WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
So what happened on the PATH today? Track condition?

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
[quote]
PATH has never increased service? Lol. Just lasy year they increased service on the JSQ to 33rd line. They do it very gradually and only when capacity hits critcal levels.

Do you have any articles on that? I haven't seen anything, only discussion that signal work on the 33rd line ended in January or so.

My understanding is Federal regs preclude PATH trains running more frequently until the signal system has been updated. So it seems a fine point to say the signal upgrade is not mandated. But mandate or no, more reliable and frequent PATH service is badly needed.

On other fine points, there was no net increase in overall service (total number of trains running) with the May 2015 timetable change increasing trains from JSQ. The increase in JSQ trains was matched by a reduction on the HOB line. I'm not aware of any increase in service in 2016 (last year).

Here's what PATH was reported as saying at the time ? if you believe them:
http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/fu ... rains-?instance=more_page

There are a lot of vested interests at play in discussions about PATH. Which developer wants it known that the PATH is a mess now, let alone what it will be after thousands more apartments are finished - in JC, Harrison and Newark, not to mention the EWR extension...

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
[quote]
PATH has never increased service? Lol. Just lasy year they increased service on the JSQ to 33rd line. They do it very gradually and only when capacity hits critcal levels.

Do you have any articles on that? I haven't seen anything, only discussion that signal work on the 33rd line ended in January or so.

mastablasta wrote:
Quote:

bill wrote:
This file is from 2005 where they anticipated the the signal upgrades would be completed 2010-2015.

33rd st signal upgrade completed last year, has the service times increased since?

Not sure when the WTC upgrade will be completed...

The signal upgrades are a federal mandate. PATH is not doing this to ease crowding on the trains. After the upgrades, PATH could run trains more frequently. Will they? No. I have been riding PATH for 14 years and every time there is a new timetable, PATH has ALWAYS decreased service. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it where PATH has actually increased service.

The weekend service used to be like the weekday service where the JSQ train didn't go through Hoboken. They switched to what is it today and said it would only be temporary while they build the 9/11 museum.

val7101 wrote:
Quote:

val7101 wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

val7101 wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
[quote]So you're going to add 20 minutes to your commute, just to get a seat?

Is that what people are fretting about -- not getting a seat in the mornings? Seriously?

Guess you've never taken the path during rush hour.

I take it every work day, and on weekends as well. During rush hour.
I think you might be traveling in a parallel universe.


Quote:

You can't get IN the train.

Total nonsense. Even for Newport riders.

It can get a little crowded, but it is extremely rare that the train is so jammed you can't get on. When that does happen, there's usually a half-empty train right behind it.

You want crowded? Try the 4/5/6 during rush hour.

You are probably confusing the alternate universe you are traveling in with reality. Or else you are one of those people who just push into the train as long as they can get two toes in the door. Or just a troll on JC List with no actual experience. Lots of those lately.

Frank_M wrote:
Sleep?or a hassle-free morning commute.

Choose wisely

Stringer wrote:

No tax hike in $572M 2017 Jersey City budget

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on March 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM, updated March 23, 2017 at 2:21 PM

JERSEY CITY -- The City Council last night unanimously introduced a $572 million budget for 2017 that comes with no municipal tax hike.

In a statement, Mayor Steve Fulop credited an increase in hotel tax collections, municipal court fines and revenue from tax abatements for the steady tax rate. This is the third year in a row municipal taxes are not expected to rise.

The city will now move to the budget hearing stage, when department directors will appear before the council to explain their spending requests for the year. The budget isn't usually formally adopted until at least the summer.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _2017_budget_with_no.html

Yvonne wrote: It is amazing how taxes or fees go up but the story is no tax increase. Here is one example of increase. In 2012, homeowners paid $12.5 million in the franchise agreement (water). Today, it is $19 million. Instead of giving the public a refund, we are paying more. How about adding up the increase of fees that the city charge residents?

Monroe wrote:
Anyone saying this land is worthless is missing the fact that a plot half as large, across the street, sold for $35 million dollars TWO YEARS AGO.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

stc4blues wrote:
I still don't understand what's going on with this $78M. De we have:

1. Doners' giving $78M to a non-profit entity, which then
2. loans it to a for-profit entity (against the value of the land?),
3. which must then repay the loan to the non-profit entity. Hence,
4. The City's 50/50 split of the net doesn't kick in until that loan is repaid.

Is that what's going on?

That's not my understanding.

1. LSC fundraises and gets $78m from donors
2. LSC will invite investors for another $55m worth
3. LSC takes out loans for the rest of the project
4. Nothing has to be repaid to the donors
5. The city starts getting paid for the land, after the project makes $78m in profits; they are paid 50% of subsequent profits.
6. Once the land is paid off, the city's share drops to 20%.

light12v wrote:
LAST EVENING ANY PROSPECT FOR ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 16 ACRES TO JC TAX RATE-ABLES WAS ELIMINATED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

YOU CAN SEND YOUR THANK-YOU CARDS TO:
MAYOR Steven Fulop
Council President Rolando R. Lavarro, Jr.
Councilwoman at Large Joyce Watterman
Councilman at Large Daniel Rivera
Ward A (Greenville) Councilman Frank Gajewski
Ward E (Downtown) Councilwoman Candice Osborne
Ward F (Bergen/Lafayette) Councilman Jermaine Robinson

TheBigGuy wrote:
Now this should be interesting to watch... this was a political hit job from the previous admin "non- political" DOJ... now with all the NJ connections in the WH. What can we do to make this all go away?

Let's start watching how the senator starts voting? Starting with a Scotus vote?

bricks wrote:
A petition was just launched on Change.org opposing the city selling a wooded lot to a developer who will clear out the trees and build apartments. The city lacks green space and this is being done without the land going to public auction. This same developer already cleared out all of the trees at a lot just down the street from this, and over a year and a half later, that lot just sits blighted and overgrown with weeds.

Please sign the petition if you oppose this.

https://www.change.org/p/rolando-r-lav ... a-green-city-for-our-kids

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Quote:

Now we're to believe that a $22 Million organization, which can't break even, can build a $230 Million++ SciTech Scity. The redeveloper is UNKNOWN...

LSC is in charge, and have appointed trustees. They are raising money already for the project. It's a bit early for too much more than a master plan.

Oddly enough, Fulop hated the 2008 loan, and is backing this plan. Go figure.

I also have to say, I vastly prefer to the previous plan, which was a 10 story hotel and conference center. Don't you?

Why not also include a hotel and conference center on a portion of the site if it makes the project and Sci-Tech City more economically feasible.

10 story hotel and huge conference center is not a good fit for the site in general.

That said, it sounds like the site will have a small conference center, and 50 units of temporary housing for visitors.

It's also a little difficult to have a big hotel and conference center occupying the same space as a project that combines commercial, residential and a school.

brewster wrote:
Not saying ole Harry here isn't B-L born-n-raised, but it's kinda funny how many people want to slam the door closed after they move in. From our Gold Coast to the Pacific Northwest, people move somewhere and then get all up at the other people who are coming and "ruining it".

brewster wrote:
Naysayers & critics: What's your point? What would you prefer?

1: Current plan

2: LSC gets charged market value for land, which likely sinks the project, and leads to 3.

3: The land gets sold to highest bidder, which is back to JC business usual, where nothing but money talks. The land is built out to the maximum possible revenue generating structures with no regard to benefiting the community.

Is there a "4"?

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
So LSC is 'raising' 78 million that will have to be repaid-that's a loan, right?

Where is that money coming from? Branded coffee mugs in the gift shop? LSC tshirts sold online? I'm sure the parking fees they collect now go to operating expenses, so added parking won't help.

It was not explained to me the way Donnelly explained it. The city told me, after speaking with the LSC CEO, that LSC is going to tap into its donor base for the $78M they believe it will take to get the project off the ground. The way they see it, they are diverting that $78M from LSC, so once SciTech Scity is built and starts making money, SciTech Scity, which will have profit-generating features like a hotel, is going to "pay back" LSC the $78M.

Quote:

Now we're to believe that a $22 Million organization, which can't break even, can build a $230 Million++ SciTech Scity. The redeveloper is UNKNOWN...

LSC is in charge, and have appointed trustees. They are raising money already for the project. It's a bit early for too much more than a master plan.

Oddly enough, Fulop hated the 2008 loan, and is backing this plan. Go figure.

I also have to say, I vastly prefer to the previous plan, which was a 10 story hotel and conference center. Don't you?

mfadam wrote:
having spent a lot of time at LSC with kids I wouldn't bet on a big spillover impact into DTJC restaurants. LSC is an auto based destination. People drive in from the burbs and run their kids around for 3 hours and then pack it up and head home in their minivan or SUV. I think the odds of the average user making the extra drive to DTJC to eat are slim.

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City abatement vote met with mock party

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on March 09, 2017 at 12:10 PM, updated March 09, 2017 at 2:04 PM

JERSEY CITY -- A group of about two dozen people wearing party hats, clutching invitations and bearing a cake descended on the City Council meeting yesterday to commemorate a special milestone.

No, it wasn't a council member's birthday. Last night saw the council voting on what the protesters/partygoers said was the 70th tax abatement of Mayor Steve Fulop's administration (it may have been the 71st).

The surprise party, the brainchild of ex-school board member and former Fulop ally Ellen Simon, was an effort to convince the council to vote down the abatement, a 20-year deal for a 63-unit building planned for Bennett Street.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... atements_with_surpri.html

landshark wrote:
One street over:
https://www.zillow.com/homes/82-prospect-st,-jersey-city,-nj-07307_rb/

Was the Heights supposed to be in the 1/3 that taxes stayed the same?

anonymess wrote:
I hate talking about this stuff; it only gets me riled up.

But... I had a problem with FIOS. The speed was a fraction of what it was supposed to be. Long story short... the tech came out, did a temporary fix and the speed is better, though not what I'm paying for. As it turns out, the equipment is already outdated (installed 6 years ago) and needs to be updated. I live in a mid-size condo bldg. and building mgmt has no idea who to contact at Verizon. They tried.

In any event, I don't want to pay for a speed I don't get. I spoke with seemingly someone at Verizon who gave a hoot, a supervisor in tech support. He said he would deal with the upgrade issue as well as having someone from billing call to adjust my account. He also left a number where I could reach him, though he said he would contact me the next day, a week ago now. Never happened. The phone number he gave me just rings endlessly.

Par for the course, nothing promised happened. Billing tells me there's nothing they can do and no one knows who the heck to talk to about upgrading the equipment for my section of the building. I've banged my head against the wall enough times with Verizon FIOS and don't feel like jumping through hoops again. However, it's highway robbery to have to pay for an Internet speed that they cannot provide. Unfortunately, the only competition is just as bad, if not worse. Help!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
The best way to make sure Ward F is affordable is to ensure there is an abundant supply of new housing being created in other wards. If rents are rising every year, it means there is not enough new supply hitting the market. Ward F residents should strongly encourage that development take place in the city's hot spots (downtown and Journal Square).

You have the right idea, but unfortunately JC is a small piece of the metro RE ecosystem. No one is building significant amounts of affordable housing, most is luxury, though that does have a trickle down effect.

As has been discussed here before, one of the biggest obstacles to increasing affordable housing is density zoning, both here and in the burbs. Take your typical 50x100 double lot in a R1 zone, R1 is most of JC. You could build a 20 unit building there easily. But R1 limits it to 35 ft high and 2 units, so you get 2 ugly Bayonne boxes, each 2 units, and fairly pricey given what crap they are because the fixed costs of construction are being concentrated in so few units.