CatsnDogs wrote:
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/jersey/

Chapter 90 ANIMALS

ARTICLE III Dogs [Adopted 5-4-1971 as Ch. 6, Art. III, of the 1971 Jersey City Code, as readopted 9-19-1978 by Ord. No. S-128]


? 90-20. Removal and disposal of animal feces; animals not permitted access nor permitted to urinate or defecate within designated pet-free zone(s) within public parks. [Amended 1-2-1980 by Ord. No. 5-123; 10-25-2000 by Ord. No. 00-150]

A. It shall be unlawful for any person having control or custody of any animal within a city park to permit the animal to be present within any designated pet-free zone(s) or to permit the animal to urinate or defecate within any such zone(s); however, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the presence of animals on pedestrian pathways adjacent to or within any pet-free zone(s) or to prohibit urination or defecation on such pedestrian pathways, provided that the person having custody or control of any animal complies with Subsection C of this section.


G. Areas within parks where pets are permitted and pet-free zones may be designated by appropriate signs, fences, and other devices consistent with the design and aesthetics of the park and the use and enjoyment of the park by all members of the public.

SefZi wrote:
In post #40 parkman refers (inexplicably) to the "White Horse". That's not that far back.

jcwannabe wrote:
Hi All,
We have purchased a home on Gifford Avenue and need a very detailed and thorough home inspection. Can anyone recommend one they have worked with in the past?
Thanks so much.

chanj wrote:
Hi - Anyone know, or have experience with, the contractors from Donahoe Brothers?

We need some work done in the appt, and someone mentioned their name...

thanks in advance.

Jako wrote:
Actually, I used RWC several times and they were pretty helpful. From time to time it can be difficult to get someone on the phone, but all in all they showed up when they said they would, did a neat and professional job, and in one case where they cracked a couple tiles installing a bathroom window, they were quick to make the necessary repairs. I'll use them again.

rpz620 wrote:
We are about to undertake a gutting of a brownstone in JC - any advice from the many of you who preceeded us would be appreciated:

Dealing with City Hall? Permits?
Contractors - any suggestions of good ones, things to watch out for, etc.
Any horror stories or success stories?

Just trying to be as educated as possible prior to embarking.

Thanks.

dsk wrote:
Seriously. Is there a reason it's overgrown and totally unkempt? Does it ever get cut?

harsimoose wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Award-winner and pals keep Liberty State Park blooming

Thursday, July 05, 2007
By BERNETTE PEARSON
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Agnes de Bethune would walk to Grove Street's PATH station on her way to work and admire the beauty that is Liberty State Park.

Except for the state park's flowerbeds.

just wondering where someone lives that they would walk past Liberty State Park on their way to the Grove Street PATH station on their daily commute. Am i missing something, or is Agnes the powerwalking champion of NJ?

gtosatto wrote:
Is the farmer at VVP have local stuff? I am going to try to support locally grown farmer markets as much as possible. Any little thing that I can do to help is better then sitting on my ass doing nothing.

Gina

CatsnDogs wrote:
The best deal in town is Liberty Humane Society. A female cat spay is $50 and a male neuter is $40.

You could then take the cat to Dr. Kim in Union City Animal Clinic for the vaccination and rabies shots.

nugnfutz wrote:
Quote:

Annod wrote:
How does the number of voters here compare to the number of voters in the primary in Hamilton Park?

Compared to previous ballots on the park...this turnout is huge - 2.5 to 3 times previous ballots as far as I can tell. It shows the strength of support for renovation. This is a huge success for Hamilton Park. Thanks to everyone: the organizers...the community...and the people that came out and voted.

The overriding issue for the community is keeping a single contiguous childrens play area. No surprise there. This was the top of the list on previous votes. To me, everything about Concept D, except for the dog runs, was better than the other designs. Concept D incorporated all the feedback from the community over a period of 6 months and got 51% of the vote. To me this says we're getting closer, but half the park users want something better. Do we move forward and disenfranchise the other 49%? I think we as a community can do better. My comments below address the dog run issues. I'm sure there are other improvements we can recommend.

Parkman - my thoughts on any ad-hoc dog-run respresentation:

- Square footage is a high priority for the dog run to prevent stressed out dogs, stressed out owners and risk to kids and other park users.
- entrances to dog-run and kids areas should be segregated as far apart as possible.
- noise cancelling measures (bushes, fences, etc) for the dog park should not endanger dog owners - in winter months dog owners are the only real park users.
- adequate shade and water is needed for the dogs and seating for the owners.
- i fully support the VVP set of byelaws on dog-run usage
- i'd like to see a NO DOG TOYS rule. A lot of features inside the run could help make toys unnecessary - landscaping, water play areas, cooling mist spays, hoses, obstacles for running around....

We've voted....let's back the vote, and make this the best park it can be for all park users.

rollergirl wrote:


Absolutely. If concept D wins there will be a committee to make a wish list that the architects will then use to design the kid's quadrant.

nugnfutz wrote:
Quote:

piglet wrote:
sounds good. i have a friend who lives across from a dog park in manhattan and if she opens the windows it smells like a urinal. it is so disgusting

Any EPA studies on this? How far does the smell of dog pee travel from any given park surface and will it make any difference given the park size? What is the air quality like anyways so close to the Holland Tunnel?

4bailey wrote:
After that, let the dog-owners in the community decide the large dog: small dog ratio; not brewster, parkman, Fulop, or (sorry) Althea ? dog-owners! Supposedly, dogjc has been asked by HPNA for assistance in planning specifics. Their consensus on a fair ratio would be fine by me.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
5. It seems that in order to ?bump out? the tennis courts, as per brewster, you would have to remove a number of very large trees and lose shade for the courts.

I see 1 tree between the north court and McWilliams, on the north end where it's shade effect is minimal. It's canopy does not extend over the actual play court, just the out of bounds.

As for the rest of the post, Steve has made pretty clear we're voting on where things go as presented. What's negotiable is size & shape. Tell me, since you're the dog run expert, can the dog run go right up against a tennis court fence, and would it be significantly different than the 15 ft distance as drawn?

StevenFulop wrote:
I understand the concerns that some have addressed both here and in personal e-mails to my council office. I feel confident that the end result will be satisfactory to everyone involved. I have included some notes below regarding the final ballot.

Steven Fulop


Final Ballott Notes

This ballot is intended to gather the community?s views on the four concept plans presented by Schoor DePalma to the City of Jersey City. Please keep in mind that these four designs are concept plans, intended to address amenity inclusion and general location only. Details such as the size and shape of any amenity are flexible and are subject to revision after the ballot when the final construction plans are drawn.

Please consider the following when making your selection for the design of Hamilton Park:

? At least one tennis court in the final park design will be a multi-use court, despite the inconsistency in labeling as presented on these four designs options.

? The dog run(s) may change shape or be enlarged based on available space. Any dog run will be of a size and shape appropriate to the community?s needs.

? The configuration of children?s play equipment within the fenced playground areas is representative and will be finalized after the selection of a final park design.

? Appropriate irrigation and drainage will be installed in all landscaped areas.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
Take your satellite and point it back onto Washington sq. park and you will see that the small run is only 500 sq. ft. in a park that is ?even larger, in a higher density area? than HP. In fact WSP is NOT that much bigger than HP; maybe 1/8 larger if that. It?s two blocks square, as is HP. We are talking ratio again.

Parky, I getting tired of doing your homework for you. If you had bothered to use google's map photos yourself you could have seen how wrong you are. But I did my magic and HP is 52% the size of WSP. I'm sure you've got plenty of wonderful skills and knowledge, but you've basically got no credibility when it comes to relative sizes of things.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
Brewster,

Since you like to use statistics, here?s one for you.

Based on the size of HP vs. VVP, four times the size, your dog run should be in total, 18,400 sq. ft. vs. VVP?s of 4,600.

Your perception that HP?s large run is in proportion does not compute

Hmm, I thought I've been careful NOT to ever say that a dog run should be proportional to a park's size. Where would that put LSP?!!

4bailey: The reasons to compare us to Manhattan is the size of our park, small for many an outer borough park. My point about Washing SQ Pk is that in a park even larger, in a higher density area (more demand on the run) they didn't make it substantially larger than D's large run. The critics about the size aren't citing other urban parks of similar size that that have substantially larger runs, they just say THEY want it bigger. I'd like to see more structured arguments for their case, as I have made for mine. Do your own googling.

Oh, and FWIW, VV is 36% the size of HP, not 25%. (source: satellite images & CAD)

brewster wrote:
Googling for urban dog run sizes for comparisons is rough going, but I found this page that cites the Washington Sq park run as being 4800 sq ft, only slightly bigger than D's large dog run, in a park nearly twice the size of HP and in area with much higher density. They have large/small runs there, but it's unclear whether the size refers to both or not. I assume not. I cite this to debate the description of 4391 sq ft for D?s large run as "too small".

The article also is vehemently in favor of separate large/small runs.

Quote:

parkman wrote:
Also, being an ?overgenerous? small run does not make it a proper use of space.

I don't have an attitude towards you, but want rational reasons for repeatly stated opinions, not invalid comparisons and unsubstantiated descriptions of "D" being too small. As for the size of the small run, perhaps the reason the one in VV is underutilized (according to some) is that it is TOO SMALL!!

I'm not opposed to taking the spoke for the run, rather than plan ABC, but I simply have not been convinced it's necessary to have a viably sized pair of runs.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
It?s not whether or not I like the ratio. I?m just stating from experience in VV that, as drawn, ?plan D? has a small run that is too large and a large run that is too small. If you are trying to accomplish what I think most residents want (to provide a large enough area for dogs to run off leash and thereby encourage owners to keep their dogs on leash elsewhere in the park), D as presented will not, in my opinion, make that happen.

Also, where are you coming up with the ?4391? for D?s large run? I don?t see square footage anywhere on the plan.

I still like ?D? if the large run can be expanded.

Parkman, I appreciate your sharing your experience with us, but where I can't follow your reasoning is the conclusion the "D" large dog run is too small just because Van Vorst's large run is, though ours is nearly half again as large. Why not think of the small dog run as "overgenerous" and get over it? The D locations make several other constituencies like parents and historic preservationists happy, the fact that similar total space in the ABC location "might" possibly be divided better seems slim reasoning to oppose D.

If tweaks happen, they can happen in either location. I've been told that they're more interested in nailing down features than exact sizes at this point. It is unfortunate that the contractor is not a profesional demographer like our Jen Greely, and the ballot is poorly designed and doesn't include options you like, such as a dog run spanning over a spoke, as separate questions that could be compiled to paint a picture of the park we want. But here we are now with this as it is, and lucky to be here we are, getting our park renovated!

What the HPNA ballot said on the subject of spokes was clear:

Would you like the pathways in the park returned to their original historic layout of a circle-and-spoke design, in which all park entrance pathways extend to the center of the park? If this change occurs, other features of the park may need to be repositioned slightly to accommodate the layout change.
A. Yes - 189 votes; 72%
B. No - 70 votes; 18%

I arrived at D's footage, as I explained in post #233, by importing the drawing into CAD and scaling it using the size of the tennis court, which is a standard. I could then draw a line around the run in the image and the program tells me the area of the polygon.

As for "aggressive", mea culpa. I misunderstood the meaning of the barking described. That doesn't change the fact that a certain constituency of dog owners believes separated runs are better than simply being split. It's a "pro" column item for them.

4bailey: you keep saying it's the "wrong shape". Can you enlighten us as to what the "right" shape is? An oval track perhaps?