MikeyTBC wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

jklm wrote:
Buildings that come with off-street parking - even if it's not 1:1. Are NOT eligible for zone permit parking.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

E. Parking permits shall be issued to motor vehicles only upon application by the following persons:
(1)
A legal resident of the residential permit parking zone who (a) has a motor vehicle registered in his/her name or available for his/her exclusive use and under his/her control; and (b) resides in a property in which no off-street parking is available to residents, whether the off-street parking is provided free of charge or is only offered for a separate fee or rent.
(2)
A person who owns or leases commercial property and actively engages in business activity within a residential permit parking area or employee thereof (pay stubs shall be submitted for proof of employment). However, no more than one (1) parking permit may be issued for each employee for a motor vehicle registered to or under the control of such a person.
(3)
A person who is a current student of an educational institution (proof of current registration required) located in the residential parking permit zone.

You are interpreting this incorrectly, as I know through my direct dealings with the Parking Dept. Residents who can provide proof that the "no off-street parking is available" in the case where their building is full and therefore "not available" to them are granted street parking permits if they provide proof that they can't get a space in their building's lot/garage. So once its full, the street permits are free game for these new residents. This is one of the neighboring residents' concerns.

I haven't found this to be true. I live in a building that sits on Dixon Mills footprint but isn't Dixon Mills and cannot rent spots from Dixon Mills. The zoning incorrectly includes my building (12 units) therefore I am shut out from parking at Dixon Mills and cannot get a street parking permit.
I've been exchanging emails with Ms. Osbourne's office for almost two years, as well as numerous exchanges with Fulop when he was a councilman. I'm told the laws have to be rewritten and then I don't hear anything back.

I've been renting a third party spot for years and at this point have gotten used to it, but it drives me batty that this just can't get corrected so that other tenants can get permits.

jklm wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.

Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).

Key word is AVAILABLE. Once the off-street parking is full, shut out residents are eligible for street permits.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

G. To assure that both prospective residential tenants and purchasers of property, including condominiums, are aware of the residential parking permit conditions imposed hereunder, every landlord and every seller shall, on or before the date a lease is executed or a deed is conveyed, provide the prospective tenant or buyer with a copy of Section 332-58.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
I must repeat, are or aren't these new developments excluded from zone parking permits? If they are, then the developer would be shooting themselves in the foot reducing beyond their expected parking usage.

Residents in new developments are not entitled to zone parking permits if their building has parking available (even if it isn't free).

jklm wrote:
Buildings that come with off-street parking - even if it's not 1:1. Are NOT eligible for zone permit parking.

https://www.municode.com/library/nj/je ... 3-10510-23-2013ORNO13-114

E. Parking permits shall be issued to motor vehicles only upon application by the following persons:
(1)
A legal resident of the residential permit parking zone who (a) has a motor vehicle registered in his/her name or available for his/her exclusive use and under his/her control; and (b) resides in a property in which no off-street parking is available to residents, whether the off-street parking is provided free of charge or is only offered for a separate fee or rent.
(2)
A person who owns or leases commercial property and actively engages in business activity within a residential permit parking area or employee thereof (pay stubs shall be submitted for proof of employment). However, no more than one (1) parking permit may be issued for each employee for a motor vehicle registered to or under the control of such a person.
(3)
A person who is a current student of an educational institution (proof of current registration required) located in the residential parking permit zone.

elsquid wrote:
The understandable, but faulty, argument made in support of double parking in business strips is that it's just overflow from the customers and suppliers who are single parking. Single isn't enough, so we need double. I don't know for sure about every space on Washington, but that's usually not the case.

In Newark last year, the city put in a protected bike lane on Mount Prospect Avenue, and within months the merchants complained that it stopped the "vital" double parking in front of their businesses. The city was prepared to remove the bike lane.

But with some research by biking advocates, it was discovered that while the DOUBLE parkers were, in fact, mostly customers and vendors, much of the SINGLE parking was being taken up by people parking for many hours days at a time (sometimes illegally), employees parking for whole shifts, and other cars unrelated to the vital "quick stops" the businesses were missing. The city put in meters to make the single parking serve the businesses much better, the longer-term and employee parking migrated to spots in the side streets (which wasn't that hard since resident car commuters were away at work during the day). And all sides agreed to keep the protected bike lane.

Hoboken's plan, developed over 17 months, already provided for more short-term parking for quick stops and deliveries, in advance, in response to earlier input from businesses.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
The more I read about this story the more I realize its a story about Double Parking in Hoboken. It is not a bike lane story and has almost nothing at all to do with cycling or bike safety or the rights of the bike riding public. Its funny the Hoboken issue isn't framed AS a double parking issue, the bike lane is the straw man for the real issue at stake- which is that the merchants feel that Double Parking is their lifeline. Without it, they feel their businesses will die. Everyone knows it is illegal and this fact is not mentioned at all in any of the articles I have read about this issue. It is the elephant in the room. The merchants SHOULD be advocating for Legal Double Parking. If Double Parking is their life line then they need to bring it out of the grey area of parking legality and fight for its acceptance as a legal certainty. Then it will be up to City Hall to decide if its a legal tolerable practice. Blaming the bike riders for an issue that centers on illegal double parking is an unfair rap to hang on the cyclists, all they want is a survivable asphalt environment to exist in.

JCMan8 wrote:
The objections raised in the article seem to make sense. Parking is already extremely hard to come by in Hoboken. You are going to take away a bunch of parking spots in favor of bike lanes for mythical "bike shoppers?"

This probably will really hurt the businesses adjacent to the bike lanes.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
The homeowner's issue is not cut and dry. The city issued him a permit to go ahead with the siding, then reneged on it.

Unless you have seen the specific permit, you don't know what was actually requested for.

Having filed requests with the city, you do not need to be specific about the project that you are undertaking. For all we know, the request merely stated the person was re-doing the siding. It was one of Carlos' neighbors that called the city to complain about the type of work being done.

Jrsy0519 wrote:
Do you live in the building and does it get too noisy? I am looking at a place on the ground floor and have been there twice but have not heard any crazy sounds so far.

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
Quote:

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

Consumed wrote:
Seems they moved the rack from in front of that church near Lincoln park across the street on a side street in front of a residential building on the street proper. guess someone said something.

Yah it was just south of St. Aloysius on West Side Ave., on the sidewalk. Now in the street on Kensington, I believe, in front of two fairly large (for the neighborhood) apartment buildings. And some neighbors don't want it there either because #parkingcars #carsparking. I give that sentiment about a month before the whole neighborhood rallies around it. I would LOVE one smack in front of my place.

This is a huge problem because if several reasons. The street they moved the docks to is not very accessible or noticeable to the public. Not easy to get to during your commute. And its less than a half block from Lincoln park entrance which is really the best place on that street for this dock for maximum use for both commuters and park-goers. You can't even see this docking station if you are at the park, looking to use a bike. The park has a great bike loop. Lastly, the roll-out of these docs was hurriedly and poorly executed, with zero neighborhood communications. That doesn't fly on dense streets like Kensington Ave. I'm pro-bike but this doc needs to move. Its the wrong place for all of these reasons.

Nah, people being violently killed, bankrupted, given cancer and heart disease, etc. by car culture is a HUGE problem, where as this could only be tiny by comparison. But you raise some interesting points.

A dock right at the park entrance would be much more visible, and you're right, that is important for bike share, both to make people aware of it in the first place, and to help them find it while riding or walking. I can't speak to the inaccessibility of the current spot, but I'll take your word for it.

But the current spot on Kensington has upsides, too. Serving a dense knot of residences or businesses like the apartments next to the dock as conveniently as possible is the primary goal of bike share. Jaunts around the park really are not, though I admit Lincoln Park is especially tempting, with its new bollard-separated bike lane.

If I had to choose between making a recreational/exercise rider stroll a block out of his/her way on a nice bikey park day, and making someone walk out of the park into the neighborhoods carrying groceries after a drizzly commute, I'd choose the former.

What really kills me, though, is that some people on that block--the people who now get to walk out their doors and have the most convenient bike share imaginable--are protesting the location based on NONE of what either of us is talking about, but rather on the loss of a couple-three parking spaces. And when that didn't stick, somebody put a sign on the dock reading "Traffic hazard." Yeah, right, because having a row of giant SUVs parked there instead is safe.

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

Consumed wrote:
Seems they moved the rack from in front of that church near Lincoln park across the street on a side street in front of a residential building on the street proper. guess someone said something.

Yah it was just south of St. Aloysius on West Side Ave., on the sidewalk. Now in the street on Kensington, I believe, in front of two fairly large (for the neighborhood) apartment buildings. And some neighbors don't want it there either because #parkingcars #carsparking. I give that sentiment about a month before the whole neighborhood rallies around it. I would LOVE one smack in front of my place.

shakatah wrote:
Yvonne is often off, way off, but if the municipal election is moved to november, which seems likely, you should be concerned if there are no runoffs.

Here's why: Partisan elections have a primary process, nonpartisan elections (Jersey city municipal elections are nonpartisan) don't. Which means that you could have a JC Mayoral election with 10 or 15 candidates and without a runoff the "winner" and your next mayor could be a person that did not get a majority of the vote. So we could end up with a mayor that only 10% of the people voting chose, not 10 of registered voters, 10% OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THAT ELECTION. To me that sounds like a perfect recipe to manipulate/control election outcomes that way. That is a problem and a reason the runoffs are necessary in nonpartisan races.

Having the municipal elections in November would increase participation and that is a great thing, but a lot of tricks get played in elections..like one candidate putting in 3rd, 4th, 5th...candidates to split the vote that would otherwise go to their opponent.

Keep the runoff, whether you move the election or not.

JPhurst wrote:
The vote should have been held next year. You would have had maximum turnout because it is a Presidential election. And the margin for Yes would likely be higher.

The opponents of moving the election need to acknowledge that this vote was held under just about the best possible condition for them. With an Assembly race as a top ticket race you were going to have an electorate that most resembled a "off month" election. So while it is a very small turnout and a very small margin, if you had larger turnout I don't think the result would be different. It would probably be more definitive

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:

The petition owner claims his petition got this voted down. But I can tell you for certain, that while I don't know how the petition was received or if it will be considered, that is NOT why the council voted this down last night. They plan to rework it and bring it back to the agenda very soon.

This is because the petition owner is the owner of Two Boots, aka THE snake oil salesman of Jersey City. You can't believe a word the guy says.

AMo wrote:
Update: Tonight the city council defeated the parking ordinance.

ahal wrote:
I've been listening to a design podcast called 99% Invisible lately. they had this episode about the flags that city fly and how horrible they are, but how a flag done right could be a surprisingly uniting symbol.

The Jersey City flag breaks several of the principals, perhaps most abhorrently the idea that you shouldn't have lettering or a seal on your flag.

My question is, if we had to re-create the Jersey City flag, what would it look like, and how would we get people to rally around it?

Totally think this should be the next design competition driven by the city, btw.

Here's a link to the episode that he re-purposed as a Ted Talk.