Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
79 user(s) are online (50 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 79

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 (3) 4 »


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#31
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/10/8 15:41
Last Login :
2018/3/13 14:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 113
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.


OK, so back to DATA rather than hysteria! What is the average car ownership rate in Downtown new construction? Has ANY Downtown development topped out it's parking?

As I've said before, the traffic doomsayers about the Home Depot are my touchstone in being very skeptical about the next Development Apocalypse.


Household car ownership in Jersey City is 62%. I've not seen numbers for downtown specifically but one could only imagine it's lower.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:15
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/6/14 13:36
Last Login :
2017/12/28 0:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 482
Offline
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
I can also tell you that I have gotten permits for two different homes that both had available parking for them. I don't think the parking authority is doing due diligence when someone applies for a permit.

Stop me if you've heard that one before, a rule is on the books in Jersey City and never enforced...


My legalese is not very good, but I think point K means, if the property has less than 30 units, then they're not enforcing the offstreet parking rule:

K. The Parking Authority shall maintain a current record of all properties with 30 or more dwelling units which make off-street parking available to residents whether as part of the rental or service charge or for an optional fee. The Tax Assessor and all departments of the City which maintain relevant records shall cooperate with the Parking Authority to assure that the record of available off-street parking maintained by the Parking Authority remains current.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

Posted on: 2016/2/24 2:38
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3071
Offline
Quote:

jklm wrote:

Parking eligibility interpretation has a learning curve - I appreciate the details.

Upon asking a senior parking official, "If 'they' provide a letter from ownership/management Co. stating there are no spaces available they are eligible for an on-street permit. They have to proof annually because availability is subject to change."




Quote:

Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

G. To assure that both prospective residential tenants and purchasers of property, including condominiums, are aware of the residential parking permit conditions imposed hereunder, every landlord and every seller shall, on or before the date a lease is executed or a deed is conveyed, provide the prospective tenant or buyer with a copy of Section 332-58.


But if a resident in a building of FIVE or more units, that has off-street parking, is not able to get a space in that lot because is full and therefore UNAVAILBLE to them for lease or for free, they can get a street permit.

And the threshold of 5 of more units might pertain to why Prodigal son got a spot, depending on how many units that home had. Under 5 unit in building/home - get as many dang permits as you want. This happens in my hood. There's a homeowner in our parking zone with a 4 unit house, that has converted the back yard into a parking lot with about 5 spaces. He rents all those out for cash, and gets street permits for him and his family. They do not park their own cars there. Its infuriating.

JC also has no limit on number of vehicle permits per address. This is a big problem in terms of discouraging less car ownership. At least in Hoboken they increase the yearly cost of permits on a tiered price increase after the first permit.


Which completely validates the concerns of those in the original article.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 23:06
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 287
Offline

Parking eligibility interpretation has a learning curve - I appreciate the details.

Upon asking a senior parking official, "If 'they' provide a letter from ownership/management Co. stating there are no spaces available they are eligible for an on-street permit. They have to proof annually because availability is subject to change."




Quote:

Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

G. To assure that both prospective residential tenants and purchasers of property, including condominiums, are aware of the residential parking permit conditions imposed hereunder, every landlord and every seller shall, on or before the date a lease is executed or a deed is conveyed, provide the prospective tenant or buyer with a copy of Section 332-58.


But if a resident in a building of FIVE or more units, that has off-street parking, is not able to get a space in that lot because is full and therefore UNAVAILBLE to them for lease or for free, they can get a street permit.

And the threshold of 5 of more units might pertain to why Prodigal son got a spot, depending on how many units that home had. Under 5 unit in building/home - get as many dang permits as you want. This happens in my hood. There's a homeowner in our parking zone with a 4 unit house, that has converted the back yard into a parking lot with about 5 spaces. He rents all those out for cash, and gets street permits for him and his family. They do not park their own cars there. Its infuriating.

JC also has no limit on number of vehicle permits per address. This is a big problem in terms of discouraging less car ownership. At least in Hoboken they increase the yearly cost of permits on a tiered price increase after the first permit.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 22:50
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49
Last Login :
2018/6/12 15:20
From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 844
Offline
Quote:

jklm wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.


Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).


Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.


https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

G. To assure that both prospective residential tenants and purchasers of property, including condominiums, are aware of the residential parking permit conditions imposed hereunder, every landlord and every seller shall, on or before the date a lease is executed or a deed is conveyed, provide the prospective tenant or buyer with a copy of Section 332-58.


You are missing the point. Yes, you have to tell everyone this. But if a resident in a building of FIVE or more units, that has off-street parking, is not able to get a space in that lot because is full and therefore UNAVAILBLE to them for lease or for free, they can get a street permit.

And the threshold of 5 of more units might pertain to why Prodigal son got a spot, depending on how many units that home had. Under 5 unit in building/home - get as many dang permits as you want. This happens in my hood. There's a homeowner in our parking zone with a 4 unit house, that has converted the back yard into a parking lot with about 5 spaces. He rents all those out for cash, and gets street permits for him and his family. They do not park their own cars there. Its infuriating.

JC also has no limit on number of vehicle permits per address. This is a big problem in terms of discouraging less car ownership. At least in Hoboken they increase the yearly cost of permits on a tiered price increase after the first permit.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 21:56
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/5/26 20:32
Last Login :
2023/9/14 15:34
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 214
Offline
I can also tell you that I have gotten permits for two different homes that both had available parking for them. I don't think the parking authority is doing due diligence when someone applies for a permit.

Stop me if you've heard that one before, a rule is on the books in Jersey City and never enforced...

Posted on: 2016/2/23 21:49
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 287
Offline
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.


Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).


Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.


https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

G. To assure that both prospective residential tenants and purchasers of property, including condominiums, are aware of the residential parking permit conditions imposed hereunder, every landlord and every seller shall, on or before the date a lease is executed or a deed is conveyed, provide the prospective tenant or buyer with a copy of Section 332-58.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 21:49
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2023/7/17 17:42
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Banned
Posts: 5775
Offline
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.


OK, so back to DATA rather than hysteria! What is the average car ownership rate in Downtown new construction? Has ANY Downtown development topped out it's parking?

As I've said before, the traffic doomsayers about the Home Depot are my touchstone in being very skeptical about the next Development Apocalypse.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 21:42
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49
Last Login :
2018/6/12 15:20
From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 844
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.


Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).


Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 20:47
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/3/2 4:49
Last Login :
2018/6/12 15:20
From Downtown Ex Pat happy in McGinley Sq.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 844
Offline
Quote:

jklm wrote:
Buildings that come with off-street parking - even if it's not 1:1. Are NOT eligible for zone permit parking.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

E. Parking permits shall be issued to motor vehicles only upon application by the following persons:
(1)
A legal resident of the residential permit parking zone who (a) has a motor vehicle registered in his/her name or available for his/her exclusive use and under his/her control; and (b) resides in a property in which no off-street parking is available to residents, whether the off-street parking is provided free of charge or is only offered for a separate fee or rent.
(2)
A person who owns or leases commercial property and actively engages in business activity within a residential permit parking area or employee thereof (pay stubs shall be submitted for proof of employment). However, no more than one (1) parking permit may be issued for each employee for a motor vehicle registered to or under the control of such a person.
(3)
A person who is a current student of an educational institution (proof of current registration required) located in the residential parking permit zone.



You are interpreting this incorrectly, as I know through my direct dealings with the Parking Dept. Residents who can provide proof that the "no off-street parking is available" in the case where their building is full and therefore "not available" to them are granted street parking permits if they provide proof that they can't get a space in their building's lot/garage. So once its full, the street permits are free game for these new residents. This is one of the neighboring residents' concerns.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 20:46
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3932
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.


Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).

Posted on: 2016/2/23 19:42
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 287
Offline
Buildings that come with off-street parking - even if it's not 1:1. Are NOT eligible for zone permit parking.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

E. Parking permits shall be issued to motor vehicles only upon application by the following persons:
(1)
A legal resident of the residential permit parking zone who (a) has a motor vehicle registered in his/her name or available for his/her exclusive use and under his/her control; and (b) resides in a property in which no off-street parking is available to residents, whether the off-street parking is provided free of charge or is only offered for a separate fee or rent.
(2)
A person who owns or leases commercial property and actively engages in business activity within a residential permit parking area or employee thereof (pay stubs shall be submitted for proof of employment). However, no more than one (1) parking permit may be issued for each employee for a motor vehicle registered to or under the control of such a person.
(3)
A person who is a current student of an educational institution (proof of current registration required) located in the residential parking permit zone.


Posted on: 2016/2/23 19:34
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
2023/5/7 3:26
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1030
Offline
Quote:

sepecat wrote:
Not enough of parking per unit? Deed it out to certain unit, and move it it around for a profit of 70K. Glad the city is on the developers side.


It probably cost 20-30k per parking unit. For condo buildings, absolutely these spaces should be deeded to residents of the building. For apartments, it should be an addition to the unit rent (which is usually the case). Otherwise, folks that don't drive or don't use their parking space are subsidizing the car ownership. Free parking isn't free. Someone has to pick up the cost of the real estate.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 18:26
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
2023/5/7 3:26
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1030
Offline

Posted on: 2016/2/23 18:21
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/6/29 19:45
Last Login :
2019/3/21 20:55
From The Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 566
Offline
Not enough of parking per unit? Deed it out to certain unit, and move it it around for a profit of 70K. Glad the city is on the developers side.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 18:07
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2023/7/17 17:42
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Banned
Posts: 5775
Offline
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 17:27
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13
Last Login :
2021/7/30 1:08
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1225
Offline

bingo

both comments are on mark and confirm what i have seen and experienced over the past 20 years. though i do think the public has tried to hold developers accountable spending an inordinate amount of time (and money) but the city caves almost everytime. it appears as if the city is working on behalf of developers. i have seen developers sit in for the city's staff at hearings driving redevelopment plans.

i am all for reducing parking requirements, but not in this case, not for this project at the edge of downtown, and definitely not for this developer.

note that the rumored recommended replacement for the head of planning is perceived for doing the bidding of developers which is could be why there may be a good deal of public push back.

it is not fair play, we do not have a just city.

Quote:

sillyscorp wrote:
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Is the developer going to give something back to the community for this release from the agreement? I don't understand how they can get so close to being finished and then asked for these roll backs.


I agree with this comment -- the fight about should we have parking or shouldn't we and how much should have been had long ago (and probably was) with the planning board but unless there has been some crazy big change on the site that was impossible to expect (and no bad soil, contamination and flooding isn't in this category... that is pretty much a known issue here) then why are they getting out of the agreement that was decided on?

This is the biggest issues we have here IMO.... developers are able to get away with whatever they want and the public and the government do not hold them accountable.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 14:56
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/4/22 4:43
Last Login :
2022/8/30 8:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 441
Offline
Developers' last-minute changes are a totally valid concern, and they happen too often.

But in this case:

--The change requested is one that should be made for the good of the neighborhood, Downtown, and the city. It's intrinsically a good thing, and I don't need some giveback in exchange. I don't care if the developer builds a few more units and makes more money. That's even better. Less parking, more density, both good things for a less car-centric city.

--I can see why any developer, right now, would feel free to ask for this late in the process, because the concept, reducing parking minimums, has been gathering steam around the country. I don't love any last-minute change, and maybe there are some more hoops we should make them jump through. Maybe this should be rejected. But I don't see this a something done in horribly bad faith, rather just reacting to something that's increasingly seen as a win-win for developers and urban neighborhoods. So I think we should try to find a way to accept it, if that can be done without too much violence to law and procedure, setting a bad precedent, etc.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 14:46
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3932
Offline
Quote:

sillyscorp wrote:
This is the biggest issues we have here IMO.... developers are able to get away with whatever they want and the public and the government do not hold them accountable.


This is a very valid point and concern. It seems almost routine for developers to come back to the Council after construction is already started (or, even as it gets close to finishing) to request relief from terms to which they agreed during the building approval process. As I recently heard, the developers behind Provost Square are asking to be allowed to decrease the amount of ground floor retail that the remaining two towers are supposed to have based on the fact that The One was allowed to have a massive entrance with flowerbeds and all with little retail space.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 14:36
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
2023/5/7 3:26
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1030
Offline
Quote:

sillyscorp wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
It's sad that our culture views a developer that wants to produce less parking that was previously agreed upon as a bad thing. Folks on JJ are talking about pulling the abatement.

If the developer wanted to build more parking than was previous agreed, would folks celebrate on JJ be celebrating. Would JCListers still defend keeping to the original agreement without changes.



They are asking for the ok. Simply don't approve it at the planning commission and it shall be there.
personally I would still be asking what has changed.... any changes to the original agreement (more parking, less parking, more units, less units, more open space, less open space, roof decks etc) should come with compromise. Its not like the developer here is taking out some parking spots and putting in a nice community garden or a citi bike station. They are probably going to squeeze in another unit or something like that which means more money for them and "less" for the community. Will they be reducing over all height? or adding more green space? having additional services for the community? putting in permeable ground cover to decrease run off issues? doesn't sound that way to me

If it makes you feel better replace parking with any other amenity - the bottom line is there was an agreement based on one set of conditions and now they want to switch that up but don't want to change anything else and that to me isn't ok

Posted on: 2016/2/23 14:31
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3932
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
It's a self selection issue. Buildings built without parking are going to attract mostly residents that don't own a car. Buildings built with parking enables car ownership and will attract residents looking to keep their cars in the city.

It comes down to what kind of residents the city wants to attract.


Yes, and no. Agreed that buildings without parking will attract more residents that are car-less, but the opposite is not necessarily true. Check out Grove Pointe and 50 Columbus. They both have massive lots that sit mostly empty. I haven't been inside the parking lot at The Morgan, but I suspect that the same is true there based on their rates. 3:4 parking should be MORE THAN ENOUGH. Heck, even 1:2 should be fine.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 14:31
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/3/31 20:15
Last Login :
2017/6/16 2:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
It's sad that our culture views a developer that wants to produce less parking that was previously agreed upon as a bad thing. Folks on JJ are talking about pulling the abatement.

If the developer wanted to build more parking than was previous agreed, would folks celebrate on JJ be celebrating. Would JCListers still defend keeping to the original agreement without changes.



personally I would still be asking what has changed.... any changes to the original agreement (more parking, less parking, more units, less units, more open space, less open space, roof decks etc) should come with compromise. Its not like the developer here is taking out some parking spots and putting in a nice community garden or a citi bike station. They are probably going to squeeze in another unit or something like that which means more money for them and "less" for the community. Will they be reducing over all height? or adding more green space? having additional services for the community? putting in permeable ground cover to decrease run off issues? doesn't sound that way to me

If it makes you feel better replace parking with any other amenity - the bottom line is there was an agreement based on one set of conditions and now they want to switch that up but don't want to change anything else and that to me isn't ok

Posted on: 2016/2/23 14:29
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
2023/5/7 3:26
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1030
Offline
It's sad that our culture views a developer that wants to produce less parking that was previously agreed upon as a bad thing. Folks on JJ are talking about pulling the abatement.

If the developer wanted to build more parking than was previous agreed, would folks celebrate on JJ be celebrating. Would JCListers still defend keeping to the original agreement without changes.


Posted on: 2016/2/23 14:18
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/3/31 20:15
Last Login :
2017/6/16 2:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 172
Offline
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Is the developer going to give something back to the community for this release from the agreement? I don't understand how they can get so close to being finished and then asked for these roll backs.


I agree with this comment -- the fight about should we have parking or shouldn't we and how much should have been had long ago (and probably was) with the planning board but unless there has been some crazy big change on the site that was impossible to expect (and no bad soil, contamination and flooding isn't in this category... that is pretty much a known issue here) then why are they getting out of the agreement that was decided on?

This is the biggest issues we have here IMO.... developers are able to get away with whatever they want and the public and the government do not hold them accountable.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 14:06
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/5/26 20:32
Last Login :
2023/9/14 15:34
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 214
Offline
Is the developer going to give something back to the community for this release from the agreement? I don't understand how they can get so close to being finished and then asked for these roll backs.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 13:29
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
2023/5/7 3:26
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1030
Offline
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
IMO car owner ship is very high or you people have a lot of visitors with cars. I go dtjc about 2 x a month and there is never anywhere to park on the street.


This argument is not logical. If Jersey City's population were to double, and all new residents did not own cars, you still would not be able to find street parking because existing residents/visitors take all the spaces, but the car ownership rate wold be halved. Please think for a second.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 11:56
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
2023/5/7 3:26
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1030
Offline
It's a self selection issue. Buildings built without parking are going to attract mostly residents that don't own a car. Buildings built with parking enables car ownership and will attract residents looking to keep their cars in the city.

It comes down to what kind of residents the city wants to attract.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 11:48
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5356
Offline
IMO car owner ship is very high or you people have a lot of visitors with cars. I go dtjc about 2 x a month and there is never anywhere to park on the street.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 11:28
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
2020/9/30 18:46
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2391
Offline
Car ownership is very low in 07302. The fact that there is this obsession with having parking, and then expressing outrage when there is not a parking spot for every single fucking unit, is laugh worthy in new urbanism and is the exact opposite of how every other urban city is planning residences.

Vast majority of people who are moving to downtown JC are from: Kings, Queens, and New York county. Many, probably most, do NOT own cars. But a lot of these JC developments are including parking, so new residents, once already decided on JC, think "Hmm. There's a parking garage in our building! Maybe we SHOULD buy a car".

This is very bad for many reasons.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 5:05
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2023/7/17 17:42
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Banned
Posts: 5775
Offline
Quote:
Stringer wrote:

Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
February 22, 2016 at 2:35 PM

JERSEY CITY — A developer's request to reduce the number of required parking spaces for a building going up on 10th Street has residents worried about a coming parking crunch in the neighborhood.

Developer LeFrak had originally agreed to set aside 163 spots for the 163 units in its Revetment project, a six-story building going up on a block of the 10th Street Embankment in the Hamilton Park neighborhood. But tomorrow it will appear before the Planning Board to request lowering the required number of spaces to 123.

Read more:  http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... development_decrease.html

What am I missing? These residents presumably will be unable to get zone permits based on living in this property. Has anyone ever done a study of actual car ownership in Downtown new developments? I know some people don't register here, but still there's data out there.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 4:20
 Top 




« 1 2 (3) 4 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017