|
Re: Cast Iron Porcelain tub repair
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
I searched for someone to repair the porcelain on a cast iron sink a few years ago and came up empty. Sent you a PM.
Posted on: 2016/3/12 23:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Builders in Downtown Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Don't have recommendations, however my advice is to get a reputable local architect who has done extensive work in JC, have them recommend 3-4 builders in addition to one or two you scout on your own by walking the neighborhood and checking out buildings you like. Pick a builder who has a long history in JC..it will come in very handy to smooth any problems you might encounter navigating the building process.
Be especially careful if the house you will renovate is attached because damaging a neighbor's house in the construction process can get very expensive and nasty fast. Hire competent professionals with proper references and insurance, gutting or tearing down a whole house is not a DIY project.
Posted on: 2016/3/9 3:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: el sazon de las americas
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The one on Grove is filthy.
When I just moved here more than a decade ago they would refill plastic soda bottles and sell them as new from the restaurant. Took a couple times for me to realize it because the servers would always open my ginger ale before handing it to me. Figured it out after noticing that I never heard that burst of air when they opened the soda and the soda was flat. Stopped buying the soda but got a serious case of food poisoning from there shortly after. Eat at your own risk.
Posted on: 2016/2/17 17:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I don't know if the process you outline if no one gets more than 50% in a presidential Brewster, but let's assume that you are right and no pres candidate gets more than 50%, the house votes with each state getting one vote regardless of population, which btw is not a foreign concept in our democracy because each state has 2 senators regardless of population and I don't hear anyone suggesting we should burn the senate down. How many votes do you think the candidate would need to win? I don't have to do the research to tell you it's 50%+1 (majority) of the number of states. So you see Brewster, it is impossible to move in any direction in this debate without bumping into 50%+1 because it is at the core of the US democracy. Moving to any standard lower than 50%+1 goes against a core principle of our democracy.
Posted on: 2015/11/26 13:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You haven't been reading Dolomiti. I have absolutely no problem if only 10 people turn out to an election that every eligible citizen can participate in and 6 JC residents determine who the next mayor is because that is a majority of the voters in that election and everyone had the opportunity to participate. However, if only 2 of the 10 people voted for a candidate and he wins anyway. BIG PROBLEM!!! understand? My issue is that voters should do everything in their power to force elected officials to engage them, even if they are only doing it to get votes. As a politician, what would you do if all of a sudden you did not need 50%+1 of votes anymore but instead could win with 19% or even less of the votes? Think carefully about what you wish for because once JC gets it the city is stuck with that decision for a very long time if not forever.
Posted on: 2015/11/24 15:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No Brewster, my argument is 50%+1 is a sensible standard in a democracy. There is a reason it is the standard in representative democracies. The voice of the majority is key. Nothing is perfect, but what you are advocating is moving FROM a standard that REQUIRES a majority of voters to choose a candidate for them to win to one that candidates CAN CONSISTENTLY WIN with a threshold that we have seen from a past JC race could be as low as 19%. Why should any voter wan't to make it EASIER for a candidate to win election??? Why advocate for a change where you win although 81% of voters did not choose you? That doesn't make sense to me. So my reasoning isn't "I don't like it so it can't happen", instead it's "It doesn't make sense in a democracy, so it shouldn't happen." This is a democracy, so I am only one voice. Everyone who votes will get to decide.
Posted on: 2015/11/24 14:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Brewster, I'll say this just once more for clarity. 50%+1 of electoral votes are required, not one vote less. And there is no way that you get to 50%+1 of the electoral votes after getting only 19% of the popular vote without the country imploding in chaos because that would be a stolen election. My argument has always been that we should not change the threshold for winning an election from 50%+1(majority) to something lower. Runoffs are ONLY necessary when no candidate got the majority of the votes cast. I want the mayor of my city to get the majority of votes cast to win election and I think most voters will agree with that position. Why any voter would want a mayor, council, etc. that was not chosen by the majority of voters in their city is beyond me. Actually, I don't even understand why an elected official would want to win without getting a majority. You don't see it that way and that's o.k. because that is why eliminating runoffs requires a majority of votes cast to become reality. If the proposal to eliminate runoffs sees daylight, we'll see what the voters think. Until then...be well.
Posted on: 2015/11/23 22:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Brewster, a majority of electoral votes are required. Not 19% or 43% of the popular vote or electoral vote, but a majority (270 of 358 or 50%+1) of the electoral vote. How a candidate gets there is irrelevant and so are your theories. The point is that a majority (50%+1) is REQUIRED for POTUS, not 1 vote less than that. Didnt you argue earlier that the standard for the POTUS should be good enough for the mayor? Let me guess, you will now argue against what you said earlier. A bit of advice: when you throw facts around make sure they support your argument before introducing them. Otherwise it could get embarrassing.
Posted on: 2015/11/21 12:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The answer is "NO" for all the reasons I outlined in my previous post. I won't waste anymore time.
Posted on: 2015/11/21 0:22
Edited by shakatah on 2015/11/21 0:41:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Quote:
[/quote] Brewster, you do know that that race had 3 candidates, right? You also do know that the electoral vote is what matters in a presidential elections, right? You do know what electoral votes are, right? You do know the difference between popular and electoral votes right? You do know that Ross Perot took 19% of the popular vote compared to Bushs 37% and Clintons 43%, right? You do know that Clinton had to win the majority of electoral votes (69% to Bushs 31% and Perots 0%), right? You also do know that Bill Clinton was elected AFTER being nominated by his party in a PRIMARY right? Know what that is? You do know that JC mayors and council races do not have a primary process, right? I know you know these facts but addressing my concern is obviously too painful and forces you and others to deal with how glaringly hypocritical your support for eliminating runoffs are. So let's run with your example. If Bill Clinton only got 19% of the popular or electoral vote in that election , would he have been elected president? A runoff is necessary precisely because there is no primary process in nonpartisan elections so that the winner is not declared without achieving majority support.
Posted on: 2015/11/19 13:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Respond to the argument, instead of sidestepping. You nor anyone here pushing to end runoffs have answered why voters should support moving to a scheme where 81% of voters can vote against you, yet you still win the election. In what alternate universe is that good for democracy?
Posted on: 2015/11/18 16:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Schundler won a no-runoff election to become mayor with 19% of the votes cast in that election. Put another way, 81% of the people who voted did not vote for Schundler, yet he became mayor.
In what sane democratic society does that make sense? How do you become mayor of a major city when 81% of the people who voted did not chose you? This type of "democracy" should only exist in the twilight zone. The ironic thing is that voters will be asked to approve the devaluation of their vote.
Posted on: 2015/11/17 17:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Third_street_hats, Please be accurate if you are lumping me in with others.
1. I've not made one comment against moving the election to November as I think it will increase voter participation. 2. I don't care about whether Fulop wants to be Governor or if this is to secure a fallback position. 3. I also don't care about what Fulop's motivation is. 4. My issue is with eliminating runoffs because doing so will allow people to be elected with a smaller portion of the vote cast than is currently required. It will mean that a candidate can win election by engaging fewer voters. Why any voter would support that change is beyond me. Consider that Schundler became mayor by winning only 19% of the vote cast in that year's election (special election). Again, this is not 19% of registered voters, it's 19% of people who voted in that election. Anyone who thinks that is great for democracy should get their head examined.
Posted on: 2015/11/16 20:20
Edited by shakatah on 2015/11/16 20:40:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I like how you quoted my entire post but conveniently left out the part where I said "For the record, I have no problem with the results because every eligible voter had an opportunity to make their voice heard. Those who chose to be silent, then complain because they don't like the result deserve no sympathy." Integrity: You should try it sometime.
Posted on: 2015/11/11 21:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Nov 2015 election had 8% voter turnout and 52% of those folks voted to move the election to November. For the folks who've been vocal and against having the majority of voters in EACH election determine the result and instead have been trying to sell the idea that the standard should be the majority of eligible/registered voters overall, where is your outrage?
After all only 4% of eligible voters made the decision. For the record, I have no problem with the results because every eligible voter had an opportunity to make their voice heard. Those who chose to be silent, then complain because they don't like the result deserve no sympathy. Outrage, blasphemy, anyone??? Or do your principles shift with the wind and outrage is only dialed in to support whatever direction the wind is blowing at that moment? Principles. Look it up.
Posted on: 2015/11/11 14:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Dolomitic, that was why it was called a "special election." Generally, a majority of ballots cast is needed for a win.
I never said that there would be no elected officials if there were no runoffs. I said there would be zero elected officials if the standard for winning was the majority of eligible voters instead of the majority of people who voted in each race. Reading comprehension friend. Last, tired of talking about something that might happen. I can already see elements of a campaign to engage the electorate. Press play.
Posted on: 2015/11/8 20:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Dolomitic, in America voting is a right not mandated, so people choosing not to vote is their perogative. Get that??? If someone chooses not to vote it is their business, not yours or mine.
In no election in this country is the standard for winning more than 50% of registered voters. If that was the case we would have exactly ZERO elected officials. So let's slow down a bit so this registers. In this country the standard for getting elected is generally getting a majority (50%+1) of people who voted in the election. Why??? Well because we don't mandate voting in America. Get it, our constitution guarantees a right to vote, it doesn't require us to use that right. Are folks who don't vote doing themself a disservice? Sure, but that is their right. What some of you are proposing is to reduce the standard for getting elected from 50%+1 (majority of voters who chose to participate in the election) to something lower. Implosion: It will be the people who benefit from reducing the standard for getting elected from majority of ballots cast in the election to some lower standard against those who are harmed by this change. The big drawback for you is that although you may not like it, in America the majority still rules in elections.
Posted on: 2015/11/8 14:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
So if the problem is that enough people don't vote in runoffs, then make it easier for people to vote in runoffs. Why eliminate them instead of fixing what is wrong?
I love that no one has provided an answer to why the electorate should entertain any effort to reduce the standard for winning an election from 50% +1 of votes cast to something less. But we are all free to put our head in the sand if we chose. The implosion might be slow but it will be certain, watch for it if eliminating runoffs when no candidate gets 50% +1 is pushed in Jersey City.
Posted on: 2015/11/7 17:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You have the right to vote once now if you chose. You have the right to not vote if you chose. None of these individual rights infringe on the right of others. What you are proposing harms others by devaluing the vote so you don't have to deal with the inconvenience of doing something you are free not to engage in if you chose. I can't see how a rationale person justifies that, but hey that is the beauty of a democracy, we all have opinions but majority rules. I welcome the opportunity to have a public conversation about eliminating runoffs when no candidate gets 50% +1. Thankfully, the electorate is smarter than some of us would like.
Posted on: 2015/11/7 16:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You miss the point. We don't force people to vote. So your argument that most people don't vote in runoffs so the runoffs should be eliminated is irrelevant. The point is that the winner must currently get 50%+1 OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED. Eliminating runoffs would reduce that standard. Whether people chose to vote or not is their right and none of your business or mine.
Posted on: 2015/11/7 14:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The point is that no variation of instant runoffs described to me leaves voters with a vote that has the same impact as the current process. if anything voting reforms should make voting easier to do and easier to understand, not more complex. Making voting more complex achieves one thing: remove or marginalize less sophisticated voters. Does that sound at all familiar?? Where have we seen that before, who perpetrates these scemes on the electorate and to what end.
Not one single argument made in support of instant runoffs here is a good enough reason to pursue them. The great thing is to go down that road would need state law and/or the majority of voters in this city. I'll be first in line fighting any attempts to eliminate runoffs because doing so when there is no primary process, as is the case in JC municipal elections, hurts democracy by devaluing the votes of some while increasing the value of others. This would've worked extremely well for the rulers in South Africa right after apartheid ended. I still haven't had an answer to why any unelected citizen would want to move from a process where the standard for winning an election is getting 50%+1 of the votes cast to one which requires a lower number to win? Why should someone who is on a ballot win without getting a majority? What country do we live in?
Posted on: 2015/11/7 14:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Don't dance Brewster. I posed the question of what happens if I only wanted to vote for two of five candidates and you said instant runoffs require you to rank all candidates, which means I would not be able to choose only 2. Ranking all candidates is VOTING FOR ALL CANDIDATES IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE, which in my mind is problematic for reasons I outlined in previous posts.
Also, please don't lump me in with others to discredit the validity of my argument. I never said I sit out an election, I VOTE IN EVERY election, so does every member of my family who is eligible. Forcing me to vote for people I don't want to vote for if I want my vote to count is less than VOTING in my opinion. It actually decreases the impact of the majority's vote, same as inserting multiple candidates in a race to siphon votes from your opposition. I love ice cream. Instant runoff my ice cream preference all you want but Voting isn't the same as choosing ice cream flavors, it should not be a process where you are forced to vote for candidates whose policies, ideas, are completely inconsistent with yours. ANYONE can get on a ballot. That is a great thing, but getting on a ballot should not mean that the electorate is then FORCED to VOTE for you if they want their vote to count. That is a false choice.
Posted on: 2015/11/7 12:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yes Brewster, I read it carefully. Here's what I think you are not getting. Nothing currently forces me to vote FOR all candidates on a ballot, the instant runoff description you posted would FORCE me to vote for each of those candidates when I am FORCED to rank all of them IF I want my vote to count. Otherwise my vote, cast legally, could be thrown out.
And another issue is this: those candidates could be a mixture of democrats and republicans, etc. So we would be ok FORCING a republican to VOTE for a democrat and vice versa by FORCING them to rank All candidates if they want their vote counted?
Posted on: 2015/11/7 1:42
Edited by shakatah on 2015/11/7 2:05:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Brewster you and all citizens should be concerned if ANY part of my post is accurate. Moving the benchmark for winning an election from 50% +1 to anything less decreases democracy. Why any citizen would want to make it easier for someone to get elected to "represent" them is mind boggling to me.
On my first paragraph below: if there are 5 candidates running and I chose 2 of them as my choices, no others. What happens to my vote if my 2 choices are not in the top 2? I'll tell you what happens, it gets thrown out because I did not chose any of the top candidates, it's like I never voted. The only way to honor my act of voting is to assign my vote to someone else. Neither of these scenarios is the equivalent of the way my vote is treated under the current process, so in essence instant runoffs offers something less than the power of my vote under the current process. ALL of us who are not elected officials should be concerned about that. Increase voter participation by all means but simultaneously moving to decrease the impact of all individual votes should scare us all.
Posted on: 2015/11/7 1:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Regarding instant runoffs: I don't think they exist in NJ. Also, from the Descriptions outlined in previous posts, I want no one assigning my vote to anyone I did not pull the lever for nor do I want my vote not counted because non of my "preferred candidates" are in the top 2 or 3 or whatever. That is essentially the same as nullifying my vote because my choices are not popular enough.
I'm happy that the council, nor the mayor can unilaterally decide to do away with runoffs when there is no primary process. I think we all need to really think about the power that you hand over to elected officials when you eliminate runoffs in nonpartisan elections. Without runoffs, you are moving the benchmark for winning an election from 50% +1 to something less, 30%, 20%, 15%??? Why would any citizen want to make it easier for people to get elected to office by decreasing the number of people a candidate must get to vote for them?
Posted on: 2015/11/6 21:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yvonne is often off, way off, but if the municipal election is moved to november, which seems likely, you should be concerned if there are no runoffs. Here's why: Partisan elections have a primary process which narrows the field a bit in crowded races, nonpartisan elections (Jersey city municipal elections are nonpartisan) don't. Having the municipal elections in November would increase participation and that is a great thing, but a lot of tricks get played in elections..like one candidate putting in 3rd, 4th, 5th...candidates to split the vote that would otherwise go to their opponent. Which means that you could have a JC mayoral election with 10 or 15 candidates and without a runoff the "winner" and your next mayor could be a person that did not get a majority of the vote. So we could end up with a mayor that only 10% of the people voting chose, not 10 of registered voters, 10% OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THAT ELECTION. To me that sounds like a perfect recipe to manipulate/control election outcomes. That is a problem and a reason the runoffs are necessary, especially in races without primaries like JC municipal elections. We must have a runoff to prevent people who do not get a majority of voters in an election from getting into office. The folks we elect should only get there if a majority of voters chose them. The combination of moving the election to November and eliminating runoffs INSTANTLY DECREASES the power of your single vote while simultaneously INCREASING the power of incumbents.
Posted on: 2015/11/5 11:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: J.C. Mayor Seeks To End Runoff Elections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yvonne is often off, way off, but if the municipal election is moved to november, which seems likely, you should be concerned if there are no runoffs.
Here's why: Partisan elections have a primary process, nonpartisan elections (Jersey city municipal elections are nonpartisan) don't. Which means that you could have a JC Mayoral election with 10 or 15 candidates and without a runoff the "winner" and your next mayor could be a person that did not get a majority of the vote. So we could end up with a mayor that only 10% of the people voting chose, not 10 of registered voters, 10% OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN THAT ELECTION. To me that sounds like a perfect recipe to manipulate/control election outcomes that way. That is a problem and a reason the runoffs are necessary in nonpartisan races. Having the municipal elections in November would increase participation and that is a great thing, but a lot of tricks get played in elections..like one candidate putting in 3rd, 4th, 5th...candidates to split the vote that would otherwise go to their opponent. Keep the runoff, whether you move the election or not.
Posted on: 2015/11/5 3:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Is Jersey City Real Estate in a bubble?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Prime Brooklyn real estate has been on fire for well over a decade.
Things change, markets change, neighborhoods change. $2 million for a 25ft wide impeccable brownstone in dtjc sounds like a lot and it is, but I challenge you to find the same anywhere with the same proximity to Manhattan and similar amenities. jc has to catch up with other areas with similar amenities and proximity to Manhattan. I'd sell a $1 million dollar house in any suburb in nj to pick up a four story row house in downtown jersey city that needs a total gut renovation 10 times over if I could, even at these prices. the growth downtown is nowhere near over.
Posted on: 2015/7/22 14:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Is Jersey City Real Estate in a bubble?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I don't know if there is a bubble in Brooklyn, but this listing isn't evidence of it.
You missed the most salient points of the listing: "The house is steps from Prospect Park", is approved for tear down to build a brand new house in its place, and is near a mansion once owned by Jennifer Connelly. This part of Brooklyn is highly desirable. The location of the land and ability to design and build a custom home in Prospect Park is very appealing to quite a few with the means. Last, just like there are people who will never live in a city, there are many folks for whom living in the suburbs is just not an option, not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow no matter how much sense it may make to others. If $2 million is spent to buy the land and build a brand new custom designed home, that doesn't sound out of line for a place that is steps away from Prospect Park in Windsor Terrace.
Posted on: 2015/7/22 11:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Please Help Prato Bakery
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
If any of this is accurate, SHAME on Prato Bakery!!! They are horrible neighbors, so my regular stops their will end.
The larger concern is the impact on anyone who is within earshot of any commercial space, especially those with a backyard that shares any boundary with a commercial space. So a convenience store or barber shop could become an eating establishment with backyard/sideyard seating without anyone saying a word to the community that surrounds it prior to making the decision? This makes little sense and will negatively impact the quality of life of thousands. Last, if this passes it immediately increases the value of any commercial property with a side/backyard at the expense of the people that live close to that property. The OPs wording might be dramatic but this issue is no small concern and is much larger than Prato Bakery.
Posted on: 2015/7/20 12:00
|
|||
|
||||