|
Re: New Marriott coming to JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Tramz is the company that owns the brick and mortar (meaning the actual property). It is not a hotel brand. Most hotels, across the board, are not operated by the brand name on it. The people who own the properties sign managment deals with the chains because it is the respective brands that draw in the customers. Most people don't want to stay at a hotel they've never heard of. But say a Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott or other brands, that's makes it familiar and more attractive. I guess my years in the hotel industry are actually paying off...lol
Posted on: 2014/1/28 16:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Marriott coming to JC
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The actual developer has not changed (Tramz). It just seems like they've signed a management deal with Marriott instead of Hilton.
Posted on: 2014/1/28 13:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Wall St. Journal story today on Fulop JC Rebrand attempt
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
My understanding is that you did pretty well when you sold your property near Van Vorst Park.
Posted on: 2014/1/27 20:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Changes to the Land Development
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If you look at the "key" towards the bottom of the document, you will see that anything being deleted from the original is struck through and anything being added is underlined. All this fuss is about a lowering of legal water temperatures coming out of water heaters. My guess is that it's about safety, particularly reducing the risk of being scalded. As for Yvonne's original complaint, it seems like this was all done in a public manner (since she was actually able to post it here) and she is simply doing what seems to be her purpose in life these days - complaining about anything and everything Steve Fulop or his allies on the council do. Hell, at this point he could stand in the council chambers and sh*t nickels and she would be outraged that they weren't quarters.
Posted on: 2014/1/26 3:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So you seem to be in the know...what are these options that they are not taking?
Posted on: 2013/11/1 17:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Harborside Development Receives $33 Million Tax Credit
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This was not an abatement. I believe this is a state tax break, not a city one. The city doesn't control what the state does.
Posted on: 2013/10/28 1:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Really? Ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli? It was ratified unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams (one of the founders I believe) in 1797. It reads as follows: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,?as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],?and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. I added the bold. : )
Posted on: 2013/10/22 1:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 400 Unit Development in Hamilton Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Pilots have come before the City Council to be approved. So I highly doubt it will get past this Council. But I could be wrong.
Posted on: 2013/10/4 15:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, it actually doesn?t contradict the facts. There are two bodies of the Legislative Branch. One of the two bodies is not willing to gut a law that was passed by both houses of congress, signed by the President and upheld by a conservative majority Supreme Court. It happens all of the time. The founders of our nation specifically designed things this way to make sure that one party, or one small faction, cannot force its will on the nation. The Senate is simply not going to negotiate on the ACA, so anyone that is reasonable would understand that you sit down and come to an agreement on what you can. And even if the Senate were to suddenly capitulate to the will of the House Republicans, and gutted the health care law, the President would veto it. And it takes two thirds of both chambers of congress to override a veto which doesn?t exist in this case. These are simply the facts and part of the checks and balances built into our governing system. So you want us all to believe that it is the Democrats and President Obama who are the hostage takers. What fantasy world do you live in? Why would the democratically controlled Senate and the President agree to gut a law that they passed and believe in? If the Republicans are not happy with that law, then the constitution has built in a way for them to do this - convince the American people that your ideas and policies are best and then get enough of your party elected to repeal the law and/or alter it to your liking. Oh, by the way, we just had an election where the ACA (or Obamacare as the Republicans want to call it) was one of the major issues contended. Funny thing is, Barack Obama won by 5 million votes and won 61% of the total Electoral College votes. In addition, the Democrats picked up 2 seats in the Senate and 9 seats in the House compared to the previous congress. It sure doesn?t seem like the American people spoke out very strongly against the healthcare law. But even after an election where the Republicans lost the Executive Branch and lost seats in both houses of the Legislative Branch, they want to thumb their nose at the constitution that they claim to love so much and shut down the government because they can?t get their way under the rules set by that constitution. First they refuse to negotiate on the two versions of the passed budget resolutions because they know they?ll never get what they want and then they choose to shut down the government as a last resort. That is simply extortion and it?s just insanity. And quite frankly the Republicans who know that there is enough votes between both parties to end this mess right now, the same ones who love to throw around the idea of impeachment, should probably be impeached themselves for their total disregard for the constitution and the American people. I?m sorry everyone doesn?t agree with your beliefs about governing and the direction of our country. I?m sure it sucks for you, just as it did for many of us under the Bush/Cheney years. But we live in a country with a constitution that put checks and balances into place and when we don?t get our way, we have to live with the outcome or work to change it through the proper process. Otherwise, we?ll be just some banana republic at the whim of whomever can grab power at any given moment.
Posted on: 2013/10/4 15:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Dude, do you even understand how this works? The House did indeed pass a budget, but there are two bodies of the Legislative branch. The Senate also must pass a budget, which they did. Since it is not the same as the House bill, it now has to go to conference between the two to iron out the differences and come up with a compromise bill that both bodies must go back and approve respectively. So the Senate passed a budget in March and guess who has refused to go to conference with the their bill? Let me give you a clue, it wasn't the Senate. So there is no bill for Obama to sign buddy. Wonder why the Republican lead House doesn't want to go to conference? Could it be that they know it will never make it out with all their ridiculous demands in tact? Talk about a bunch of spoiled rotten imbeciles.
Posted on: 2013/10/4 2:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, I think the mood here is that you can't have it both ways. It's not alright to defund the veterans anymore than it's alright to force thousands of small children out of their Headstart classes. It's immoral, at least in my opinion, to place a higher value on one life more than the other. Yes the veterans served our country and deserve to be looked after. But these children are our future and deserve not to be left behind. So as far as I am concerned, if you're not as concerned about everyone else who is being left to fend for themselves, then I don't really give the rest of your argument that much weight. Oh and by your own argument on another thread, maybe the veterans should make due with the situation they have and not ?go down the use-social-security-goodies road.? I don?t agree with that, but either apply your principals to everyone or STFU. Quote:
Posted on: 2013/10/3 12:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Good. God knows we have to bring the deficit down. They are part of the 47% after all. **sarcasm...btw**
Posted on: 2013/10/3 2:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, from the religion that puts intentially missing mass on Sunday on the same level of sinning as committing murder. Dear Jesus, Please save us from your followers. Amen.
Posted on: 2013/9/17 17:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Storefronts on Newark Ave
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Hey!!!...I'm not ignorant. 
Posted on: 2013/8/1 19:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax bill
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes Yvonne, but that's my issue. You throw around the words cut the budget, but you don't give any specifics. And you're mad that a council that was in office for a week didn't just go in and start slashing numbers even though they couldn't have begun to know what affects those cuts would have on everything else. It's all intertwined. Why is it you can't give them the benefit of the doubt for at least a little while? You even said on this site that you voted for Steve Fulop. I assume that you voted for him because you thought he would do the right things in the long run. What exactly were you expecting to happen? Did you think that he would do everything in the manner that you have in your head (that by the way you don't share with us all)? There doesn't seem to be any logic to it except you are used to complaining and now you have something new to complain about. If things don't start turning around in the next year, of course you have legitimate gripes. But 4 weeks in? Really?
Posted on: 2013/7/26 23:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax bill
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It's not the griping that bothers me so much. We all gripe from time to time, including me. It's the regularity and the unreasonable quality about it that I take issue with. It seems every time I open a thread about taxes, or the new mayor, or the city council - anything civic related at this point - there is Yvonne griping about something. There never seems to be anything constructive about it, nor are there any real solutions offered. It's simply rhetoric and complaint after complaint. And lately I've been feeling the same thing every time I come across it. It's generally, "Give it a rest. We get it already, you're not happy." Maybe she doesn't realize she even does it. Maybe she truly does have the best intentions, but if no one ever points it out, it will simply go on. And...maybe I'm the only one that is bothered by it. To be clear, I don't think Steve Fulop or Candice Osbourne (or had it been Dan Levin) are going to fix this mess overnight. They were left a huge mess and it's going to take some time to untangle everything to see exactly what the next steps are. There is something to be said for being reasonable about expectations. And harping (continually) on how crappy everyone is doing, particularly after only 4 weeks is far from reasonable to me. It just seems like an attempt to validate one's complaints. In a years time, and maybe even less, I will re-evaluate. God knows if I'm not afraid of this thread, I won't have trouble calling out poor performance even if I did vote for these people.
Posted on: 2013/7/26 21:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax bill
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Those aren't specifics Yvonne and talk isn't action. I want some specifics, otherwise you're just griping. And whether I used a word you like or don't like, or I use my name or not, those are simply distractions from the point - that you're simply griping to hear yourself gripe.
Posted on: 2013/7/26 19:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax bill
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The fact that some people find certain words offensive (and let's be perfectly clear, I wasn't calling you a name) and choose not to use them does not make constant whining any more pleasant or useful. And I stand by my original point, it's not your opinions that bother me so much, it's the need to voice a variation of the same negative thing over and over, just because one can. And lastly, if you're so unhappy about the way things are run in this city, and anyone who is a regular on this site and at council meetings knows darn well you are, why don't you step up to the plate and run for office? Don't simply scream about what's wrong all of the time, get in there and work for the solutions. Honestly, I would love to hear how you would clean up the mess that is Jersey City government quickly and efficiently. And I don't just mean broad talking points that ultimately mean nothing, let's hear the specifics.
Posted on: 2013/7/26 18:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax bill
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
For God's sake Yvonne. We get it, over and over and over we get. Fulop is, surprise, surprise, a politician and doesn't walk on water. And how dare he, and the new council, not get everything fixed to your liking in 4 or so weeks. But do you have to b*tch about it every single chance you get? Nearly every post you have on here seems to be more from a negative place than not. Are you ever happy about anything? Don't get me wrong, you have the right to think and feel what you want. And you have a constitutional right to express it. But I have the same rights to express my thoughts and feelings about what others put out into the world. And what I think and feel in this instance is that for as much good as you probably have done for this city, it gets a little tiring to hear (read) you whine constantly. Give it a rest from time to time. The chemicals our bodies produce when we're angry aren't good for us when there're constantly present in our bodies anyway.
Posted on: 2013/7/26 17:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Construction on 5th and Manila
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
They are getting ready to repave the street. Part of that process is making the corners ADA compliant.
Posted on: 2013/7/11 20:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council set to approve 8 percent tax hike
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Fletcher, Thank God you didn?t win. It?s not that you are completely off base on some of your solutions, but that fact that you think anyone can (or should for that matter) come into office and make sweeping changes across the city without taking the time to do a proper assessment of what?s really going on, just scares me. It?s just a simplistic attitude that sort of negates every talking point you used to describe yourself when you first announced your candidacy here on JCList. Quote:
Any good business person knows you do not walk into a company as the new CEO and start making huge decisions without first figuring out what the landscape is. Governments, like business, are machines with countless moving parts where one component often affects another. If you go into that machine and suddenly start tinkering without understanding exactly how it works and what parts affect all the other parts, you?re likely to blow up the entire machine. Jersey City, as a working government organization, is no different. Someone, and in this case the person ultimately responsible will be Steve Fulop, needs to get a handle on exactly how things are currently operating. That is going to take time. Even though Steve was a Councilman, anyone who knows anything about our city government knows that the Council and the Administration are very different and that it is the Administration that actually runs the day to day operations of the City and essentially has most of the power. Being a member of the City Council does not give one unlimited access to the working of city departments or how they are run. Does it give you a leg up? Of course. But, it is not likely enough information to step into a new role and suddenly make changes with broad brush strokes that could end up making things worse instead of better. So let?s take your suggestions piece by piece: Quote:
The mayor and the council did take responsibility and did what they had to do. Even the non-Fulop members of the council voted for it. As a matter of fact, this is a direct quote from the Jersey Journal article: ?Ward C Councilman Rich Boggiano, one of only two council members who didn?t run on Fulop?s ticket in May?s municipal election, said the tax hike is ?not his fault,? referring to Fulop.? Is he just another crony as well? The budget deficit is not the fault of the new council or the Fulop administration. All indications point to exactly what Steve has said; the Healy administration put out budget numbers that favored his reelection chances; thus the reason they never passed it. Any incoming mayor would do exactly the same thing by pointing this out. What?s wrong with that? Quote:
When you refer to David Donnelly as an empty suit, I take that to mean that you think he?s being paid to do nothing. Do you know this from personal experience? You suggest what he?s being tasked to do adds little or no value to the city. What are you basing that on? Is it simply that Steve hired a former council member? I don?t get it. What information do you have that we don?t? Please, enlighten us. Quote:
We just had some 25 or so police personnel retire en mass. Should we not replace them? How about replacing heads of departments? Should we simply leave Healy?s patronage choices in place so we can say we didn?t hire anyone? Who makes these determinations? What is the criteria? How does anyone know one week (or even on month) into office just who is truly important and who is not? What are the long term effects on services? Or, do we simply do what is easiest at the moment and let the cards fall where they may? Quote:
Which workers do we choose? Again, what are the long term effects on services? How much can we cut hours of employees until we actually cripple the ability of the city to operate? Quote:
Who are we demoting? What will it do to job retention rates? Yes there are those who should probably leave, but do we honestly think the Council or the Mayor can have a true handle on that 11 days after they took over? Also, change scares the hell out of people. As a business person, you must be very well aware that making changes too fast can paralyze even those who aren?t affected. Low morale could possibly take things from bad to worse. Quote:
No offense dude, but I went to the ?Listening Meeting? held at City Hall. They had so many potential speakers that they couldn?t even get to them all. And one after another, the general consensus was that people wanted a city that actually works for them. They want real services for what they are paying. Steve is actually taking steps to build this type of system and you?re complaining? Yes it costs money. Anything worth anything usually does. It?s called investing in the future. Again, you with such business acumen must already know this. Sometimes you have to spend money upfront to save in the end. Quote:
Are we simply supposed to shed our current assets as fast as we can so we don?t have to raise taxes? By doing so we could be penny wise and dollar foolish. Are we just supposed to take the Healy Administration?s word or what the properties are worth? What if it was assessed at an artificially low value to give some contributor a better profit margin? Are you suggesting that this isn?t a possibility? Did you not see the Solomon Dwek videos? Quote:
We the people of Jersey City do indeed need tax relief and fairness; on this we agree. But the reality is we can?t have it NOW. The Administration and the Council has to play the hand it was dealt; not the one it wants. They have to take time to figure out just exactly how things stand at the moment and where tax savings can sensibly be found. It really comes down to the scalpel versus the ax. Personally I prefer the surgeon to do what is needed to save as much as possible and not simply lop of a large part of the body because it is easiest and fastest. Recovering from surgery may be complicated and painful, but it beats the hell out of learning to live without whole portions of the body. I also agree with you on Tax Abatements, at least in part. Have you ever asked yourself what precipitated the change from Downtown to Waterfront language (if it did indeed change)? Did you ever stop to think that there are areas that are downtown that might still need incentives to entice developers? Technically, I believe parts of Bergen- Lafayette are considered downtown. Then there is the area off Montgomery Street just west of the Turnpike before you go up the hill. Finally, there is all of that area close to the Cast Iron Lofts that is just starting to get developed. These are areas that aren?t as attractive to developers because of lack of transportation, blight and/or crime. Should we not be sweetening the pot, even just a little bit, to get things moving? And finally, I completely agree with you on the Reval front. I feel the Reval should happen and I hope they do it and do it correctly. And if they don?t, I will be very vocal to both Steve and Candice about it. But no matter whether I agree with the new Council and the Mayor all of the time, some of the time or not at all, I don?t expect things to happen immediately. And although some of your suggestions may indeed be solutions over the long haul, expecting them to happen 11 days after a complete change over in government, seems simply naive to me. So my take away from your post(s) is that you really don?t know as much as you espouse, or you do and you just love political rhetoric (which is not the same as governing) or you?re suffering from sour grapes. Either way, I?m glad you?re not representing me and you?ll never get my vote in the future.
Posted on: 2013/7/11 20:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City Mayor-elect Fulop names corporation counsel and chief of staff
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Where in either of these articles does it say anything about LeFrak and the Real Estate/Redevelopment/Business Climate-Outreach Committee? Where is this information coming from and how did we get on the subject at all since it was not what this thread was about? Do you have some sort of inside information that the rest of us aren't privy to?
Posted on: 2013/6/14 12:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Election results
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Every ward except Ward E and the three At Large positions. Each garnered enough votes to break the 50% + 1 vote standard. (You get that number by taking each At Large candidate's respective numbers and multiply by 3. If that number is larger than 50% of the total votes for At Large, then there is no run off.)
Posted on: 2013/5/15 2:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Flooding in Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The water made it about a third of the way up the street just west of Manila, but it never broke the curb.
Posted on: 2013/5/9 0:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Healy orders Fulop campaign to stop running ads featuring Dwek
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Folks, This is a ?Get out the vote? election if there ever was one. Fulop and his slate only win if those who proclaim to want change get out there and actually vote (versus just complaining out everything). Why does Mayor Healy hate the ?interlopers?? Because we?re (even though I?ve been here 13 years, I?m fairly sure I?m still considered an interloper) not happy with the status quo. But many of the newer residents of Jersey City still see New York City as their ?real? home and Michael Bloomberg as their ?actual? mayor. But that?s beginning to change. It is up to those of us who are truly motivated to make sure that our friends and neighbors who, although may be starting to pay attention, aren?t quite as invested as us get out there and participate. Voting is not asking very much of us, but sometimes we just need a gentle (or not so gentle) reminder to do what is needed. So if you really want to see change, get your friends and neighbors to the polls on May 14th. Hell, offer to go with them. Let?s do this people.
Posted on: 2013/4/29 13:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop (as Mayor) will stop the reval?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I got the mailer yesterday as well. Frankly, it kind of surprised me. I was just telling someone last night, it is the first really significant thing I disagree with Steve about. I'm still supporting him, however.
Posted on: 2013/4/27 12:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Orale Mexican Kitchen
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Had dinner there tonight. Wow it was good. And if this is what it is like only on their second day of operations, I can only guess it will only get better and better. Really folks, if this place fails, it's only because something is wrong with the people of Jersey City.
Posted on: 2013/4/7 2:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more taxpayer funding for the Loew's, Jersey City mayor says
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The Heights I might agree with, but in my experience the current mayor has little or no interest in downtown. He does have interest in the PILOT money to be made on the waterfront, but that's about it. As for the actual residents of downtown, he seems to have disdain for them. It's seems to be all about what what he can get out of us and disgust for the fact that we expect something in return. And just to be clear, our annual property tax (not a PILOT) is about $13,000, and that is not for an entire row house. It's a 1,900 sq ft condo. That's my 2 cents.
Posted on: 2013/4/7 1:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Construction at Colgate Clock
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Oh no, no, no. This was just a pipe dream of a group of Paulus Hook residents. It never got past the fantasy drawings stage and ultimately accomplished nothing but dividing neighbors. And it wasn't until years later that I found out that some of the most vocal supporters of the project were driven by the promise that if a bridge was built, the walkway wouldn't have to sit directly adjacent to Claremont Cove. The whole ordeal was like a soap opera, and not in a good way.
Posted on: 2013/3/27 23:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Dan is still Dan
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Um...he won't be getting any votes in Healy hot spots of the Heights and Journal Square because he is only running for Ward E, not for an At-Large seat. Only the Ward E votes will count. In that, he may have problems.
Posted on: 2013/3/24 2:40
|
|||
|
||||