Yvonne wrote:
What does a green solution has to do with property taxes? Property taxes are services like the maintenance of roads. Some of us get the tax increase like one family homeowners, condo condos and owner occupied 1 to 4 family homes. Others do not, it has nothing to do with green energy. JC property taxes is equivalent of being forced to pay for someone's else dinner bill in the restaurant. You did not eat the meal, but the restaurant owner gives you the bill anyway.

MDM wrote:
There is logic to this:

JC has an issue with building over-stuffed with people. Two buildings within blocks of me were examples. One had 60 people living in a Bayonne Box style 2 family. The landlord was charging each about $600 a month for enough space for a mattress (tenants were all from India). The place got busted by the fire department after they went in the building due to a small fire.

Number of people in a building directly affects the water consumption and the amount of trash produced. So basing it on water consumption would help hit places like I described above.

NJ is shipping trash to all the way PA and VA. Garbage disposal costs are really out of control here in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions.


Quote:

light12v wrote:


Whatever the connection/relationship between long showers & solid waste generation might be in order to establish such a tax assessment metric is Hell & Far beyond me to explain....... IMHO Ridiculous.....

Monroe wrote:
Can?t wait to see Fulop respond to this.

JCvoter wrote:
The core issue here is who gets to dictate the nature of our public spaces - the developers, in league with our mayor, or the people of Jersey City.

The Exchange Place SID was created by Fulop and Candice Osborne at the behest of Mack Cali and is now controlled by Mack Cali, SJP Properties and Hartz Mountain. All of these companies own property adjacent to plaza where the statue resides. This axis of mediocrity was the sole impetus behind the attempted removal of the statue.

Mack Cali gave $250,000 to Fulop's dark money super PAC, Coalition for Progress.


#facts

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Dolomiti, course they are near traffic, actually, there is one not far from a fire station in the heights.

Good grief. It uses a single parking space! It doesn't stick into the street. It doesn't take up more space than a parked car. It doesn't cause more traffic. And it is nowhere near the out-of-town traffic that you were just blaming for increased traffic accidents.



Quote:

With the city removing parking and these parklets, it is just easier to shop and go to a restaurant outside JC.

They're using five parking spots. FIVE. The idea that this will have even the slightest dent on the number of available parking spaces, in a city the size of JC, is utterly irrational.

Plus, Jersey City doesn't have to orient its entire public policy around cars. Quite the opposite.


Quote:

The hassle is not worth it.

There is no hassle. Thus, by definition it is worth it.


Quote:

Why doesn't the city do a survey and ask residents where they shop and why?

Because we elect representatives to make decisions like this. That's how a representative democracy works.

Monroe wrote:
Three murders in three weeks, and the mayor drops a parklet on Ocean Avenue. That's the answer!

Frinjc wrote:
I have to say, I went to Pontevedra about 10 years ago in a trip from Madrid to A Corunia and Santiago de Compostela - I also visited albarino vineyards but that another story.. I thought that Pontevedra was heaven on earth..., already. At 5-6 PM everybody started getting out in the streets and the place just fired up, people were having such a good time. The area of Las Rias Baixas also is spectacular, the closest I have found to a Mandelbrot algorithm. But I digress, the pedestrian part was the most used and safe.

wpaul2 wrote:
Petition to reduce street sweeping and a parking reform plan? Yes please! https://jcparkingpetition.com/

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
I Did Read His Response, Completely...

Apparently not. It's not that complicated.


Quote:

so that I might understand WHY he believes what he states here.

I don't believe it. I'm illustrating that Yvonne is a hypocrite, and that her irrational ad hoc rationalization blew up in her face.

oreoz wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
WHY Dolomiti ??

Seriously? You can't figure this out?

Yvonne is saying that I do not have the right to make any changes to any existing public policy. But if I don't have the right to advocate for any changes, then neither does she.

I.e. I'm illustrating that her position is irrational and hypocritical. It went over her head, of course, because she's behaving irrationally and hypocritically. So it goes.

I figure this out as it proceeds, based upon All of the Shitstorm Sideshows going on in or about JC in these times and a Pacer account.

My Question to you is Only about your text words that I have converted to Bold.......so again, I am asking you WHY ???

Dude - read his response. He literally told you why he said that. He's not saying he agrees with that - he's just using Yvonne's argument and applying it to her actions as well, therefore highlighting its hypocrisy.

If you're not going to read the whole thread I don't blame you, but at least read his response to you.

And Yvonne - most people here aren't condoning the mayor's behavior. At the same time, his behavior doesn't suddenly change our opinion on the topic like it apparently has yours. Going back to the beginning of this thread you were one of those pushing to have it removed..why was that? Oh, something about how other countries' history doesn't belong in America...and yet you accuse the mayor of insulting an entire ethnic group. Which, by the way...when did he do that? Sure, he insulted someone Polish (if you want to understand why, read about the Holocaust law in Poland). Was it right? No - it was a false argument tactic. But so is your argument that calling a person from a specific culture racist is akin to insulting that entire ethnic group. That's the same crap logic that sees moving this statue (a move supported by the Polish speaker!) as some sort of affront to Poland.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
WHY Dolomiti ??

Seriously? You can't figure this out?

Yvonne is saying that I do not have the right to make any changes to any existing public policy. But if I don't have the right to advocate for any changes, then neither does she.

I.e. I'm illustrating that her position is irrational and hypocritical. It went over her head, of course, because she's behaving irrationally and hypocritically. So it goes.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Dolomiti, the Katyn monument has been there for over 30 years, if you were here, then you had the opportunity to speak at the city council meeting that you did not want it. If you came later, then you moved into a city that already had the statue and chose to stay.

Yeah, you might want to rethink that.

You had the opportunity to speak against the pedestrian plaza on Newark. It happened anyway. By your own logic, you should just accept it, and give up any future opportunity to reverse it.

You had the opportunity to speak against moving the statue. It happened anyway. By your own logic, you should just accept it, and forsake any future opportunity to reverse this decision.

You had the opportunity to vote for someone other than Fulop. He was properly elected as Mayor. You had your shot, it didn't go your way, and by your own logic you should quietly and humbly accept the consequences... and not complain.

P.S. You didn't answer my question. Why am I not surprised.

ProdigalSon wrote:
I believe you want to keep the multi family zoning status, as it increases the value of the property. Internally and living wise you should be able to get the work done through the building department.

That said if there is a tax component at play here I believe going from multi to single is relatively mundane, but going from single to multi is a difficult process.

oreoz wrote:
So is it safe to assume you've changed your mind and now want the monument to stay? Interesting to say the least. I approve of gaining a deeper understanding of people's feelings towards the monument, although I suspect the real reason is because you don't like Fulop and his handling of the situation made it easy for you to jump to the other side.

Personally - I like it where it is. Presumably, it'll be good where it's going also. The way it was handled was stupid, and I dislike even more the fact that some developer with money declares that he doesn't like it and it has to move (does he own the space? thought it was public), but it seems like the end result is a pretty decent compromise. Too bad it had to happen so..shadily.

SRhia wrote:
I know that all installations are different and therefore pricing can differ a lot, but I'm wondering if anyone can provide a ballpark quote for a 3 bedroom / ~1300 sq ft ductless AC install? It is a single-floor condo unit.

A range would be fine too (eg $10k-15K) - just want to get an idea if the price we were quoted is fair.

Thanks in advance.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
the statue is still staying very close to its original location. the uproar over moving it 60 meters away is laughable

I believe the uproar was why and how it was proposed to be moved. A sufficient reason was not stated and it was done underhandedly.

oreoz wrote:
I have to say - I think the mayor botched his handling of this one. He could have announced this end result without all the in between drama and there'd probably be a lot less of it. Now he's somehow managed to piss off people from all sides. At the end it will all probably be swept under the rug (and the end result sounds like a good compromise), but it's not a good look.

But Yvonne - I'm curious as to your sudden change of position. You were one of the strongest supporters of moving the statue at the beginning of this thread, giving all sorts of reasons. Why the sudden change? Is it just because you found yourself on the same side as the mayor you despise? Seems a bit odd.