papadage wrote:
I rest my case.

Provincial yuppies that can't recognize a good thing when they see it. Little India is a jewel in the entire state, let alone the town. Better Indian food, and more varied styles than anywhere outside the actual subcontinent. That's not worth a literal two minute walk from the JSq PATH on a weekday?

Andreas Salumeria is a another gem, in the heights. Monteleones has better pastries than the world famous Carlos in Hoboken, at better prices, and their rumcake is literally more addictive than meth.

How many people have bothered to even go to Lincoln Park, which is beautiful and vibnrant. Burger and drinks at the Park Tavern? Grits and eggs and Lou's on Ocean? The Mozz Boss in Greenville?

I'll repeat. Narrow minded, provincial little fools.

bodhipooh wrote:
Commingling of luxury rentals AND student housing?? That will be a disaster. I once lived in a semi-luxury apartment complex where many college kids also rented apartments. It was a mess! On weekends they would have school friends over and leave a mess of bottles and other detritus, garbage cans would be overflowing and the dumpster were equally messy. The administration tried to keep things in order, but I think they were also very accommodating of the students, as it represented a nice, steady stream of income for the complex. It was definitely detrimental to the everyday quality of life of non-students. During the Summer months, the apartment complex was so much more pleasant!

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

margel wrote:
**
Correction: August 25, 2014
An earlier version of this article misquoted Angela Putman when she described her new neighborhood, Bayonne. She said, ?It is really cute,? not ?It is really hick.?
**

This is one of the funniest NYTimes corrections I've seen in a long, long time!

That IS super funny. I do wonder how they managed to mangle THAT quote. Was it an intentional dig by the writer and/or editor? Or, perhaps the subject DID say that and then realized the inappropriateness of it once printed? From hick to cute is a bit much to chalk it off to an autocorrect or typing mistake.

papadage wrote:
"People just like us."

LOL..

Way to show narrow mindedness.

I still can't believe how many people I meet that have lived in DTJC for years now, and have never even visited Little India, or gotten a pastry from Monteleone.

tommyc_37 wrote:
Amazing that further limiting overnight service is being considered during a population boom. Just utterly amazing. It should be increased, not decreased. In fact, there is a dramatic need for an increase. Is the PA leadership absolutely insane?

If overnight service decreases, you'll see Jersey City in 5 years consisting entirely of families and transient international workers. It will no longer be a remotely attractive living destination for young people. Which would not be good; all great neighborhoods have a balance of families and young single people.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ceo3west wrote:
Speaking of new path stations, I recently emailed Candice Osborne about discussing with the Port Authority a new station in between Grove and Journal Square (somewhere around Brunswick). These two stations are nearly 2 miles apart, and there are a ton of new developments that are going up or have gone up already in the Village neighborhood. Folks around the Enos Jones area have to walk 20-30 mins to get to a station, and there are ~200 new units going up there.

Candice said she would discuss it with the PA, and the PA did get back to me saying they would take a look at this as a long-term project.

You do realize the station would be on Columbus right? Columbus & Bruswick is only 2500' from Grove. And that's still 2200 ft from Pavonia & Brunswick. From P & B to Grove via Newark is 4000 ft, and if that takes you 20 minutes you've got to stop dragging your feet. Googlemaps clocks it at 16 min, seems about right. The same radius from the station in Hoboken would only be at 6th & Willow, not considered far there at all. Oh, and the stations only 1.5 miles apart, not 2.

I'd say Candace & the PA is humoring you. That's what they do.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Cilento wrote:
Thanks for posting! This is great.

It always bothers me how much power we give the state borderline ignoring the actual geography of a megalopolis like NYC. There are more than 20 million people living in this population cluster, regardless of political borders. The worst thing the British ever did was give New Jersey over to Berkeley and Carteret as a repayment for their loyalty to the crown in the English Civil War. ]

The competition this created between these two colonies, then between the states, has been incredibly counter productive. Its modern repercussion is the Port Authority of NY and NJ which is ridiculous.

Why split one of the greatest harbors in the world between 2 political entities? It just doesn't make sense.

I love this map because it puts geography above politics.

Do YOU wish you paid NYC City Income tax? Because I sure as hell don't.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

ahal wrote:
Isn't the alternate that if all of this additional capacity didn't come online, then prices would be even higher? Why shouldn't the theory be that prices are increasing at a lower rate because of the new construction?

Possibly, but a neighborhood like JC is having people move in because they expect it to keep improving. Not as many people would be attracted to DTJC if you told them we'd have the same restaurants and stores 5 years from now. More people mean better amenities and more things to do.

malcontent wrote:
These buildings are leasing at an amazing speed. I hear 18 Park has already leased almost half of their units.

Yvonne wrote:
Here is the map of the lite rail station, it is only available to parts of the city. https://www.njtransit.com/pdf/LightRail/sf_lr_hblr_map.pdf

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Annod wrote:
I also got Hoboken. I think it is because Hoboken is more walkable than Jersey City.

City----------Zip-Code-Walk-Score
Hoboken-------07030----95
Union City----07087----94
West New York-07093----93
Jersey City---07305----84


http://www.walkscore.com/NJ/

I would say that it is more likely they just have about 10 towns to pick from and JC isn't one.

SteveWilson29 wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

SteveWilson29 wrote:
Where exactly would a 100, 000 person stadium plus parking go? There's no room down there.

One would assume they have an idea of where they are putting things but it is a good question. If you took the whole area just south of the park I think you could fit a speedway but then there wouldn't be much room for a casino. I suppose the footprint of the building doesn't need to be that large and I would guess they mostly just want to punt on parking and say take mass transit, which would obviously not work with that many people.

Just south of the park is the golf course and point liberte. There really isn't much undeveloped land there.

SRhia wrote:
Wow! I never understood why people still rent if they can afford to pay so much in rent!!! Why can't they:

1. Buy and get a mortgage? For $5000 in monthly mortgage, I can buy a really nice place, even in NYC!!!

2. Rent instead in NYC. With $5000, I can get a decent 2 bedroom there! Why would I pay that much for a place JC?

Don't get me wrong, I love JC and is a home owner here, but those prices just blows my mind!!!

Quote:

user1111 wrote:
$4,995

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Stringer wrote:
Port Authority settles suit over disabled access to Grove Street PATH station

The Associated Press By The Associated Press
June 29, 2014 at 5:29 PM

NEWARK ? The Port Authority and two advocacy groups have reached a settlement in a seven-year-old lawsuit over disabled access to the Grove Street PATH station.

The two groups, Heightened Independence and Progress, Inc., and the United Spinal Association, claimed the Port Authority's renovation of the station in Jersey City completed in 2005 violated federal law by not including an elevator for disabled individuals.

The Port Authority claimed in court filings that the statute of limitations had run out before the groups filed the lawsuit, but a judge disagreed.

In a document filed Thursday, the Port Authority agreed to construct an elevator at the southwest entrance to the station and a passenger vertical platform lift on the west side of the station. The additions are to be completed within three years.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014 ... _street_path_station.html

Does this mean that one or more of the entrances will be closed for the next 3 years in order for them to do this work?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote
This is the sort of spot where a developer should get upzoning (assuming the community gets something back and they are supposed to with a park and some traffic work, I think). It's right on Marin, there is already a tall building in the adjacent lot and the .5 spaces for unit is more parking than most apartment buildings in the area are using.

I could see limiting it to 140 ft (the same as the senior center), but even that I don't mind much.

What? Haven't you seen the laundry list posted on doors of reason why this building will end civilization as we know it? My favorite is how these mostly studio units will increase crowding of the schools.

SteveWilson29 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:

Who would this benefit exactly? Out of towners who are afraid of taking a train? People coming from points north (Heights, Hoboken, Weehawken) who are too lazy to take the Light Rail for $2?

Does ANYONE take the light rail to go to LSP?

JCishome wrote:
Most of the shareholders are holdovers from the conversion to co-op, and they're senior citizens or their descendants. I'm sure they'll be happy to cash in on their investments.

hero69 wrote:
wasn't this essentially the way it was before

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Science is about *scientists* asking questions. It is not about the general public's uninformed opinion and questions based in the general public's uninformed ignorance. If you have no scientific background in the particular relevant field, you have no business asking questions...

My point is that you seem to be dismissing any potential concerns with an angry wave of the hand, almost as if to say that because the popular, irrational argument is wrong, there are no questions left to ask. Again, it is important to recognize that the implications of GMOs extend far beyond the scope of just their consumption and use, and it would be irresponsible not to ask questions regardless of our backgrounds.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
but why not allow manufacturers to label their products as "non_GMO" just like they do with organic products. If I choose to waste my money on such products, how does that concern anyone else?

Why are you under the impression that is not allowed? Companies are free to label their products as GMO free. Some already do. Prime example: Cheerios.

Also, any product labeled "certified organic" is GMO-free.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
...that's exactly what the GMO freak-out is, another vaccines-cause-autism bout of stupidity from Jenny McCarthy-esque idiots who would rather listen their astrologist than science.

Science is about asking questions, not dismissing them. Because the implications of GMOs reach far beyond simply their consumption and use, it opens the door to a wide variety of questions. What?s the likelihood that they all have promising answers? While many negative attitudes towards GMOs appear to be irrational, there remains much more to discuss than just the misinformation.

sopolko wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
GMOs are not "a thing" in the way trans fats are. There is literally no way to distinguish between even the genetic composition of GMO foods from "naturally evolved" foods.

Ahem. Trans fats were not "a thing" for 88 years. More, there was literally no way to distinguish between artificial trans fats and naturally occurring trans fats for 88 years.

This exceptionally clear divide between people is just one more reason why labels are needed.

sopolko wrote:
Anyone who thinks 15 years is enough to prove harmfulness to the human organs, has not heard about trans fats.

Artificial trans fats were introduced in 1902. It wasn't until 1990s that research started to emerge, showing they caused long-term heart disease. In 2007 the government finally agreed that "there is likely no safe level of trans fat and that people should eat as little as possible".

The government has, to date, not been successful at completely eliminating trans fats from food supply due to fractional rounding and misleading "trans fat free" labeling. This is 110+ years later!

One source: http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Getting ... at_UCM_301463_Article.jsp

Labels, please!

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Nothing to fear except the next wasteful craze, like gluten-free.

While it is true that MANY people have adopted gluten free diets as a fad, the condition known as celiac disease is a very real problem for many people. Don't be too quick to dismiss people who ask for gluten-free diets, as they may be extremely sensitive to wheat and gluten.

hero69 wrote:
if there no concerns, then there is nothing to fear from better labelling