Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
69 user(s) are online (63 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 69

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 (2) 3 4 »


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/4/22 4:43
Last Login :
2019/6/17 1:32
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 418
Offline
Quote:

Suntime wrote:
While i respect your opinion and i myself lived carless for many years (almost a decade) in jersey city, i can tell you that if you have children, you have to have a car in this city. It is a must. If you want to drive out (no pun intended) all of the families from the city, then go ahead and advocate for a carless/car unfriendly policies. Families make good neighbors and are often the folks who are doing great work to improve the city and its services, keep it clean, supporting local business, volunteering. Quality of life for families is important too.

As a single person, i often didn't enjoy not having a car. I often felt kinda stuck. I like to be able to get out of the city on occasion and take road trips to other places, including visiting family and friends. Let's not fool ourselves - this isn't Europe where there is amazing rail service and other public transport that can easily take you to many different cities and even countries with relative ease. The train is great for nyc area and maybe some parts of jersey, but thats about it. I ofen see many people who grew up in a city and rarely left it - i dont enjoy that lifestyle.


I for one am not arguing that YOU can't have a car, or that many parents and others who find they need cars can't have them.

The policies we're talking about aren't designed to drive you out, they're designed so that the new people we attract are more likely to be those without cars.

That's vital for your sake as much as anyone's, because while off-street parking space can be expanded, on-street driving space can't.

As the city grows, we MUST decrease the per-capita rate of car ownership, or we'll just have more and more people competing to drive more and more cars in the same, finite amount of street space?and ultimately, you, the driver, will suffer as much from that as anyone, maybe more.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:08
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#60
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
While i respect your opinion and i myself lived carless for many years (almost a decade) in jersey city, i can tell you that if you have children, you have to have a car in this city. It is a must. If you want to drive out (no pun intended) all of the families from the city, then go ahead and advocate for a carless/car unfriendly policies. Families make good neighbors and are often the folks who are doing great work to improve the city and its services, keep it clean, supporting local business, volunteering. Quality of life for families is important too.

As a single person, i often didn't enjoy not having a car. I often felt kinda stuck. I like to be able to get out of the city on occasion and take road trips to other places, including visiting family and friends. Let's not fool ourselves - this isn't Europe where there is amazing rail service and other public transport that can easily take you to many different cities and even countries with relative ease. The train is great for nyc area and maybe some parts of jersey, but thats about it. I ofen see many people who grew up in a city and rarely left it - i dont enjoy that lifestyle.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 17:58
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
10/22 22:36
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 968
Offline
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Well said, and I just have one item in which I strongly disagree with you on. The people in power get it, from the planning department to the the Fulop administration to all his detractors on council. The new developments with the lease amount of parking in the city are located in Journal Square. It's nearly a 1:10 ratio for some developments there. It's silly when contrasted to the downtown and the 1:1 mandate, especially since the garages are not being filled up.

But the city must follow the will of the people and 200 residents showed up a couple nights ago to demand that a variance not be granted and to force the developer to keep the 1:1 ratio. The city must follow the will of the people.

There is a large segment of the population that will like to see a more urban and pedestrian-friendly environment, but we're terribly unorganized. The are no less than a dozens neighborhood associations that are extremely well organized. They are the ones advocating for the 1:1 parking requirement and they have the ear of council as a result. They write letters to the editor and get their position in the papers for all to read. We need someone who believes in the urban and pedestrian-friendly environment that will organize like minded individuals, have us show up on council meetings, and toot the benefits in the papers for all to read.

Right now all we do is debate on these forums which is not good enough.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 16:46
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#58
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: 2897
Offline
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be. It's more akin to Queens, with much higher car ownership rates.

If "the parking bullshit" bothers you so much, you can always move right across the river. As long as we keep getting new developments like the one across from City Hall, ensuring that new residents can park their cars without flooding the streets doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 16:45
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/12/28 17:08
Last Login :
5/12 12:57
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 902
Offline
Data in 07302 shows a 60% car ownership. Much of the problem on the streets is that permit parking only goes till 5pm, which everyone knows means 3pm since there is a 2 hour grace period. If permit parking went 24 hours, there would be a lot fewer cars on the street.

Additionally, permits are way to cheap.

Third, I'm all for low parking minimums (even 0) in 07302.

Garage doors affect the quality of the streetscape, there are scores of studies and surveys that back this up. Certain downtown blocks that have excess garages or front yard parking are an eyesore, and it is a shame. If you need a car, don't live in the neighborhood or accept that parking is a pain in the neck. It's a great way to promote a walkable, transit heavy community. If you need a car, cool, live in Lafayette or the Heights or one of the buildings that does have parking. Problem solved.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 16:45
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/4/22 4:43
Last Login :
2019/6/17 1:32
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 418
Offline
Exactly. All other measures for walkability/bikeability/livability of cities are great and necessary, with mass transit being especially in need of improvement around here; however, all those measures are undermined when you simultaneously cater to the car.

Monroe: Why make libertarian/choice arguments here? Love them or hate them, parking minimums aren't the free market, they're government regulation.

And much of car monoculture is supported by huge subsidies from the general tax base, from excessive road construction, to virtually free parking on publicly owned and maintained street space, to wars protecting oil dictatorships ...

This is one thing that always amazes me about the empire of the car: How few people realize that it's actually supported by a perverted socialism, a collection of big-gummint/crony-corporate programs, horribly misdirected to encourage the most destructive mode of land transportation.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 16:43
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#55
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: 2294
Offline
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 16:20
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
10/22 22:36
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 968
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone gay. Don't like cars? Don't own one.

Good job on the vote!


Don't want a downtown area you moved to specifically because of it's walk-able character overrun by parking decks? F you.

The funny thing about all these fights, is the DT that so many of us like would be illegal to actually build now given the current view on parking.


Says who? Just mandate street level retail to go along with the parking. That new development right across from City Hall is a perfect example.


It's not the same feel as the parking garage above overpowers the retail.

Resized Image

Resized Image

Although, the one across city hall is designed well for what it's worth.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 15:55
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#53
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: 2897
Offline
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone gay. Don't like cars? Don't own one.

Good job on the vote!


Don't want a downtown area you moved to specifically because of it's walk-able character overrun by parking decks? F you.

The funny thing about all these fights, is the DT that so many of us like would be illegal to actually build now given the current view on parking.


Says who? Just mandate street level retail to go along with the parking. That new development right across from City Hall is a perfect example.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 15:36
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone gay. Don't like cars? Don't own one.

Good job on the vote!


Don't want a downtown area you moved to specifically because of it's walk-able character overrun by parking decks? F you.

The funny thing about all these fights, is the DT that so many of us like would be illegal to actually build now given the current view on parking.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 14:43
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4442
Offline
Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone gay. Don't like cars? Don't own one.

Good job on the vote!

Posted on: 2016/2/25 2:53
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 18:20
Last Login :
Today 1:28
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2627
Offline

Parking change sought by developer rejected by Jersey City board

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
February 24, 2016 at 6:30 PM

JERSEY CITY — Faced with overwhelming opposition from residents, the city Planning Board last night voted down a request by developer LeFrak to lower the number of parking spaces planned for a building it is constructing on 10th Street.

About two dozen residents of the city's Hamilton Park neighborhood spoke in opposition to the request, saying they already have difficulty finding on-street parking and worry about fighting with extra motorists for spaces.

"It was a true testament to the power of the citizens to shape and truly make Jersey City their own," said Shannon Pennock, who sits on the board of the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association, told The Jersey Journal about last night's decision.

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


Posted on: 2016/2/25 2:41
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/30 20:03
Last Login :
12/4 19:30
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 357
Offline
My letter worked.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 2:33
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
10/22 22:36
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 968
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

Good news.


*Sigh* There's widespread celebration that the building is forced to provide parking at the 1:1 rate prescribed in the zoning in a city where the percentage of households with car ownership is only at 60 percent.

The Planning Commission heard from the public and absolutely made the right call in denying the variance. It's our zoning ordinance that needs to be reformed.

I understand the concern of the local neighborhood association that there would be a greater potential for new residents of the building to take up a limited supply of zone parking spaces should the garage fill. It's a legitimate concern. I'm disappointed at others like DanL which jumped on the bandwagon but his opposition was that while he supported lower parking standards, but not for this particular developer. An old grudge interferes with what otherwise he believes is good city policy.

Quote:

DanL wrote:

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.



It's a pity we can't find an innovative solution to balance of addressing existing residents concerns and the pains of a growing city.

Is it legally possible, as a condition of rezoning, to specify that residents in the new building are not eligible for on-street zone parking permits, and that owners of new developments be obligated to include a rider on their lease agreement in which a perspective tenant must sign?

The idea, if legally permissible, would protect on-street spaces and the development would most likely to attract households without a car, or ones willing to pay for space in a private garage.

Again, that may not be legally possible but we need great minds to come up with innovative solutions to our parking and transit problems and not just words inciting a lynch mob against a developer.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 22:38
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#47
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: 2897
Offline
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

MattSchapiro wrote:
So what happened with this last night? Did they get the variance?


No. Voted down unanimously.


Good news.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 18:39
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
Quote:

CandiceOsborne wrote:
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.


So that means Jersey City is 38% car free! That is much better than I would have thought - that puts us in line with DC and Boston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... _households_without_a_car

Posted on: 2016/2/24 18:38
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
9/1 11:32
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1398
Offline
Quote:

MattSchapiro wrote:
So what happened with this last night? Did they get the variance?


No. Voted down unanimously.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 18:19
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
Quote:

MattSchapiro wrote:
So what happened with this last night? Did they get the variance?


They did not get the variance.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 18:18
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#43
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: 810
Offline
Quote:

MikeyTBC wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
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.


I haven't found this to be true. I live in a building that sits on Dixon Mills footprint but isn't Dixon Mills and cannot rent spots from Dixon Mills. The zoning incorrectly includes my building (12 units) therefore I am shut out from parking at Dixon Mills and cannot get a street parking permit.
I've been exchanging emails with Ms. Osbourne's office for almost two years, as well as numerous exchanges with Fulop when he was a councilman. I'm told the laws have to be rewritten and then I don't hear anything back.

I've been renting a third party spot for years and at this point have gotten used to it, but it drives me batty that this just can't get corrected so that other tenants can get permits.


I know your building as I lived in Dixon right above their main office for many years. Have you gotten a litter from both Dixon and your landlord stating that parking is not available to you? That should do it.

Sounds like you are stuck in a zoning error which stinks.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 16:45
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5564
Offline
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
or better yet, maybe the city does an actual study of car ownership DT and in the new construction so they can use data to make decisions.


Why use actual data when you can use guesswork, demagoguery and hysteria?

Posted on: 2016/2/24 16:22
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/9/20 14:11
Last Login :
2020/3/19 16:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 891
Offline
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
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.


I haven't found this to be true. I live in a building that sits on Dixon Mills footprint but isn't Dixon Mills and cannot rent spots from Dixon Mills. The zoning incorrectly includes my building (12 units) therefore I am shut out from parking at Dixon Mills and cannot get a street parking permit.
I've been exchanging emails with Ms. Osbourne's office for almost two years, as well as numerous exchanges with Fulop when he was a councilman. I'm told the laws have to be rewritten and then I don't hear anything back.

I've been renting a third party spot for years and at this point have gotten used to it, but it drives me batty that this just can't get corrected so that other tenants can get permits.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 15:06

Edited by MikeyTBC on 2016/2/24 15:22:34
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#40
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/6/10 18:23
Last Login :
2018/5/25 7:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 87
Offline
So what happened with this last night? Did they get the variance?

Posted on: 2016/2/24 14:57
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#39
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: 156
Offline
also remember that with the current rules many people who use a car for work don't actually need to get a permit (since they are gone from 8am-5pm when the parking rules are in effect) so regardless of the ability to get a pass there is likelihood that some people who live in that building will park on the street over night

I know that there was some push to change that but currently you don't even need a permit if you work a normal 9-5 Job

(I would know as I lived here for 3 years without one since my car was leased by my company and JCPA wouldn't let me register it here as the registration wasn't to a JC address but in the end it didn't matter .... I just got a few visitor parking passes for days I was home sick)

Posted on: 2016/2/24 12:52
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
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.


That's funny because I live in DTJC and generally have very little trouble parking.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 12:45
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
Quote:

CandiceOsborne wrote:

2 - the vast majority of buildings downtown that have parking availability are NOT filled up



This is really the crux of it. I can understand wanting to leave a bit of a cushion so there aren't a bunch of new cars looking for spots, but 1:1 just seems absurd. No building is filling up at 1:1. You want a big, big cushion? leave it at .8:1 (or better yet, maybe the city does an actual study of car ownership DT and in the new construction so they can use data to make decisions.)

Posted on: 2016/2/24 12:42
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#36
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: 2294
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.


Ok, so the rowhouses that line the streets that you try to park on. Each one of them on average holds between 3 and 6 residents. Each house is wide enough for one parked car. Very few downtowners own cars.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 4:50
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#35
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: 107
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:

Thank you. Just to explore the possibilities though, the affluence of Downtown could offset the presumed lower ownership due to transit proximity. It would be great to actually have these numbers, how can a Planning Dept possibly do it's job without them? I've heard we live in the era of "big data"...


Totally agree and they very well might (I just personally don't know it.)

Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:45
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5564
Offline
Quote:

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


Thank you. Just to explore the possibilities though, the affluence of Downtown could offset the presumed lower ownership due to transit proximity. It would be great to actually have these numbers, how can a Planning Dept possibly do it's job without them? I've heard we live in the era of "big data"...

Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:42
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#33
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: 107
Offline
To address a couple of points here:

1- if the address isn't covered in the zone definition it doesn't matter if the building has parking or not, it still isn't eligible for zone parking. So the answer on this isn't clear cut but depends on the building.

2 - the vast majority of buildings downtown that have parking availability are NOT filled up

3 - parking authority has list of all buildings with 30 or more units and if the address is included in zone parking they don't give out permits unless they demonstrate the parking is full. I get the complaints from those residents who think it isn't fair that they have to pay for parking and other residents don't.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:28
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/30 20:03
Last Login :
12/4 19:30
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 357
Offline
What did the planning board vote? I sent a note to Mr. Cotter (not that Mr. Cotter). . . requesting to not revise and appease the developers change of plans. Also, why do they have these meetings at 5:30 PM. If they moved it to 7 PM, wouldn't attendance increase, or is that the point. Less is best.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:21
 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