JCMan8 wrote:
... the problem seems to be the lack of temporary parking if you needed to drive somewhere. Seems like some say there is nowhere near enough parking and more spaces must be added while others think there's plenty of temporary parking. Might want to focus the discussion on that, because I agree that cities should be required to provide enough temporary parking spots to accommodate most. Shouldn't have to drive around 20 min looking for a spot if you need to drive somewhere.

maybeMoving wrote:
Thank god this message board isn't in charge of urban planning. You all are fighting against the progression of the end of the autocentric era. It's happening whether you like it or not. We're in the enviable position of having a truly dense and walkable downtown with good public transit, something that most progressive cities strive for, and you all want to turn us into Charlotte.

Taking up the first five floors of every new building with parking lots and leaving the street wall with an ugly as hell vented concrete wall is some very backwards thinking these days. I know lots of old timers here want to pretend that JC isn't increasingly becoming a de facto borough but that's the reality. The people that are moving into new luxury buildings are by and large commuting into Manhattan. Hate to break it to you, but that's the draw for Jersey City and what is driving the amenities and development here.

If you (Yvonne) think we need to worry about someone getting a boot while going to a funeral, well that's a laughable outlier of an occassion and you can go ahead and pay the $10 to park in a lot. Move to the suburbs already.

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
If you truly believe there are plenty of parking spaces in this city since the population boom you either do not drive a car or you are doing what you do best... trolling!

There are spaces.. you just have to pay for them. How is paying for property that you use unfair?

No, there are not if you read my post below... there are no spaces to rent for a few hours in GV, Lincoln Park, The Heights, Bergen Hill, West Side and SGV the only areas that provide valet parking or hourly parking is Journal Square and DTJC.

Except the complainers like you just want to add more parking to Journal Square and DJTC, the only places where major new construction is happening where more spaces could be mandated. So, what's your point?

JCishome wrote:
This "property" argument is kind of silly. I like to sit at those tables in Grove Plaza and eat lunch. Should I pay rent? I also take my dog to the dog run at VVP - should he kick in a few bucks? I warn you, Henry is a notoriously bad tipper.

Cities provide public services like streets, stoplights, fire departments. And yeah, parking. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be some permits required to keep commuters from grabbing the free spots, or that people who want free parking shouldn't have to search for it, but this argument that street parking should be sold to the highest bidder is kind of dumb.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
If you truly believe there are plenty of parking spaces in this city since the population boom you either do not drive a car or you are doing what you do best... trolling!

There are spaces.. you just have to pay for them. How is paying for property that you use unfair?

No, there are not if you read my post below... there are no spaces to rent for a few hours in GV, Lincoln Park, The Heights, Bergen Hill, West Side and SGV the only areas that provide valet parking or hourly parking is Journal Square and DTJC.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
... Cities provide public services like streets, stoplights, fire departments. And yeah, parking. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be some permits required to keep commuters from grabbing the free spots, or that people who want free parking shouldn't have to search for it, but this argument that street parking should be sold to the highest bidder is kind of dumb.

They shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder--some subsidization is fair and no doubt necessary for a functioning economy and society in a still-car-centric state.

But they shouldn't be free (or 1% of true value) either. Unlike firefighting or dog runs, street parking is a commodity for which demand exceeds supply; charging a higher fee can reduce that demand, making it easier to obtain for people who need it most. And reducing that demand also carries myriad other benefits to the city, from less pollution to less road wear and less competition for driving space.

I think many people are improperly conflating the concept of "permanent" parking for residents (whether in a garage or on the street) with "temporary" parking you'd need if you were driving to a store and needed to park your car.

Seems like most people agree that free "permanent" parking is not some absolute right. You either get a permanent spot as part of buying your residence, you pay for a garage, or you drive around every night looking for street parking.

But the problem seems to be the lack of temporary parking if you needed to drive somewhere. Seems like some say there is nowhere near enough parking and more spaces must be added while others think there's plenty of temporary parking. Might want to focus the discussion on that, because I agree that cities should be required to provide enough temporary parking spots to accommodate most. Shouldn't have to drive around 20 min looking for a spot if you need to drive somewhere.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The Mayor via the Planning Dept of Hoboken and even JC is at fault for parking issues - Planning should have mandated with every building permit (especially multi-level high rise apartments] that they must provide for off-street parking with a percentage for visitors to their buildings.

Hoboken and JC should have also mandated with permits that multi level buildings also provide off-street parking for courier and parcel deliveries to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow.

They DO, and they are REQUIRED to do so. Those parking garages sit empty because people feel entitled to their free or near-free subsidized street parking. Guess what! The rest of us shouldn't have to pay for YOUR car, moochers! Buck up the $150/month to park your car in a garage. There's plenty of space.

I agree, all newer multi-level buildings should not be given parking permits and only those 'older' buildings with no off-street parking be provided with parking permits (with conditions).
I also believe that the space in front of your property is the amount of parking permits that property receives.
The only remedy I can think of, is to create more permit zones to on street parking.

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
... Cities provide public services like streets, stoplights, fire departments. And yeah, parking. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be some permits required to keep commuters from grabbing the free spots, or that people who want free parking shouldn't have to search for it, but this argument that street parking should be sold to the highest bidder is kind of dumb.

They shouldn't be sold to the highest bidder--some subsidization is fair and no doubt necessary for a functioning economy and society in a still-car-centric state.

But they shouldn't be free (or 1% of true value) either. Unlike firefighting or dog runs, street parking is a commodity for which demand exceeds supply; charging a higher fee can reduce that demand, making it easier to obtain for people who need it most. And reducing that demand also carries myriad other benefits to the city, from less pollution to less road wear and less competition for driving space.

JCishome wrote:
... Cities provide public services like streets, stoplights, fire departments. And yeah, parking. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be some permits required to keep commuters from grabbing the free spots, or that people who want free parking shouldn't have to search for it, but this argument that street parking should be sold to the highest bidder is kind of dumb.

bill wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
I am genuinely curious: where do you drive to find better nightlife? Montclair? Secaucus?

I'll tell you what city in NJ has a kicking nightlife that totally blew me away, Morristown (BECAUSE it was totally unexpected being in what i view as the burbs).

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
If you truly believe there are plenty of parking spaces in this city since the population boom you either do not drive a car or you are doing what you do best... trolling!

There are spaces.. you just have to pay for them. How is paying for property that you use unfair?

user1111 wrote:
If you truly believe there are plenty of parking spaces in this city since the population boom you either do not drive a car or you are doing what you do best... trolling!

MidwestTransplant wrote:
Another young driver chiming in - I need a car, as I work further out in NJ, and a 20 minute commute via car becomes a 1.5 hour commute on public transportation.

Since I don't live in a luxury building with a dedicated garage, my options are pay for a dedicated park in a surface lot or try my hand at the crap-shoot that is street parking. Life's too short to drive around the block a half-dozen time a night, so I rent a spot in a surface lot.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really understand this argument. If you have to have a car in JC (which is, in fact, a city), then you either need to pay for dedicated parking or park on the street. While it would be nice for every new apartment /condo unit to have 1.5 dedicated parking spots, that is unreasonable (given that developable land is at a premium).

Some new residents aren't going to drive, and some are. Those that do drive are going to make parking tighter for everyone else. No one has the right to an available parking spot on their block. Increased density is going to make the fact that free street parking isn't a right all that more obvious.

I_heart_JC wrote:
I am genuinely curious: where do you drive to find better nightlife? Montclair? Secaucus?

greenville wrote:
Our city's transportation system is not adequate for someone to be car free. Until then, the city should require developers to provide adequate parking spaces for not only residents but their visitors as well.

Yvonne wrote:
The more zone parkings the more we harm visitors. I hear horror stories of people paying their respects to deceased family members then have they cars booted. I do not agree there are available parking spaces. The city is 14 square miles, so don't point to an area that might be 3 or more miles from my destination.

Yvonne wrote:
I disagree with the idea there are too many cars, it is the fact that new development in the past required a parking spot for each unit. That requirement is relaxed so we have more development without planned parking. It is the city that is creating the problem. They erroneously believe people will give up their cars.

MidwestTransplant wrote:
Another young driver chiming in - I need a car, as I work further out in NJ, and a 20 minute commute via car becomes a 1.5 hour commute on public transportation.

Since I don't live in a luxury building with a dedicated garage, my options are pay for a dedicated park in a surface lot or try my hand at the crap-shoot that is street parking. Life's too short to drive around the block a half-dozen time a night, so I rent a spot in a surface lot.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really understand this argument. If you have to have a car in JC (which is, in fact, a city), then you either need to pay for dedicated parking or park on the street. While it would be nice for every new apartment /condo unit to have 1.5 dedicated parking spots, that is unreasonable (given that developable land is at a premium).

Some new residents aren't going to drive, and some are. Those that do drive are going to make parking tighter for everyone else. No one has the right to an available parking spot on their block. Increased density is going to make the fact that free street parking isn't a right all that more obvious.

vindication15 wrote:
I could care less as to how much it costs to park on the street. I am arguing against 2 things

1) The stupid opinion here that younger individuals will not want to have a car while living in JC and cite stats that show people do not want/need a car in NYC. JC is not NYC - it is not midtown, it is not the upper west side, it is not even brooklyn but dtjc may come close. Let's just be real here.

2) The opposition to new buildings having parking spaces. Units with spaces cost about 10% more - the demand is there. Let the free market work please...

vindication15 wrote:
Btw, costs approximately does not equal NYC. The number of nightlife options/restaurants/lounges in those areas you mentioned is much greater than JC - even DTJC.

And if you live in the upper east side, you have relatively quick connection to all parts of NYC via MTA. We have connection via PATH - again the worst transit system in the world.

Finally, if you live in any part of NYC and think the neighborhood is boring it is probably because you are boring.

denised wrote:
I also want to make the point that not everyone with a car here is using it as a luxury. I'm from nj, have a master's degree, and a license in this state to practice my profession. My boyfriend, when I met him, was living in Astoria and working in manhattan. I tried commuting to nj from Astoria for work for four months and had to give it up because it was too many hours commuting per day. My professional license prevents me from working in nyc. So I am working here and he is working there. Jersey city is our compromise. I work in Bergen county which is not easily accessible through public transportation so I have a car. It's not an item I only using on weekends or keep because I'm fancy. I use it daily and this is the only way our life together works.

Pebble wrote:

Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
I'm relatively young and I would want a dedicated parking spot. Also, when I looked for condo units, I ruled out any building without a dedicated space.

Rationale? In NYC, I would live without a car. In JC, even the best part of JC - dtjc, there is not enough nightlife and/or restaurant options for me to live without a car. DTJC is not NYC and the heights and journal square, although not a war zone like BL and Greenville, is definitely less happening than DTJC.

If I had no car, again - where would I hang out? CH Martin, Morlees - maybe rainbow? please.

Finally although dtjc does have a connection to NYC - it is unreliable. The PATH is the worst transit system ever created and on nights when I do not want to wait 40 minutes with drunk people vying for a space on a path train back to NJ, I drive in and pay the 40 bucks to park my car. It's worth it

If you lived in many of the residential areas of Manhattan that could provide costs approximating DTJC, such as the upper west side or upper east side, you?d find that the area you live in is quite boring as well. Every area has ?limited options in walking distance.? Thus, you would need to travel to other parts of Manhattan to get your entertainment.

As you state, you pay $40 bucks to park your car in NYC for evening. Well, I don?t see a reason why it can?t cost more than that for a month?s parking permit in JC.

Nobody is saying you can?t have the car. They are simply pointing out that it should cost more than a dollar a month to park on the street.

vindication15 wrote:
In NYC, I would live without a car. In JC, even the best part of JC - dtjc, there is not enough nightlife and/or restaurant options for me to live without a car. DTJC is not NYC and the heights and journal square, although not a war zone like BL and Greenville, is definitely less happening than DTJC.

If I had no car, again - where would I hang out? CH Martin, Morlees - maybe rainbow? please.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

PathH8Tr wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Are people saying that renters and owners of new construction should not have the same rights to street parking as other residents?

No they're saying if an area that held a residential building that held 6 people is demolished and can now hold 20, that they should find a way to provide parking for natural increase of cars.

This assumes the people who lived there before had a right to free street parking. But why?

JC has plenty of parking spots in existing parking lots. It doesn't need more lots.

Population density. Before street parking wasn't horrible, but when you start cramming more and more people on the same area it changes the amount of parking needed.

Why fight it? It attracts more people to the area.

Exactly. Some people seem to think that everyone wants to ride a bike, works in Manhattan and are aging backwards. The bigger buildings are required to offer parking but all of them tag an extra fee of $200 or more. So now all those residents are parking on the street and they're getting more and more crowded. The parking in those larger buildings should be free to the residents.

I believe it is free to the owners of apartments. But not to renters. There's the catch.

Wrong. Residents AND guests must pay for parking in all buildings. Some lots may have discounted rates for residents, and possibly for monthly renters, and some other lots may even have deeded parking spots that you can buy when you buy a unit.

user1111 wrote:
The problem with Jersey City as a whole if we can step outside of dtjc just for a moment. There is no where to park anywhere most times of the day throughout the city excluding 440.

I was visiting friends in The Heights near Pershing Field and it took about 15-20 min to find parking around 7 PM on a Saturday evening, but there was no option for garage parking... I had dinner a week ago @ Laico's and could not find parking and their valet parking was full, again no option for parking in a garage.

I think there should be more garages and parking-lots through our city, where there is no lightrail or PATH connecting you to that part of the city. Street parking is really getting harder, but we have no options around the city and most garages are connected to some building dtjc.

If you are not in denial and have been around the city, then you know there are a lot of cars in this city but not a lot of places to put them.

JCishome wrote:
Not to get all Yvonne-like, but there are lots of people in this city for whom ANY increase in the parking fee would be a hardship. This is a situation that will resolve itself - younger arrivals won't need/want cars, other people will start to realize the hassles outweigh the value of having one and arrange their lives accordingly. But for the forseeable future, a bunch of people need their cars for work or family reasons.

Yvonne wrote:
Since my name is mention, I want to say a couple just sold or rent their condo on Barrow and York. Both had cars and spend hours looking for parking. Their jobs required cars in which they had to report to work at different times. Personally, it is wrong to build new and not provide parking. 68 Erie, a new development with an abatement will have 12 units without parking so residents in that area will be impacted by 6 to 12 new cars fighting for parking spaces.

vindication15 wrote:
I'm relatively young and I would want a dedicated parking spot. Also, when I looked for condo units, I ruled out any building without a dedicated space.

Rationale? In NYC, I would live without a car. In JC, even the best part of JC - dtjc, there is not enough nightlife and/or restaurant options for me to live without a car. DTJC is not NYC and the heights and journal square, although not a war zone like BL and Greenville, is definitely less happening than DTJC.

If I had no car, again - where would I hang out? CH Martin, Morlees - maybe rainbow? please.

Finally although dtjc does have a connection to NYC - it is unreliable. The PATH is the worst transit system ever created and on nights when I do not want to wait 40 minutes with drunk people vying for a space on a path train back to NJ, I drive in and pay the 40 bucks to park my car. It's worth it