T-Bird wrote:
A clear tube-like tunnel laid on the bottom of the river wouldn't cost that much. You could have two even - one for walkers, one for bicyclists. It's been done on a smaller scale (mostly in Asia) - it would have to be a lot cheaper than tunneling under the river bed. That said - I really don't know the mechanics involved or whether something like this is possible.

soulman wrote:
Great marketing ploy. "Gee, sorry you lost all those tools, here's a 10% discount coupon! come back inside and we'll hook you up". LOL

07310 wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
KRE, Kushner says, plans to price its Journal Squared rentals at around $300 less per unit than its downtown Jersey City project, and at around $500 to $600 less per unit than its waterfront rentals. He expects rents will begin at roughly $1,500 a month for studios and go up to $3,500 for three-bedrooms.


Wow... I thought I was doing well getting $1,850 for a three bedroom. There is really that much demand for $3,500 per month three bedroom apartments?

These are projections, when the buildings are completed in a few years don't be surprised if the rents are closer to what is being charged on the waterfront for similar units. The cost of new construction which continues to rise and the marketplace will dictate the final rent levels.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

mrasg1 wrote:
If you want to hunt and do it humanely and
it's for food not trophy? Fine. If you want
to defend yourself and family in your home ? Fine.
But no way in hell should anyone but law enforcement
on duty be allowed to carry a weapon as part of
their job. What's next? The asinine stand your ground law ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

The only cowards are those that feel a need to carry a gun because they might run into some criminal that might also be carrying a gun, illegally.

Who is to ultimately say that the person you presume to be a criminal really isn?t? Maybe that person is also carrying a gun legally.

I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six, so you can act like a child and call me a coward, but in the end, my constitutional right is being violated, and as with Illinois and California, NJ's carry laws will be found unconstitutional.

Concealed handguns are not an effective form of self-defense. A Nov. 2009 peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Public Health by Charles Branas, PhD, et al. found that someone carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun. Attackers often surprise victims, making it difficult to use a concealed handgun.

"Shall-issue" laws lead to increases in the rates of rape, robbery, and violent crime. A 1995 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by David McDowall, PhD, et al. of five urban cities found that gun homicide rates increased an average of 4.5% following the enactment of "shall-issue" laws. A May 2009 peer-reviewed study by Yale professors Ian Ayres, PhD, and John Donohue, PhD, that appeared in the Econ Journal Watch found that "shall-issue" laws increased aggravated assault between 1977 and 2006. Several researchers have found substantial flaws in the methodology of a landmark 1998 study by John Lott, PhD, and David Mustard, PhD, which claimed that more guns means less crime.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution allows citizens to bear arms for a well-regulated militia, not for concealed personal carry. The Second Amendment statement "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" does not mention concealed handguns.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller reasoned that Second Amendment rights have limits and that bans on concealed carry have been legal. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited? [C]ommentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose? For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Carrying a concealed handgun increases the chances of a confrontation escalating and turning lethal. The chances of a handgun being used inappropriately increase when normally responsible adults are intoxicated, tired, afraid, or untrained in conflict resolution.

Responsible adults can still be a threat to public safety if they are armed. Between 1996 and 2000, the Violence Policy Center found that concealed handgun permit holders in Texas were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81% higher than the general Texas population. Between May 2007 and Mar. 24, 2010, at least nine law enforcement officers and 142 private citizens were killed nationally by concealed handgun permit holders (approximately 0.003% of all murders in that time period).

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

mrasg1 wrote:
If you want to hunt and do it humanely and
it's for food not trophy? Fine. If you want
to defend yourself and family in your home ? Fine.
But no way in hell should anyone but law enforcement
on duty be allowed to carry a weapon as part of
their job. What's next? The asinine stand your ground law ?

What you don't seem to understand is the fact that hardened criminals will carry guns illegally and they don't care about any of NJ's restrictive laws. They don't care about them AT ALL. It's not even a thought for them. They're going to carry guns, period. I think it's about time we allow the law-abiding citizens the same ability, and let them do it legally.

The only cowards are those that feel a need to carry a gun because they might run into some criminal that might also be carrying a gun, illegally.

Who is to ultimately say that the person you presume to be a criminal really isn?t? Maybe that person is also carrying a gun legally.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
In order to get a permit you need to prove no criminal background nor have a background with domestic violence. Before anyone could even think about getting a carry license they have to prove that they're upstanding citizen with an extensive background check.

Now compare that to the thugs and gangbangers walking around carrying heat daily here in JC.

Which group is likely to cause a 'carry' problem for you?

This isn?t accurate. You don?t need to prove anything. A background check is performed. This check merely looks to see if there are public records stating whether you have committed a crime.

If someone beats their spouse and it is never reported, that person can still obtain a firearm.

Personally, I find both groups to be a problem. The person that obtained the gun legally is clearly a coward since they feel the need to be defended by more than just their fists and wits. The criminal is also dangerous since they are unlikely to make the soundest judgments.

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Why not move to a pro gun State and avoid yourself the stress? - Is it that hard to comprehend that some States (via their community) might not want 'everyone' with a gun walking the streets?

Personally I'd like a full psychological test be carried out on anyone that wants a gun - Once they pass, let them get what they want ... At least this would go a long way to weed out nutters - The military do it, as well as law enforcement!

In fairness, I would never advocate that people leave based on the disagreement of certain laws. Laws change, ideas change and tolerance changes.

You are correct about the psychological tests. I would also like to see a yearly renewal placed on a gun license. Who is to say that someone buying a gun at 20 doesn?t go and get hooked on drugs at 22? The fact that gun licenses are obtained for life is an issue.

GrovePath wrote:

Quote:

Br6dR wrote:

He's knows who you are. You're NONdowntown. Your boyfriend posted her as chickenfliedlice or something racist like that.

heights wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
I have no idea who you think I am. The point isn't whether their views on minorities or whatnot are accurate or legitimate. I will readily admit that the most amusing aspect of white supremacist groups is that they preach the superiority of the race but tend to be the absolute worst examples thereof. Any notion that these stupid rednecks are superior to minorities from top schools in top jobs is laughable. All of this is neither here nor there. You proposed a new law that would criminalize membership in a group that espouses racist views. I'm requesting that you explain how that would pass 1st amendment scrutiny. Will you answer or not?

Just curious you did not mention the minorities that are not in top schools or top jobs. You are either for the first amendment or not unless you re-write the constitution. Actually, this is an area where you have to have it both ways. Both ways meaning the right to speak on any issue. Once we stifle ourselves, we become everything we are against. I do not mind foreigners as long as they become legal, assimilate with our culture, and speak with a more intelligible tonuge.

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
devilsadvocate 'newbie' my ass - this sounds like a knucklehead that had the same view on life and social issues, that was put in their box by a number of JClisters.

These sort of associations are nothing more that an institution for hate crimes to prevail by weak minded, ignorant individuals that will also use religion to cement their warped beliefs and viewpoints.

I have no idea who you think I am. The point isn't whether their views on minorities or whatnot are accurate or legitimate. I will readily admit that the most amusing aspect of white supremacist groups is that they preach the superiority of the race but tend to be the absolute worst examples thereof. Any notion that these stupid rednecks are superior to minorities from top schools in top jobs is laughable. All of this is neither here nor there. You proposed a new law that would criminalize membership in a group that espouses racist views. I'm requesting that you explain how that would pass 1st amendment scrutiny. Will you answer or not?

He's knows who you are. You're NONdowntown. Your boyfriend posted her as chickenfliedlice or something racist like that.

Yvonne wrote:
Well, anyone that has a child and lives in downtown should run not walk, especially from devilsadvocate. What a fitting name, did your parent name you?

GrovePath wrote:
With 50,000 lawyers being spit out every year -- landlords better worry about getting sued -- look at the time this guy has on his hands!

Yvonne wrote:
I think it is sad that some people on this site, praise their pit bulls or other large animals, but offered no compassion to a human being, age 13, who met a horrible death.

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I have two pits and love em.. I have a cat too, who is the shady violent one.

I don't have a pit bull, but have numerous friends with pits. I do have a large dog who I'm sure many in this thread would love to ban as well. Frankly, I'm sick of authoritarian nutcases that believe they have the right to turn urban areas into their personal Disneylands. If you want a gated community then please by all means move to a gated community. That would be a totally reasonable place to tell people about what life choices they should be making.

Anyway, hope to see your pups at the dog park. We also have a cat that is shady and violent that for some reason no one wants to ban. Go figure.

The "authoritarian nutcases" you so hate are already winning through insurance companies. If a landlord allows a vicious dog on the premises, he will have to pay a higher homeowner's insurance premium with several companies. This, not fear of legal liability, leads to de facto bans on vicious dogs, as landlords may opt for the cheaper premium and forbid tenants from owning such a dog.

Good luck fighting against that.

The trend has actually been towards less breed restrictions in insurance, not greater. You're certainly right that if one has a vicious dog with a history of eating children then they will pay more for their home insurance (unless the dog is excluded). However, some do not equate size or breed with viciousness.

But I do agree that pressure on insurance companies is important, and I have been a part of the efforts that have led to a turn-around.

Do you mind showing me anything to support "the trend has actually been towards less restrictions in insurance, not greater."

Because all I find is the opposite:

"These days, companies offering homeowners and renters insurance are pickier than ever about which types of dogs they?ll insure and which they won?t, says Jeff McCarthy, an agent with Harrington Insurance Agency in Woburn, Mass.

The reason: The insurance companies don?t want to deal with a potential lawsuit if someone gets bitten or hurt by your dog while they?re in your home, he says."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/cateyhill ... r-homeowners-and-renters/

For example, in 2012 State Farm removed breed discrimination. There are also several others, such as AAA and Travelers that do not discriminate by breed. The one recent reversal is Farmers, but that is only in California.

Do you have a link for that, Nondowntown?

GrovePath wrote:
"Court cases have held landlords liable in the following situations:

...The landlord had knowledge that the animal was a pit bull, and had control of the premises or otherwise had the ability to eliminate the danger by having the animal removed or confined."

http://dogbitelaw.com/landlord-liabil ... ites-by-tenants-dogs.html

As a landlord -- just getting sued is bad enough -- even if you eventually win -- and the law is even more clear about landlord's liability in multi unit buildings!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Why not move to a pro gun State and avoid yourself the stress? - Is it that hard to comprehend that some States (via their community) might not want 'everyone' with a gun walking the streets?

Personally I'd like a full psychological test be carried out on anyone that wants a gun - Once they pass, let them get what they want ... At least this would go a long way to weed out nutters - The military do it, as well as law enforcement!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
devilsadvocate 'newbie' my ass - this sounds like a knucklehead that had the same view on life and social issues, that was put in their box by a number of JClisters.

These sort of associations are nothing more that an institution for hate crimes to prevail by weak minded, ignorant individuals that will also use religion to cement their warped beliefs and viewpoints.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Any organisation that advocates or facilitates any form of racial discrimination should be a crime with serious penalties.
Legislation should be in NJ to weed these sorts of group out of the State.

I don't understand, do schools not teach why this would be inherently unconstitutional these days or what?

I'm sure your comprehension skills are great.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I have two pits and love em.. I have a cat too, who is the shady violent one.

I don't have a pit bull, but have numerous friends with pits. I do have a large dog who I'm sure many in this thread would love to ban as well. Frankly, I'm sick of authoritarian nutcases that believe they have the right to turn urban areas into their personal Disneylands. If you want a gated community then please by all means move to a gated community. That would be a totally reasonable place to tell people about what life choices they should be making.

Anyway, hope to see your pups at the dog park. We also have a cat that is shady and violent that for some reason no one wants to ban. Go figure.

The "authoritarian nutcases" you so hate are already winning through insurance companies. If a landlord allows a vicious dog on the premises, he will have to pay a higher homeowner's insurance premium with several companies. This, not fear of legal liability, leads to de facto bans on vicious dogs, as landlords may opt for the cheaper premium and forbid tenants from owning such a dog.

Good luck fighting against that.

The trend has actually been towards less breed restrictions in insurance, not greater. You're certainly right that if one has a vicious dog with a history of eating children then they will pay more for their home insurance (unless the dog is excluded). However, some do not equate size or breed with viciousness.

But I do agree that pressure on insurance companies is important, and I have been a part of the efforts that have led to a turn-around.

Do you mind showing me anything to support "the trend has actually been towards less restrictions in insurance, not greater."

Because all I find is the opposite:

"These days, companies offering homeowners and renters insurance are pickier than ever about which types of dogs they?ll insure and which they won?t, says Jeff McCarthy, an agent with Harrington Insurance Agency in Woburn, Mass.

The reason: The insurance companies don?t want to deal with a potential lawsuit if someone gets bitten or hurt by your dog while they?re in your home, he says."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/cateyhill ... r-homeowners-and-renters/

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I have two pits and love em.. I have a cat too, who is the shady violent one.

I don't have a pit bull, but have numerous friends with pits. I do have a large dog who I'm sure many in this thread would love to ban as well. Frankly, I'm sick of authoritarian nutcases that believe they have the right to turn urban areas into their personal Disneylands. If you want a gated community then please by all means move to a gated community. That would be a totally reasonable place to tell people about what life choices they should be making.

Anyway, hope to see your pups at the dog park. We also have a cat that is shady and violent that for some reason no one wants to ban. Go figure.

Welcome to an urban society with laws to govern EVERYONE'S viewpoint - I hear there are a few islands in the pacific up for sale where one can run naked and free with no social, morale or legal restrictions!

Clearly I'm proposing that JC become a lawless nudist colony. That said, morons that believe that they will be successful in banning large dogs or pit bulls or getting everyone to comply with their silly wants and desires will just continue to be extremely frustrated. Which is fine, but they're annoying and I just think everyone would be happier if they found a nice gated community where they would be perfectly safe and there would be zero undesirable dogs or people around. Also, I would have to donate less of my time and money to lobbying orgs that fight their obnoxious efforts.

There are a lot of 'morons' out there that might consider your viewpoint as moronic also - Welcome to democracy, freedom of speech and issues relating to social behavior.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Any organisation that advocates or facilitates any form of racial discrimination should be a crime with serious penalties.
Legislation should be in NJ to weed these sorts of group out of the State.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I have two pits and love em.. I have a cat too, who is the shady violent one.

I don't have a pit bull, but have numerous friends with pits. I do have a large dog who I'm sure many in this thread would love to ban as well. Frankly, I'm sick of authoritarian nutcases that believe they have the right to turn urban areas into their personal Disneylands. If you want a gated community then please by all means move to a gated community. That would be a totally reasonable place to tell people about what life choices they should be making.

Anyway, hope to see your pups at the dog park. We also have a cat that is shady and violent that for some reason no one wants to ban. Go figure.

The "authoritarian nutcases" you so hate are already winning through insurance companies. If a landlord allows a vicious dog on the premises, he will have to pay a higher homeowner's insurance premium with several companies. This, not fear of legal liability, leads to de facto bans on vicious dogs, as landlords may opt for the cheaper premium and forbid tenants from owning such a dog.

Good luck fighting against that.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I have two pits and love em.. I have a cat too, who is the shady violent one.

I don't have a pit bull, but have numerous friends with pits. I do have a large dog who I'm sure many in this thread would love to ban as well. Frankly, I'm sick of authoritarian nutcases that believe they have the right to turn urban areas into their personal Disneylands. If you want a gated community then please by all means move to a gated community. That would be a totally reasonable place to tell people about what life choices they should be making.

Anyway, hope to see your pups at the dog park. We also have a cat that is shady and violent that for some reason no one wants to ban. Go figure.

Welcome to an urban society with laws to govern EVERYONE'S viewpoint - I hear there are a few islands in the pacific up for sale where one can run naked and free with no social, morale or legal restrictions!

user1111 wrote:
Rebecca Forand/South Jersey Times

Such causes as opposition to Agenda 21 ? a non-binding action plan of the United Nations ? and support for laws that nullify potential federal laws, such as bans of Sharia law, which was passed in Oklahoma in 2010, and the Arizona proposal allowing business owners to discriminate against gays are some of the topics radical-right groups have lobbied for.

GrovePath wrote:
Educational flyers are not the answer -- unless the flyers are aimed at telling landlords about the liability issues -- there needs to be bans on certain breeds -- and LHS should not be pushing the adoption of Pitbulls.

user1111 wrote:
I have two pits and love em.. I have a cat too, who is the shady violent one.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
[quote]

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/1979-1998 ... atal-human-attacks-us.pdf

Bullmastiffs don't make the top 8. Though to be honest, I'd rather face a pit bull than a bullmastiff.

Interesting list. I wouldn't expect a husky dog to be so high up with no bullmastiff but I guess they are more dangerous than I thought.

I took another look at my lease and it prohibits even bringing (let alone owning) the following dogs onto the premises: "any dogs considered vicious, including pitbulls, rottweillers, doberman pinschers, bull mastiffs, german shepherds, and any cross breed dog containing one or more of the above breeds." So not 8 like I thought but appears to capture most of that list.

GrovePath wrote:
I can't believe that any landlord is dumb enough to open themselves up for these lawsuits -- just imagine when their insurance companies find out!