fat-ass-bike wrote:
It's good to see that you are very passionate about Fulop and once again $20,000 is a siht load of money to donate.

His money is going to worthy causes and there is no question about that, but I judge a person on how they can manage JC better, create more jobs, improve our infrastructure, policing and general quality of life, their ability to team lead, negotiate, network and control all facets of city hall - their personal integrity and even their public speaking skills are important.
Even though Fulop might appear to be a philanthropist, it really doesn't rank high in my book. I'd love my next Mayor to be thrifty when it comes to money and demand ever cent spent to be cost-effective.

The most important thing for me and a + for Fulop is that he never walks away from his PAY to PLAY policy / idea.

loucheNJ wrote:
What does "along the Sixth Street Embankment" mean - at ground level using the grassy area along 6th or building an elevated light rail on the embankment?

I tried to open the study but only get half pages - perhaps there is a clearer explanation there.

Justiceiro wrote:
Pacific and Lafayette actually ain't that bad of a bet. There will, of course, be claims that I am insane, but I watch the neighborhood closely. My first job back in '98 I had Columbia paint Lab as a customer, and the place was crazy scary- a lot of lifers here seem to have that image locked in their minds, and it's an out of the way place, so folks don't often go down there.

However, the storefronts are being cleaned up. It's close to the light rail (like 300 meters), it has a nice totally refurbished park (lafayette park) with super expensive condos fronting it, in the old mill, and some REALLY underpriced brickstones and townhouses directly on the park. the only thing that holds me back is the fact that I live in the coolest of all neighborhoods, 3 blocks from the Grove st. Path.

If I were you, I would buy in a place like this- its cheaper than renting in hamilton park, and its about to pop, so you could not only have a sweet pad, but a nice moneymaker as well.

Summit Ave is sketcherific.

brewster wrote:
We all know examples of cronyism and nepotism in JC. What do you say to gathering all we know into master list? It could be a real eye opener.

I'll start with 2 I've recently had interactions with:

Eileen Gaughan: Daughter of of councilman Bill Gaughan, appointed Chair of the MUA. Qualifications to run an agency with a budget of tens of millions of dollars? None, reportedly not even a bachelors degree.

Kip Smith, supervisor at JC Incinerator Authority. Son of former councilman Harvey Smith. Response to this complaining citizen: "Your taxes don't pay my salary"

What other gems are out there? The JCPD should be good for half a dozen entries at least.

Dwntownguy wrote:


Guys:

I feel that this is another worthy fight for our community.

Regardless of the actual location of your domicile in reference to Powerhouse Arts District we will need permanent locations for the Arts in the ?future Jersey City?.


I do not live in the district but I do have access to it and would like to see it become a thriving Art Scene. Please join PADNA and donate to their legal fund.


Thanks,


DTG

friendoflois wrote:
I voted for Manzo because I thought he would better represent the district on the issues about which he spoke. I live in Paulus hook and Manzo has come to HPHNS meetings so I felt I knew something about him. That said, I received an e-mail from JCLGO showing that Manzo would vote against a gay marriage bill and that Cunningham would vote for one. I assumed that he wouls support marriage equality given what I had heard him say of his positions. However, I would have changed my vote to Cunningham if I had read that e-mail before voting.

Contrary to some of the postings here say, I believe the Ward E voters who voted, did so based on their understanding of the candidates positions on the issues that matter most to them. In any election, the choice is never easy, because no candidate is perfect. You must vote according to the issues that matter most to you.

Althea wrote:

..... Is there anyway to get a bigger dog run and keep the kids playground together? The real problem here seems to be keeping the spokes. It you didn't have a spoke then it seems you could have both a larger dog run and keep the childrens playgrounds together.

....Is there anyway to fight (meaning dog and kids people) for a larger dog run in plan D? Anyway? Because if we are able to get plan D that keeps the playground together, then I'm going to fight really hard to make sure the large dog run is as large as possible.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
What happen to that ethical committee to oversee crap like this not happening, and are any of the players in this crap on it?

Also, wasn't Healy's secretary upto some real estate crap as well?

super_furry wrote:
The FOURTH PUBLIC MEETING for the Jersey City Division of City Planning's Regional Waterfront Access and Downtown Circulation Study will be held on Thursday, May 24 at 6 PM. The meeting will be in Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, 280 Grove Street.

At the May 24 public meeting, the consultant team will present their recommendations on projects that address projected deficiencies in the transportation network (including roadway, transit, and bike/ped) that provides access to the downtown Jersey City area, as well as in the multi-modal transportation network within downtown Jersey City.

Please view the Public Meeting Flier and distribute to anyone who may be interested in attending.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

tern wrote:
Sound great, but people are saying that it is too late to change the options and these are the four we have to vote on.

Robin.

It seems to me that this is more of a tweak than a real option change. Perhaps we can find out more before the ballot.

I would think that a plan that makes the multisports, parents, small dog owners, and property owners on 9th happy, and could make the large dog owners happy with a relatively small revision, should be given a chance, even if that revision isn't in the ballot. Steve Fulop and the contractor are clearly trying to be accommodating and make this work.

G_Elkind wrote:
Sorry Dan_L but you've struck out with your post.

You're entitled to your personal opinion, but you've stooped to unnecessary hyperbole and a frankly unfair (and inaccurate) comment about Hamilton Park being paved over.

It's one thing to dislike the city's approach to handling redevelopment plan processes (which leaves much to be desired), but the entire park redesign process for Hamilton Park has been one of the most open and transparent I've experienced since I moved to JC in 1983.

(I would have expected such comments from a few others in the HP environs who don't mind intentionally distorting reality, but you should know better as the President of Civic JC.)

All the best.

Geoff

JCLAW wrote:
If all PILOT's were terminated suddenly (as they will no doubt be over time) the City would have to fill a $40 million dollar budget hole. To fill it, they would have to raise ordinary property taxes by $110 million or $1,600 per household on average. Since the average home is worth $275,000 in Jersey City, if your house is worth 3 times this amount, you can expect to pay an extra $4,800 to make up the shortfall caused by the cancellation of all the PILOT agreements.

What's worse is that the City isn't even trying to replace the PILOT agreements which are expiring or about to be terminated. The PILOT economics and politics are so bad for the builders that almost none of them are even applying for them anymore (other than perhaps the brief 5-year abatements). This will only exacerbate the pain to high-value historic or vintage home owners that will be caused by the impending revaluation.

NONdowntown wrote:
Just to point out, with a rough population estimate of 250,000 (i know i'm off, but if anything i'm underestimating i think), the voter turnout for the school board elections is less than 4%. Unless McCann pulls a ridiculous number of absentees out of his hat (which he's the master of).

As much as the idea of democratically electing our school board sounds all warm and fuzzy, with so much at stake and this embarassingly low turnout, the system simply does not work.

While the 4% of the population that elects these three can try to hold them accountable for their actions three years from now, this accountability is a paper tiger. It is accountability that the other elected officials in this city, namely the Mayor and the City Council, are more than happy to not have on their shoulders.

It's a crappy system. Meh.