Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
45 user(s) are online (31 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 45

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 (3) 4 »


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/22 15:28
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 731
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

It doesn't matter if YOU are willing to spend more of your salary on rent. Developers/bankers/loaners use guidelines such as 40x (current going rate in most of NYC) because they know that is a PRUDENT risk for them to take on. Allowing people to commit to expenses that high relative to their earning power/capability is part of the reason why we found ourselves in the mortgage crisis. Some people just can't manage their own finances and do not understand money and are too often too willing to accept risks that are not prudent.


This is very true, just because you want to rent doesn't mean a developer will let you. Still, the guidelines are pretty flexible and I think they allow pretty high percentage of salary before they reject you.

Another thing to keep in mind is that 40% of your salary can leave very little wiggle room when you're making 30k, but a lot of discretionary money when you're making 100k.


No it can't. $100k is a really mediocre salary and no way that will be true unless there's a huge bonus involved.


Really? It's all pretty relative. If you're single (I assume the people in this building will be single) and making $100k you are doing pretty well, even in this area. Consider you could spend $2k a month on rent and it would be about the same as someone making ~$70k and living rent free.

Posted on: 2014/9/10 12:39
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 17:31
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 786
Offline
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

It doesn't matter if YOU are willing to spend more of your salary on rent. Developers/bankers/loaners use guidelines such as 40x (current going rate in most of NYC) because they know that is a PRUDENT risk for them to take on. Allowing people to commit to expenses that high relative to their earning power/capability is part of the reason why we found ourselves in the mortgage crisis. Some people just can't manage their own finances and do not understand money and are too often too willing to accept risks that are not prudent.


This is very true, just because you want to rent doesn't mean a developer will let you. Still, the guidelines are pretty flexible and I think they allow pretty high percentage of salary before they reject you.

Another thing to keep in mind is that 40% of your salary can leave very little wiggle room when you're making 30k, but a lot of discretionary money when you're making 100k.


No it can't. $100k is a really mediocre salary and no way that will be true unless there's a huge bonus involved.

Posted on: 2014/9/10 12:31
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#50
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/10 14:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 134
Offline
Glad to see progressive, high density development winning out over the parking NIMBYs. I seriously can't believe this is still going on and VVPA and Candice were doing a disservice by dragging this through the courts when it didn't have a chance of being stopped.

You can all say this isn't about parking all you want but somehow that keeps coming up as point number one on any news article or press release relating to this project. This is the kind of development that belongs in a dense city and the type that most other forward thinking cities in the US would be actively courting.

We should be glad that an empty lot surrounding by rusted old fencing on a not particularly scenic road will now be providing (relatively) affordable housing. Hopefully this, the pedestrian plaza, and other initiatives will send a message to the Yvonnes of the world that cities can't be preserved in amber forever.

Posted on: 2014/9/10 12:20
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/22 15:28
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 731
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

It doesn't matter if YOU are willing to spend more of your salary on rent. Developers/bankers/loaners use guidelines such as 40x (current going rate in most of NYC) because they know that is a PRUDENT risk for them to take on. Allowing people to commit to expenses that high relative to their earning power/capability is part of the reason why we found ourselves in the mortgage crisis. Some people just can't manage their own finances and do not understand money and are too often too willing to accept risks that are not prudent.


This is very true, just because you want to rent doesn't mean a developer will let you. Still, the guidelines are pretty flexible and I think they allow pretty high percentage of salary before they reject you.

Another thing to keep in mind is that 40% of your salary can leave very little wiggle room when you're making 30k, but a lot of discretionary money when you're making 100k.

Posted on: 2014/9/10 11:51
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/2/5 17:36
Group:
Banned
Posts: 231
Offline
WHoelsecould it be - A developer should negotiate because sometimes when they don't, they lose - even in JC. The Village association recently defeated a proposed building seeking variances. A full blown hearing ook place before the Jersey City Board of zoning. see letter from Village website, posted below:

Dear Village Resident

Over the past several months, the Village Neighborhood Association Board of Directors (VNA) engaged in a significant and successful effort to make sure that the concerns of the community and adjoining property owners were taken into consideration regarding a proposed twenty unit, five story apartment complex at 377-383 Fourth Street.

The proposed apartment complex was to sit immediately adjacent to Public School 5 and six residential properties. The proposed building was to be about the same height as the school and would have blocked sunlight to the easterly facing windows of PS 5 where young children seek to learn and grow. The complex as proposed would have also towered over both the schoolyard, which includes a children’s garden, and the many adjacent residential homes and their backyards.

The VNA actively communicated with both the owner and his representatives as well as the Division of City Planning. The VNA’s goals were to strike a proper balance between what was being proposed and what is currently permissible for the location (one and two family 3 story homes). While we made some progress (the original proposal was for an even larger apartment complex with a massive party deck), unfortunately a compromise was not reached.

At a public hearing before the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustments on Thursday April 17, 2014, the VNA and members of the community voiced their concerns and objections to the proposed project. We were appreciative of the Zoning Board for taking the time to carefully consider our objections. It was apparent to us that they cared deeply about the Village neighborhood, and at one point during the proceedings, the chairwoman commented that “the Village neighborhood is one of the last funky and cool neighborhoods in Jersey City”, and “attention should be given to preserving this aspect of the neighborhood”. This prompted a spontaneous round of applause from the many VNA members in attendance. We couldn’t have agreed more. At the conclusion of the hearing (which lasted two hours), the Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny the needed variances to construct the proposed project. The efforts of the VNA and community proved both worthwhile and successful.

We are often asked “What do neighborhood associations do?” Looking back on the hundreds of hours the team had collectively spent over the past few months, this effort perfectly answered that question. For the past seven years, the VNA has maintained a process designed to handle similar demands on our neighborhood from quality of life issues to development. The VNA was able to quickly mobilize and connect the dots between city agencies, developer, PS 5 school community, and Village residents through a clear strategy and dissemination of timely and accurate information about the proposed project.

The VNA will continue to fight passionately on behalf of the children of PS5 and members of the Village community as we vigilantly represent our neighborhood. Moving forward, and as we stated to the owner, we look to continue our discussions in regards to the development of 377-383 Fourth Street so that a mutually agreeable project can be accomplished. We will provide updates and feedback to the community regarding any changes to the project’s status.

Regards,

VNA Board of Directors

Posted on: 2014/9/10 11:51
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3303
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:

When I rented in manhattan, it was 50

Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:
At 1800, does that mean the tenant needs to make approximately 50X (like in nyc?) i.e., 90,000?


Where do you get that number? 1/3 of salary on rent (or 36x) to 40x is the commonly quoted figures I see in rental discussions. $1800 would mean $64,800 income at 1/3.


I think as the economy continues to get worse, it is becoming more acceptable to spend a larger portion of your gross salary on rent.


It doesn't matter if YOU are willing to spend more of your salary on rent. Developers/bankers/loaners use guidelines such as 40x (current going rate in most of NYC) because they know that is a PRUDENT risk for them to take on. Allowing people to commit to expenses that high relative to their earning power/capability is part of the reason why we found ourselves in the mortgage crisis. Some people just can't manage their own finances and do not understand money and are too often too willing to accept risks that are not prudent.

Posted on: 2014/9/10 11:04
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/13 21:38
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3404
Offline
honestly, if one is living in a micro-unit, what are the chances that one will have a car when public transport and zipcars are readily available.

Posted on: 2014/9/10 7:54
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 15:38
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2910
Offline
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:

When I rented in manhattan, it was 50

Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:
At 1800, does that mean the tenant needs to make approximately 50X (like in nyc?) i.e., 90,000?


Where do you get that number? 1/3 of salary on rent (or 36x) to 40x is the commonly quoted figures I see in rental discussions. $1800 would mean $64,800 income at 1/3.


I think as the economy continues to get worse, it is becoming more acceptable to spend a larger portion of your gross salary on rent.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 20:58
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/10/18 14:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 514
Offline

When I rented in manhattan, it was 50

Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:
At 1800, does that mean the tenant needs to make approximately 50X (like in nyc?) i.e., 90,000?


Where do you get that number? 1/3 of salary on rent (or 36x) to 40x is the commonly quoted figures I see in rental discussions. $1800 would mean $64,800 income at 1/3.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 19:43
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 7:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

FakeGreenDress wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

FakeGreenDress wrote:
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:

It's supposed to provide a cost-effective alternative for people starting out in the work force. So i presume about 1200-1500 for a 400 sq ft unit.


Try up to $1800, per one of the articles posted the last time this was in the news. You can still get a real apartment in the neighborhood for that price.


If so, people won't rent there then right?


Or other apartments in the neighborhood will jump in rent.


How do you figure?

Posted on: 2014/9/9 18:46
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/4/23 11:27
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 264
Offline
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

FakeGreenDress wrote:
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:

It's supposed to provide a cost-effective alternative for people starting out in the work force. So i presume about 1200-1500 for a 400 sq ft unit.


Try up to $1800, per one of the articles posted the last time this was in the news. You can still get a real apartment in the neighborhood for that price.


If so, people won't rent there then right?


Or other apartments in the neighborhood will jump in rent.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 18:07
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4995
Offline
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:
At 1800, does that mean the tenant needs to make approximately 50X (like in nyc?) i.e., 90,000?


Where do you get that number? 1/3 of salary on rent (or 36x) to 40x is the commonly quoted figures I see in rental discussions. $1800 would mean $64,800 income at 1/3.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 18:03
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/9 15:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1854
Offline
Quote:
by asny10011 on 2014/9/9 16:10
It's supposed to provide a cost-effective alternative for people starting out in the work force. So i presume about 1200-1500 for a 400 sq ft unit.


An excerpt from a good article about the development from the Hudson Reporter - written in September 2013
-----------------------

"To keep the residents from going stir crazy in their mini apartments, Rushman said the building will include several common spaces that will give residents a sense of space and foster community. These communal spaces include an on-site, multi-level gym that will span all five floors of the development, two community rooms, a coffee bar, and hallway seating on each floor.

The on-site property manager, he said, “Will be less of a ‘handyman’ and more like a social director who will organize events and activities for the residents.”

Prices have not been set for the units, Rushman said. But current rough estimates for rent range from about $1,600 on the low end to $1,800, depending on the size of the unit and whether it has a balcony. The market-rate housing units are being built without federal or state subsidies. Thus, there will be no government mandated income requirements residents will have to meet, as with affordable and workforce housing.

Rushman added that he and Dillon have already had conversations with Jersey City Medical Center about ways to market the units to recent medical school graduates doing their residency at the hospital, which is about four blocks away from Bright and Varick."


Read more: Hudson Reporter - Tiny apartments Hudson County s first micro unit development planned for Jersey City

Posted on: 2014/9/9 17:27
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/10/18 14:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 514
Offline
At 1800, does that mean the tenant needs to make approximately 50X (like in nyc?) i.e., 90,000?


Quote:

FakeGreenDress wrote:
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:

It's supposed to provide a cost-effective alternative for people starting out in the work force. So i presume about 1200-1500 for a 400 sq ft unit.


Try up to $1800, per one of the articles posted the last time this was in the news. You can still get a real apartment in the neighborhood for that price.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 17:11
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 7:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

FakeGreenDress wrote:
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:

It's supposed to provide a cost-effective alternative for people starting out in the work force. So i presume about 1200-1500 for a 400 sq ft unit.


Try up to $1800, per one of the articles posted the last time this was in the news. You can still get a real apartment in the neighborhood for that price.


If so, people won't rent there then right?

Posted on: 2014/9/9 17:02
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/4/23 11:27
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 264
Offline
Quote:

asny10011 wrote:

It's supposed to provide a cost-effective alternative for people starting out in the work force. So i presume about 1200-1500 for a 400 sq ft unit.


Try up to $1800, per one of the articles posted the last time this was in the news. You can still get a real apartment in the neighborhood for that price.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 16:32
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/10/18 14:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 514
Offline

It's supposed to provide a cost-effective alternative for people starting out in the work force. So i presume about 1200-1500 for a 400 sq ft unit.

Quote:

Fomite wrote:
I'm not understanding why this is controversial. I'm excited about the units, I hope my friends move into them. I wonder how much they will be.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 16:10
Print Top


Re: Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City
#35
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/4/20 17:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 97
Offline
I'm not understanding why this is controversial. I'm excited about the units, I hope my friends move into them. I wonder how much they will be.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 15:44
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 13:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2309
Offline
Judge OKs site plan for controversial 'micro-unit' project in Jersey City

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
September 09, 2014 at 11:16 AM

A Hudson County Superior Court judge has given the OK for a developer to build 87 "micro-units" in Downtown Jersey City that residents fear will create a "Hoboken-like" atmosphere in their neighborhood.

Judge Joseph A. Turula has granted what is known as "automatic approval" to developer Rushman-Dillon Project's plans for the micro-unit development, saying city planning officials failed to act within 95 days of deeming the developer's plans complete.

Turula's 12-page ruling, filed on Aug. 29 and released yesterday, allows the developer to move ahead with its site plan without a review by the Planning Board.

The ruling deals a blow to the city's last-minute attempts to halt construction on the project. After initially calling Rushmon-Dillon's site plans complete in October 2013, the city reversed course in January, denying the developer's application after hearing complaints from residents. Rushman-Dillon then sued the city.

In his ruling, Turula called the city's eventual denial of the developer's plans "untimely made and ... therefore, void."

Construction on the five-story building is expected to begin next spring at the corner of Bright and Varick streets. Rushman-Dillon believes the compact units, smaller than 400 square feet each, will attract recent college graduates and other young, urban professionals to the area. The development will include zero parking spaces.

Read more from the Jersey Journal

Posted on: 2014/9/9 13:45
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/9/10 13:55
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1211
Offline
K-Lo did not write that.

Posted on: 2014/9/9 12:36
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/7/15 15:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 157
Offline
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
The community, should have been before the planning board negotiating a workable site plan, not in the gallery of a court room watching the city attorneys get trounced!


Why isn't the development "workable"?

Posted on: 2014/9/9 11:02
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/9/6 11:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 639
Offline
I think you've answered my question. Thank you.

Posted on: 2014/9/8 22:28
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/1/10 17:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
The planner followed the local and state laws, as they have done for years. The same laws that rebuilt the city and made it desirable for guys like you and other finger pointers to live here. Without their work, you would be living in Maplewood!

Posted on: 2014/9/8 21:14
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1166
Offline
show me where the proposed density changes were disclosed and presented to the neighborhood association (the people that lived there) in advance of the changes made. were the changes summarized on a website, other than buried in a document. they withheld information.

yeah, they saw it as it was, but failed to give those nearby a chance to have a say.

And to make it worse, Yvonne Balcer is on tape asking what the changes were at the council meeting where the changes were approved and the city failed to disclose them accurately.

stop blaming the people who care and are vested in their community.





Quote:

donnajc65 wrote:
Dan, so, are you saying that the planners lied to the community.That the planners deliberately deceived the community to up zone the lot on Varick and Bright Street, because they are part of a vast development conspiracy to change the city to resemble Manhattan! You know better. The planners wrote the plan the way they saw it. Many of then live in the neighborhood and own homes in the neighborhood. They wrote the plan as they saw it. And in the process tried to address the critical need to entry level housing. That is what we pay the planners to do, plan and address the needs of the city!

Posted on: 2014/9/8 21:03
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/9/6 11:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 639
Offline
Quote:

donnajc65 wrote:
Dan, so, are you saying that the planners lied to the community.That the planners deliberately deceived the community to up zone the lot on Varick and Bright Street,


That's the way I see it.
Do you work for Government, Donna?

Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:50
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/1/10 17:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 161
Offline
Dan, so, are you saying that the planners lied to the community.That the planners deliberately deceived the community to up zone the lot on Varick and Bright Street, because they are part of a vast development conspiracy to change the city to resemble Manhattan! You know better. The planners wrote the plan the way they saw it. Many of then live in the neighborhood and own homes in the neighborhood. They wrote the plan as they saw it. And in the process tried to address the critical need to entry level housing. That is what we pay the planners to do, plan and address the needs of the city!

Posted on: 2014/9/8 20:39
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1884
Offline
Quote:

DanL wrote:
no the problem was that the city lied to the community from the get go and gave approvals that most people had they known would not have agreed to. welcome to the jersey city way.

its should have been stopped before approvals. unfortunately the city up zoned and create a new right of.

Why should the development have been stopped? Why would the approvals not have been agreed to?

Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:27
Dos A Cero
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1166
Offline
no the problem was that the city lied to the community from the get go and gave approvals that most people had they known would not have agreed to. welcome to the jersey city way.

its should have been stopped before approvals. unfortunately the city up zoned and create a new right of.





Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The stubbornness of the VVPNA couldn't understand the legalities of contracts and planning agreements - Its a pity the VVPNA couldn't be forced to cough up the funds needed to pay the court costs - The VVPNA's committee have proven to be inept and their lobby caused our taxes to be wasted.

This is a case of society (this lobby group) having no understanding of the legal issue, but still pushing forward - The VVPNA should review their committee and dump them for new one's.

Note: Cityhall basically acts on behalf of the community and unfortunately 'he who barks the loudest' in this case should NOT have been heard!

Posted on: 2014/9/8 19:01
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 13:42
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4132
Offline
The stubbornness of the VVPNA couldn't understand the legalities of contracts and planning agreements - Its a pity the VVPNA couldn't be forced to cough up the funds needed to pay the court costs - The VVPNA's committee have proven to be inept and their lobby caused our taxes to be wasted.

This is a case of society (this lobby group) having no understanding of the legal issue, but still pushing forward - The VVPNA should review their committee and dump them for new one's.

Note: Cityhall basically acts on behalf of the community and unfortunately 'he who barks the loudest' in this case should NOT have been heard!

Posted on: 2014/9/8 17:42
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
Print Top


Re: City lost the law suit against Varick and Bright Developer!!
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 7:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Why indeed.


No seriously, why would he?

Posted on: 2014/9/8 17:25
Print 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