vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote: I think condos are a bad investment in JC, for many reasons, and many people are starting to realize it, One reason not to invest in condos IMO is they?re more volatile than single-family houses. They don?t appreciate as well and when things get bad, they tend to crash a lot further. Also, condos tend to attract single people or just couples, not families. Which means most will move in 3 years which is typical of downtown renters and condo owners. Let?s not forget about the pain-in-the-butt condo association either. They seem to increase the dues every year and you?re always getting a notice in the mail regarding some violation about your door not being painted the correct shade of red. BS at its best, if you were able to buy a condo in JC in the 90's that was the best time to buy a condo, I got mine for 30k dwntwn JC and sold it for over 200k but to buy one now it just does not make sense.... but this is just my opinion. So many downtown folks are under water and owe much more than what they are worth. Good Luck to you all. I prefer single family homes, and I don't think any home in JC is worth more than 300k anything more than that I would live elsewhere like Milburn.

I don't think any real estate investment is a bad move. :)

stillinjc wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
By Jack Silbert ? Sep 21st, 2012

In her role as program administrator, Hansson set out to fill a pressing need in the community. ?It?s probably the biggest complaint we have in our area: There?s nothing for kids to do,? she says.

Really?

What about studying hard?

Hitting the books after hours? Excelling in school?

Nothing to do? Really?

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

someguyinjc wrote: After renting in the JSQ area for the last few years, I've finally decided to take the plunge and look for my own place. I've mostly explored newer 1BR+ construction (77 Hudson, Trump, Montgomery Greene, Crystal Point, A Condos, Shore Club, etc.) closer to the waterfront, but inventory seems to be limited. My realtor is not very pushy (a rarity), so I wanted to ask the veterans on this board if anyone knew of other similarly appointed locations that may have slipped my mind during this search. Ideally, there would be some kind of parking arrangement available and the building should be within walking distance (no more than 10 blocks) to PATH/Lt. Rail, etc. Let me know if I am straight up out of my mind. Also, specifically regarding Condo A, does anyone have any more color on this article? (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... man_falls_to_his_de.html) Thanks in advance for all of your input!

The most important thing for me was sound isolation. In non-high rises, whenever someone makes some noise above you, you can hear it. I've been to almost all of the condos in JC and I can tell you that your best value without compromising quality construction and convenience is Gulls Cove. As long as views aren't that important to you, GC is a good bet.

If views, quality construction, and convenience is important, 77 hudson is your best bet. Shore club is also nice but a farther walk to the PATH. Crystal point is also worth considering but no deeded parking - I believe parking is valet.

If money is of no consequence, try and see if anything is available in sugar house lofts - probably the best condo building in all of hudson county, but definitely in jersey city.

CatDog wrote:

This is true. It also won't bring back the victims of Columbine, or Virginia Tech, or Fort Hood, or Binghamton, or....
I really don't understand this logic at all. It's in the past so we should accept it? That's stupid. No amount of regulation is going to bring back the money lost during the Lincoln Savings & Loan crisis, but that doesn't mean we should have just ignored what caused it.

True, but it's a lot harder to kill 12 people with a knife than it is an automatic weapon with a 100-bullet clip. It's also harder to get into a stupid argument at a party and kill someone with a knife.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, over Memorial Day weekend 12 people were killed by gunfire and 45 were shot and wounded. In the time it takes to play a major league soccer match (90 minutes), 13 people were shot. By mid-June, murder was up 35 percent from last year with 228 people killed. Statistically speaking, our troops are safer in Kabul, Afghanistan than in Chicago. Where was that story in the national news?WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
435 people were murdered in Chicago in 2010. At 2.7 million that's a murder rate of .016%
Kabul has 3 million people, and over 1,700 people were killed in the first HALF of 2010. Their murder rate is about .09% or 6 times higher than Chicago.

The stupid stat that often gets cited as "Chicago is more dangerous than Kabul" only includes US Soldiers killed in Kabul. Which is a stupid measure and incomparable.

Seriously? Really? How many mass-shootings has this stopped, ever? Has there been a single case of a mass shooting in the last 50 years being stopped because someone else was packing? We have had dozens of these freaking things in the past few decades, and not once do I recall a single one ending with "and it's a good thing someone else in the space had a gun and shot him right away, because he would have killed more."

Stop it with that stupid trope. It doesn't help. Let me put you in a room with a man unloading an automatic rifle, with a pump-action shotgun and two handguns, and smoke grenades, and teargas. Let me see how your senses work in that confusion, and see if you can stop him.

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Quote:

JerseyCityNj wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
That opinion piece is complete garbage, and it?s ironic that the author claims ?activists? have ?incredibly naive assumptions about human behavior,? to make her point. Ms. Brown, like many self-centered, unworldly Americans, seems not to comprehend that the very nature of our society, which in no small part includes a fetish for weaponry and competition, is itself a catalyst for violent thought and behavior. When we treat everything like a war, we should expect to find ourselves in the midst of one.

So in your opinion if every state were to allow concealed carry and allow law abiding citizens to own guns gun crime would go up? Because you have to remember criminals do not care about gun laws. Even if a law limiting bullets ever passed you better believe someone will be making his own rounds in his basement the next day and selling them in the streets in no time.

I won't speak for Frank_M, but I will address your questions:

"So in your opinion if every state were to allow concealed carry and allow law abiding citizens to own guns gun crime would go up?"

Yes.

"criminals do not care about gun laws."

Yes, they do. Not as much as they should, but they do.

"someone will be making his own rounds in his basement the next day and selling them in the streets in no time."

This is preferable to being able to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammo online and then going to the movies.

Amy wrote:
The other day the FedEx guy buzzed my apartment and asked me to buzz him in so he could leave a package in the vestibule of the building. I said, "I'll come down." When I got there, sure enough, it was actually the FedEx guy with an actual package. He said I should have just buzzed him in, and I told him that I didn't want to let in anyone because of the danger of break ins. It's too bad the delivery companies don't have a policy that doesn't allow them to be buzzed in, sight unseen. It would help protect customers.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
I'm ignorant of politics? That's a good one.

Why, because you said so?

What a pile of blather, this about the only thing you said that's worth responding to. You claim you're NOT ignorant of politics, yet find you have better things to do for the few minutes a year, or even every 4 years like many, to actually vote & participate in democracy. But you're not a narcissist, immature or even just lazy. Rationalize much?

brewster wrote:
WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

How is it narcissism? I'm making decisions in order to get the most out of my life just like you and everyone else here.

So if I don't have the same interest in politics as you, I'm immature? How is it a maturity issue?

Narcissism is self involvement to the exclusion of concerns about anyone else. Abdicating any responsibility to participate in the governing of our society qualifies as that, IMO.

Often people that aren't actually pathological will grow out of it as they mature and come to realize how the world works. But since 33% of American adults failed to vote in the last presidential election, clearly many do not.

Following is still being involved. Any reasons why you're hesitant to say you're involved?

Because that's the word in our language? Why be so belligerent in your ignorance of politics?

"Involved" in reference to politics means being active, actually doing something, whether it's campaigning for someone, being a journalist or blogger, fundraiser, or actually running for office. If you "follow" football, it doesn't mean you're on the field. If I said I was "involved" with football, wouldn't you assume I worked in the industry rather than simply being a couch potato?

jersey_girl72 wrote:
what does their legal status have anything to do with this thread?

There are people who don't have the means to live in a proper apartment and there are people who thrive on less fortunate, helpless, or uninformed. That's it. Let's stick with the facts instead of adding color that no one on this thread knows first hand.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
If being involved in politics works for you, great. Based on my own interests and preferences, I've determined that I can improve my life more efficiently by focusing on things other than politics.

Ah, the sweet tender voice of narcissism in it's most pure and honest form! Thank you for your candor.

Enjoy, maybe someday you'll grow up. As the saying goes, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested, and a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Perhaps eventually you'll experience either and find yourself awoken from your slumber. Till then, I'm glad you don't vote.

BTW, I "follow" politics, I'm not "involved", which would imply doing more than simply reading a newspaper and actually voting. I too have a life that absorbs my time, but I consider voting a duty, and privilege that people have died for both here and around the world.

JCbiscuit wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
So who are these people who voluntarily agree to live in such conditions?


Good lord.... if the couple in the garage could find another couple, for $1,300 they could rent a 2 bed from me. Complete with central A/C. still kind of crowded.... but a lot better than a garage.

slumlords prey on vulnerable people who can't find housing through legitimate means, whether due to bad luck or bad choices.

I highly doubt these are the model tenants you imagine renting your 2-bedroom apartment to.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

You've made the incorrect citizen [assumption?] that every person can find a candidate that serves their interest.

What I assume is that everyone can deduce the candidate least bad by their standards. This is what I must do in nearly every election. There's rarely any candidate who's 100% in line with one's beliefs (or has a 100% clean record). But sitting out the process because there isn't is just unrealistic at best, and infantile when you get down to it.

What an instant runoff system eliminates is having to factor in who's actually electable in addition to who you'd like to support. I actually supported Hillary vs Obama not because I really thought she'd be a better president, but because my low opinion of the electorate made me think he was less electable. Obviously I was wrong, though an instant runoff would have made no difference by the time of the NJ primary since it was down to those 2. But it might have made a difference earlier.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
:Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Why are you an idiot if you don't vote?

Because then you let other people make decisions that could change or end your life, or those of your loved ones, without participating in choosing them. It doesn't get more basic.

This is why the voting franchise was extended to 18 year olds during the Vietnam war. They reasoned that if you were old enough to die for your country, you must be old enough to vote for the people sending you to your death.

z

So if I vote, then people can't make decisions that could change my life? Come on.

You must be trolling because you can't seriously be this dim. But, OK. I'll play.

No, voting does not prevent politicians from acting against your interest. But by voting, you've at least made an effort to elect a politician more likely to act in your interest. If everyone does this, we're get politicians that represent, and act in the interest of, everyone, rather than just the citizens who bothered to leave their video screens for 15 minutes to vote.

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Paragraph 2 of the US Declaration of Independence, surely you've heard of it? The last line quoted means that to get good government we need to vote, give consent, to those who govern us. Not participating in this is being an infant, willing and expecting other people to act for your well being. Guess what? They don't always.

The relatives of all those poor people in Denver may be rethinking their votes for politicians in the pocket of the NRA.

brewster wrote:
:Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

Why are you an idiot if you don't vote?

Because then you let other people make decisions that could change or end your life, or those of your loved ones, without participating in choosing them. It doesn't get more basic.

This is why the voting franchise was extended to 18 year olds during the Vietnam war. They reasoned that if you were old enough to die for your country, you must be old enough to vote for the people sending you to your death.

Asif wrote:
First, I think all local, state and national elections should take place in the same time frame. If possible give everyone a day or two off to vote.

Second, all campaigns should be publicly financed. The time frame for actual electioneering should be limited. All candidates should get equal access if not time in the news media. All of this can be overseen by a robust election commission. I would make it illegal for all profit making corporations from having any say in elections or the process. And make it illegal for them to setup non-profit groups for the sole purpose of influencing the elections.

Third, all people have to go to the voting booths. They can be given the option to press a button that says "do not care to vote".

That's what i would do.

brewster wrote:
I'm torn, people SHOULD vote. But if they're idiot enough not to, it also means they're idiot enough not to bother learning anything about the candidates and issues. These types tend to be easily swayed by demagoguery, misinformation, and (at least in Hudson cty) cash.

Think about how recent presidential elections have revolved around campaign surrogates telling monstrous whoppers. Swift boats, birth certificates etc. Now add a whole bunch of ignorant people being forced to vote. Talk about 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'!

vindication15 wrote:
Kindness should never be expected, only hoped for. You can't mandate kindness. If kindness were mandated, then the word wouldn't even have a useful definition.

In any case, the original poster was disgusted and she/he is not alone but please continue to think it is okay to pee in public...come on, really?

Quote:

As long as someone's not pissing on or near you, what's the problem?

It's as much their park as it is mine. If kids get to pee in it, then can I also have sex in it? yeah, I thought so.

Vigilante wrote:
Horse racing is classy!! Like Atlantic City!! And Strip Clubs!!

vindication15 wrote:
Because we live in a city with stores and restaurants all around the area, there is really no excuse to let your child pee in public. There could be more public restrooms but there is not so go use the bathroom in a store or restaurant. Don't want to pay the 2.5 for a drink? Well then don't have a kid...

And parents can control whether or not their kids pee in public. Regular peeing times, being aware that your kid drank a 16 oz drink, peeing before leaving a place where there is a bathroom.

Unless your kid is extremely sick and puking, I don't want to see your kid peeing in public. That is disgusting and everyone should shame those parents.

vindication15 wrote:
This is the hierarchy

1. Anything in Manhattan
2. Any safe area in Brooklyn
3. Astoria and Forest Hills in Queens
4. Hoboken near Washington St
5. Newport/Downtown Jersey City
6. Unsafe areas in brooklyn
7. Unsafe areas in Queens
8. The "best areas" in the Bronx
9. Inconvenient places in Hoboken that are still safe (less than 10 min walk to PATH)
10. Inconvenient places in Newport/Downtown Jersey City that are still safe (think Dixon Mills area)
11. Unsafe areas in the Bronx
12. Anything in Hoboken
13. Other parts of Jersey City - starting with Journal square then JC heights, etc.

14. If don't live in the above places, you either

a) don't work in NYC
b) don't have a social life
c) have a family and need an actual house and good schools
d) not too bright...
e) don't care about getting murdered, stabbed, or raped
f) any combination of the above

Someone had to tell the truth..

Yvonne wrote:
Here is an from San Francisco of a bike rider killing someone.
http://www.asianweek.com/2012/06/15/b ... derly-chinese-pedestrian/
The article I read in the NY Post some years ago, listed 6 deaths caused by bicyclist on NYC's streets in one year.

heights wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Anyone who would send a bait package needs to get a hobby.

Tell that to those that got robbed. And they were placing the package not mailing it.