1979 wrote:
I agree totally, alot of the "New Yorker" families who are being brought into the area by developers would probably be better off in West Orange, New Brunswick, or Parsipanny than Jersey City, and I feel they are tricked into moving to Jersey City, because this City is often misrepresented as a "suburb".
Especially since many young people have been priced right out of downtown to Journal Square, and will be forced to move to Newark in a couple of years unless the rents stop soaring.

ccitizen wrote:
I don't think that is a fair characterization. Ms. Davis had a very strong argument for why this variance should be granted and I appreciate her objectivity in handling this issue (I assume in her heart she would want a smaller project).

I live one half block from the development and I can tell you that while i and others may not be as vocal as the opponents, there are quite a few people that are happy to see this location developed. we think packing 80-99 units of townhouses onto two deadend streets would be very awkward and would make deliveries, etc. much more problematic.

Also, many people don't have a problem with allowing young, singles to plant roots here. even hoboken is starting to "grow up" as college students that moved in 10-15 years ago are bringing up families in the new developments along the water. I just mention that because there seems to be a bit of a bias toward only encouraging families to move into the area and I don't think that is good or fair.

ccitizen wrote:

Question: Is there a public domain where you can find the documents submitted in the BOA meetings other than just going to the office?

ccitizen wrote:
I don't think that is a fair characterization. Ms. Davis had a very strong argument for why this variance should be granted and I appreciate her objectivity in handling this issue (I assume in her heart she would want a smaller project).

Not allowing people to own cars for the first 5 years, what the hell is this, college?

Pisces1979 wrote:
Oh yeah, what about senior housing? According to this times article Senior housing is the hot new market.

"Hot Niche in the Rental Market: Housing for the Elderly"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/rea ... /commercial/15senior.html

They are quiet, won't burden the school system, and they are less likely to drive.

Maybe you could make the developer turn this development into senior only housing?

Pisces1979 wrote:
Honestly, there is a housing shortage, the whole NYC/NJ metro area is going to have a 20 percent increase in population over the next 20 years, the only way to house that population increase is by building upwards.

Now, It sounds like you biggest issue is the fact that all the units are going to be going to proffesionals who will all insist on owning their own cars and driving everywhere instead of taking public transportation.

Building more parking lots into a building is like widening a highway, initially it will cut congestion, but it will just encourage more people to drive.

In the Netherlands, the social policy is to make all new development transit friendly as possible.

Here is what they could do in Jersey City, by forcing developers to pay for bicycle racks and bicycle lanes in the neighborhood, making developers to partner with car sharing agencies like "zip car", and condo sales agreements that mean that any buyer of a condo in a new development has to not own a car for the first 5 years of residence under pain of being sued.

Quote:

PeterMoccoJr wrote:
I have viewed the changes that have been proposed. And I concede that they have lowered the amount of units. That is not enough. What I fail to understand is why these developers feel the need to put up mid-rise buildings in an area zoned for townhouses?

They have lowered the amount of units from an almost 80% increase to a 33% increase over the current zoning. All I am asking (hoping), is that we do not allow developers to pay almost a quarter of million dollars into a fund for the city that will in turn, give them a variance allowing them to overdevelop our neighborhood. To me, that is unacceptable.

I repeat: What is wrong with building townhouses?

I urge members of our community to go to this meeting and voice their opinions about this project. All it can do is help. At the very least, the developers will have to come back to the table with better plan.

I live here, you live here, and together we can make a difference if we just stand up and voice our opinions. Please come to the meeting tomorrow night.

Peter Jr.

PeterMoccoJr wrote:
I have viewed the changes that have been proposed. And I concede that they have lowered the amount of units. That is not enough. What I fail to understand is why these developers feel the need to put up mid-rise buildings in an area zoned for townhouses?

They have lowered the amount of units from an almost 80% increase to a 33% increase over the current zoning. All I am asking (hoping), is that we do not allow developers to pay almost a quarter of million dollars into a fund for the city that will in turn, give them a variance allowing them to overdevelop our neighborhood. To me, that is unacceptable.

I repeat: What is wrong with building townhouses?

I urge members of our community to go to this meeting and voice their opinions about this project. All it can do is help. At the very least, the developers will have to come back to the table with better plan.

I live here, you live here, and together we can make a difference if we just stand up and voice our opinions. Please come to the meeting tomorrow night.

Peter Jr.