JcDevil wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Colonel Sanders was a Confederate soldier, I guess you're going to boycott KFC too?

Sure, I am now boycotting KFC, and have been retroactively doing so for the probably decade or more since I've consumed that garbage.

iabide wrote:
Quote:

iabide wrote:
Well, for $75 you get to learn the right "era" for your body, so there's that...

Updated so you get merchandise!

FWIW, they run an appealing shop and I wish them all the best. Just never found anything suitable for my, ahem, *paleozoic* frame.

Yvonne wrote:
This hole is a public safety hazard and the city should have acted immediately to remediate.

Yvonne wrote:
This property is in the Harsimus Cove Historic District. Does anyone out there know this and whoyagonna call? HPO/slate sidewalk? Yet create another historic district the city can't manage.

AlexC wrote:
isn't "Progressive Catholic Church" an Oxymoron?

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
Absolutely its a matter of costs. That is why it is not happening (on site parking).
I love the idea of ?renting? a parking spot , as Brewster does to ensure/ secure a parking spot. Should we then say that we should require that of all homeowners in a residential neighborhood, just as he has? That way we can stop the ?demanding? of the public to provide it, and always have a spot available 24/7. Does privatizing parking (renting) make things better than people who live in a residential neighborhood and use available street parking? At least when I move my car, that public spot becomes available to anyone that needs it- unlike all those spots that are privately rented (taking up precious urban space). Really- I don't know...
I definitely need to find out where his off street paying parking is (really)- because there's nothing I know of in the Village-which really is a part of this equation (which I have specifically noted several times) and should have been considered. When I said we have nowhere to go-we really don?t -including any new residents-that will have cars. Should we build a whole bunch of new public lots to accommodate 50 unit buildings? (No!) But I want what Brewster has! I?m willing to rent- but where? I guess his neighborhood/area has that option already. We don't.
This ambitious project is not great for this piece of irregular land that is flanked on three sides by a small residential neighborhood. Even Torrei has acknowledged the unique challenges of building here. I think we all want what is best for JC in the long run-and what determines "best" has many perspectives. Many question the ?free? parking entitlement- but not the amount of units. Interesting?.
Regardless, great comments from both sides- real food for thought. Yes, it is a privilege to be able to have residential street parking. Absolutely. And no- I am not entitled to that. No one is.
If the city was more mindful and had expectations from the developers to provide at least some parking, we wouldn't be put in the position to now make a parking spot "yours".
As residents and homeowners, we need to be vigilant over new construction that greatly impacts an area. The retail is great- and sorely needed. I think the number of units could have been lessened (when he wanted a variance to not add parking) and we still would have the beginnings of a new vibrant community that honors what is there while also bringing it forward.

in some cases, underground parking might be problematic but i think the real problem is that developers/the government tend to pursue the CHEAPEST option. i am not convinced that underground parking is prohibitively expensive especially since they can do it across the hudson river. people in jersey seem to make excuses to pursue the cheapest option.

This will never happen, but I'd like to see requirements for minimum parking spaces be removed if located near the PATH station. (The developer could still put them in if it's feasible, it just won't be mandated by the city). And Secondly, mandating that any parking must be underground or at least shielded from view from the street should it be included. Let's face it, above ground parking is ugly and reminds me of Newport, the most soulless ugly area of the city.

It's possible to wrap a parking garage with offices that completely hides the garage when viewed from the street and there is at least one development in Jersey City deploying this strategy.

Something like this: http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townne ... a/52163d59b969b.image.jpg

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Hold your horses, it hasn't happened yet so there is no proof of anything. The fact that it took a massacre to change people's opinions is a problem.

It really isn't. Now you're unhappy that people disagree with you over the colors of a freakin' cloth. By the way, I'm fairly ambivalent on this topic and see both sides here. But I find it ridiculous that some people feel as though there shouldn't be a debate and that this shouldn't be decided democratically, one side should just be declared "wrong" and that should be the end of it. That side lately has always been the left wing, by the way.

And realistically, it is only a matter of time before the flag goes away.

Well said. Democracy doesn't mean you get your way only. Many liberals seem to have forgotten this.

langdonalger wrote:
Can you possibly find it in your heart to explain to your family, that there are people worse off than you and yours? If you can't, maybe you're unclear on how life works. Low income housing by a highway exit? I know, sounds incredible. How could you possibly justify this uncomfortable fact of life? Posts like yours make me want to move.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

lefty55 wrote:
I used to think Monroe was just misguided and spent too much time with his friends at FOX, but I have come to realize he is just a horrible human being.

I don't see the point of bringing up gang violence in relation to a story about people burning symbols of ignorant hate but saying he's a "horrible human being" is not remotely true.

JCMan8 wrote: ...After that, we can go after the "prevailing wage rate" laws which result in road construction costs in NJ being among the highest in the country.

And then, maybe we can get that third Hudson river tunnel constructed at a reasonable cost ;)

JCMan8 wrote:
How can you vote on this without knowing the cost?

Somehow I have a feeling that the second option will be far more costly than the first.

Yvonne wrote:
Let me understand this, the city is asking input from the public on Journal Square but did not ask input from public on creating a historic district. There was no survey from people in Wards B and part of F

Does this parking entitlement discussion happen in NYC anywhere? I find it hard to imagine, they would be laughed at.

JCGuys wrote:
In New York City exists a program to transfer the development rights from a historic building in order to preserve it. Does/Can should a program exist in JC?