JCMan8 wrote:
Third Street Hats, again you mention that the refugees must meet "work requirements." You fail to mention that this government support will not come if the refugee does not find work.

You also fail to mention that given our employment situation, many of these refugees will not find work.

JCMan8 wrote:
So you will end up with a whole bunch of pissed off Muslims and not much we can do for them.

Also, you can't cite to historical precedent when we are dealing with unprecedented circumstances. Not only are many of these refugees Muslim, following a religion which is incompatible with many Western values, we also are dealing with ISIS who is sending over terrorists inside the stream of refugees.

JCMan8 wrote:
And no, I don't trust our government for a minute to determine who is a "real" refugee and who is "fake."

JCMan8 wrote:
Finally, ISIS wants us to import these terrorists. We the people are standing up against this.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/5 ... ists-into-Europe-Refugees

JCMan8 wrote:

I take it from your comment you recognize we have no way of providing employment or living arrangements for these "refugees," beyond the first few months.

With that premise established, there is another obvious premise and that is at least a portion of these refugees will not be able to make it on their own.

JCMan8 wrote:
With this in mind, it would seem blindingly obvious that the very last group of people you want to let in are those which have shown a historical tendency to become radicalized and commit terrorist massacres when they feel marginalized, or are not getting ahead.

Forget about the fact that it is next to impossible to screen out legitimate refugees from ISIS terrorists posing as refugees. And that ISIS had already announced they are sending terrorists to do this exact thing. I'm saying that IN ADDITION to this, legitimate Muslim refugees will become radicalized over time and commit terrorist acts.

JCMan8 wrote:
Just as the Boston Bombers were Muslim refugees who lived a comfortable life yet still did what they did.

JCMan8 wrote:

Importing these refugees is importing terrorism. And I will repeat the obvious:

Once the inevitable happens and some refugees commit terrorist massacres, "Progressives" will say the following: First, they will act shocked, as if such a thing was unfathomable to them. Then, they will blame us/society for not doing enough to take care of them. They will also say that so many refugees are here now so it is immoral and impractical to deport them.

Their ideology is naive, twisted, and dangerous. And I think the majority of Americans will strongly reject it.

JCMan8 wrote:

Oh, I see. Refugees are "encouraged to become employed as soon as possible." The link says they apply for entry level jobs.

Considering that even educated people have problems finding employment, and that most jobs are very competitive, I'm sure this "encouragement" to find employment will go a long way.

JCMan8 wrote:

And they receive support for their "first few months." This can only end well!

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
The details that should shape the debate over refugees:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sh ... -the-debate-over-refugees

Wow, something from Rachel Maddow's website! I'm sure a Rush Limbaugh opinion piece would be equally as persuasive to you.

Further, it didn't address any of the questions I raised in my post. They must be answered if you are to have the pretense of a debate.

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=391467

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

sam2goody wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
[garbage]
Asif, an ISIS sympathizer, ...... [/garbage]

This is even worse than what I would expect to see on an online forum. Do you really label everyone who disagrees with you as a terrorist? If you could just take it down a notch, you could contribute to this discussion without popping a hernia.

If you frequent this forum, you'd see that I disagree with people all the time. It is only Asif who is literally an ISIS sympathizer.

Here is his post that I am referring to:

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=391254

In it, he suggests that we shouldn't be surprised of the result of the Paris terrorist attacks because is part of the "imperialist West," its "imperialist violence," and it has a "blood-stained finger."

In case you are unaware, Osama Bin Laden used to make the same kind of statements.

This goes far beyond disagreement and Asif absolutely deserves to land on a terrorist watch list for this post, if he hasn't already.

Remember that many of these terrorists do not publicly state their intentions before they act. In fact, for the Paris attacks, one was a baker who apparently didn't even discuss religion very much.

Yvonne wrote:
1. Fulop was not honest, he is doing this in piecemeal, the issue is getting rid of runoffs.
2. The truth is more people voted in the May election than the general election.
3. 4% is not a mandate
4. Our local elections will be lost with all the other elections.
5. Saving money? Even Sullivan said we will have to buy new machines.
6. This is still a scheme by Fulop to be mayor when he loses the primary.

Monroe wrote:
Double down, you still lose. NJ didn't sign off to a thing, and it was exactly because of what I said it was. And now we've got the Feds taking over half the cost, and I'm sure half the overrun, which will be billions. Of course that's all imaginary to you, since the paperwork hasn't been signed yet. It is clear that NJ will pay less. Good job by Senator Booker pushing Governor Christies agenda-true bi-partisanship benefitting NJ!

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
That was the reason he cancelled it, and now we have a much better deal. I guess some hate Christie so much they can't stand getting a great deal for NJ taxpayers. Go figure. Even Senator Booker is giving him props! As for the overrun, all the Feds offered was low cost financing-now they're going to pay half, and NY will pay their quarter. Win/win NJ!

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/ ... s-would-have-been-new-je/

25% of $20b is $5b.

$5 billion is > $3b.

So I'm not totally sure how this is a "better" deal.


Also, ARC would have been owned by NJTransit exclusively. No rental fees to Amtrak, no rental fees to Port Authority. No scheduling conflicts with MTA or Amtrak. Just NJTransit.

Oh, and ARC would have been completed in 2017. If Gateway breaks ground before 2020 I would be surprised. So there is all the lost wages and lost land values.

So "better" I guess is a relative term.

I guess since there never was a contract signed stipulating that NJ was on the hook it didn't happen. Except for the fact that none of the partners agreed to put in one red cent towards the overrun . . .

But you have to solve for X-X being the inevitable cost overruns that no one offered to help pay. Saying that NJ would only have paid 3 billion is nonsense. Fiction. Imaginary. Silly.

Yvonne wrote:
I remember when many fast foods started. They hired teenagers and retired folks looking for extra money. Now jobs are overseas plus illegal immigration have had an impact on the job market. Adults are working at fast food. I do think people who work in other fields such as home workers for disable should be paid more money. That is difficult work.
Flipping hamburgers is not a skill but being a welder is. Welders make around $17.00 per hour. Perhaps, more fast food workers should be trained in real fields that pay that higher wages. Of course there will be an impact when you double the minimum wage.

zerogains wrote:
Soft opening happened Saturday, had a cocktail. No food yet, hence the soft launch. Really nice interior, obviously from the look of the website it has a "hunting lodge" feel with high booth backs. The best part, NO TVs.

AMo wrote:

1. This plan is being pushed behind the scenes by a few restaurants who feel that Downtown Jersey City homeowners and residents should subsidize their customers' free parking at night. If my motives are as suspect as you seem to think they are, I should be for the plan given that I own a restaurant. But, believe it or not, some people actually push for things that are against their financial interests. Amazing isn't it!

AMo wrote:
2. Giving out free parking (and in this case giving out MORE free parking) is the exact opposite of what intelligent city planners do.

AMo wrote:
Then take a look at Donald Shoup's book "The High Cost of Free Parking."

It's really an open and shut case. The plan is insane. People WILL park and ride (they're already doing it) and there will be less turn over of spaces.

jcwalkingman wrote:
Well, at least one new building downtown has upped the ante and is now advertising two free months' rent. New construction studios in an amenity-rich building for under $2k/month. And there are still about 2,500 more apartments coming on the market in the next 4 months. Folks, we may very well be entering the rental market implosion (which is already hitting real estate investors who own rental condos downtown).

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
there are concerns that need to be addressed BEFORE the city moves forward. this impacts housing / building codes, safety issues, ownership rights, changing use of buildings/units, insurance coverage, affordable housing and rent control.

with zoning its very hard to go backwards, so better to come up with a plan before moving forward.

everyone should be concerned, because most everyone is impacted.

So many Chicken Little types in here... How is passing an AirBnB tax going to bring about any of those dangers and pitfalls into reality?? At the end of the day, how's having an AirBnB guest any different than having a relative or friend visiting and staying with you? Or, opening your home to house sitter while you are out of town?? Yes, someone is paying you to stay there, but what's the big deal? Do people here really believe that because the city is approving a new use tax for AirBnB rentals that will somehow convince hordes of people to start renting their apartments or rooms on AirBnB?? I don't get it.

my2cents wrote:
I guess JC needs another form of revenue after the demise of traffic light cameras.

If they are going to implement it, I hope that they have a provision that both the renter and airbnb will be subject to a hefty fine for anyone staying in a nonconforming location (such as a multifamily / condo etc for which the owner in the case of a rental / or the association for a coop/condo hasn't approved).

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Can you confirm which of the handful here in DT own their spaces? The only one mentioned previously that is likely renting is Abbondanza.

As far as comparing to NYC, I think the city has the population to sustain a BYO restaurant for the simple novelty that they are so few and far between. We're just not there yet, for better or worse.

How do you define "so few and far between"? There are a least 200 BYO restaurants in NYC, and the actual number is probably really high. Heck, they even have "top 100" lists of best BYO restaurants. If you think BYO is a novelty, you need to get out more.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Oh great, they went from an actual interesting concept to one that is entirely unoriginal in every way. Seriously can somebody please take a cue from Brooklyn and just TRY to do a bar without a TV?

Seriously these guys just lost major points as restauranteurs too. A sports bar attached to an Italian eatery...we might as well be in the suburbs.

Complete lack of innovation and vision. Maybe JC is actually becoming Hoboken.

I agree with you in that who wants another TV sportsbar? However, this is clearly what people are demanding. The original concept didn't bring in enough business because not enough people wanted it.

So instead of blaming the owners for a "lack of vision," blame fellow people who continue to patronize the unoriginal TV sportsbars, making them profitable.

Lima17 wrote:
Quote:

foshizigity00 wrote:
so that means no more more???

Looking at the advertising banner on JCList, it looks like the Box and More merger is now called More Express ("Thai food and sliders")

The link advertised www.morejc.com doesn't seem to be working. Has anyone stopped by?