brewster wrote:
I've said this before, all you'd need to do to eliminate much of the through traffic is create a 1 hr EZ pass lockout or big surcharge at the Holland for anyone exiting the TPK at exits 14 A, B or C before the 12th st ramp. They'd need to put pass readers past the Columbus ramp, but the rest is software. Yes, cash payers can avoid it, but that brings it's own time penalty.

The tag system would never work here, our cops don't do traffic enforcement, apparently it's beneath them.

Sutherland wrote:
Shoveling the steps of a brownstone could be a lot of work. You typically can't shovel the snow off to the side of your house because that's you're neighbor's property. So you have to keep re-shoveling the same snow downwards. The sidewalk work tends to be a little easier since most of our properties aren't more than 18 feel wide. Digging the car out also tends to be rough because the plows dump, wet freezing snow around the cars making it harder to dig out.
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
for all those people in JC with 100' driveways, this will be great.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:


I'm ridiculously pro-developement but feel like we should be leveraging more concessions from the developers. Maybe something like an infrastructure bank that all new .

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
We are facing a Symes/Solomon runoff. I think at this time each candidate needs to clarify some of their platforms. I have one major question for each.

1. Symes
A major component of Symes' platform is the empowerment of community groups in the development approval process. State statute (NJSA 45:55) does not grant community groups this power. (NYC does, which admittedly confuses people.)
Jersey City is well aware that this is not permitted, and in fact in the one or two areas of town which suggest this is required (e.g. morris canal) both the City and community groups have acknowledged that they're "getting away with it" until a developer sues. How, then, does Symes intend to use her position to change a state law? Much of her platform has been on this, and I feel that she's making a promise to community groups that she simply has zero control over.

2. Solomon
Solomon has had significant NIMBY undertones throughout his campaign. Notably, as it related to a project on the West Side (which obviously isn't even in Ward E), suggesting that neighbors should have a greater say in how a property is developed. (Relates to Symes, above.) This even hinted at having a choice as to who would move in next door (in this case there was talk of marketing a development to the jewish community which did face some resistance). How does he reconcile this with his claims of being welcoming to all and "progressive"? To what extent is a community entitled to impinge on the as-right development of private property? (Hint: the law already answered that.)

To correct myself above, though nobody pointed out the error, the section of law referred to in my Symes comment is NJSA 40:55 (not 45:55). Got crazy on the "5s". Just wanted to correct that in case anyone felt so inclined to look it up.

Thanks! I did look it up, and I though you we're pulling our legs at first with the 555 - it doesn't exist. lol

jc_dweller wrote:
We are facing a Symes/Solomon runoff. I think at this time each candidate needs to clarify some of their platforms. I have one major question for each.

1. Symes
A major component of Symes' platform is the empowerment of community groups in the development approval process. State statute (NJSA 45:55) does not grant community groups this power. (NYC does, which admittedly confuses people.)
Jersey City is well aware that this is not permitted, and in fact in the one or two areas of town which suggest this is required (e.g. morris canal) both the City and community groups have acknowledged that they're "getting away with it" until a developer sues. How, then, does Symes intend to use her position to change a state law? Much of her platform has been on this, and I feel that she's making a promise to community groups that she simply has zero control over.

2. Solomon
Solomon has had significant NIMBY undertones throughout his campaign. Notably, as it related to a project on the West Side (which obviously isn't even in Ward E), suggesting that neighbors should have a greater say in how a property is developed. (Relates to Symes, above.) This even hinted at having a choice as to who would move in next door (in this case there was talk of marketing a development to the jewish community which did face some resistance). How does he reconcile this with his claims of being welcoming to all and "progressive"? To what extent is a community entitled to impinge on the as-right development of private property? (Hint: the law already answered that.)