I am amazed that the big selling point is a new stadium for high school football? I'm sure some football families care, but when we already have other facilities for this, why exactly do we need to give up greenspace for a new stadium?

"Other communities have better stadiums!" has to be the least impressive reasoning I've seen for this scale of development. Why not just upgrade the existing JC facility if you truly cared and wanted to waste a bunch of money?

The write off is good, but it's always better to have income than no income. The issue for some of these landlords is that they control many hundreds of units sometimes, and lowering one sets the "market rate" and might end up lowering them all at next renewal.

For instance, imagine a $10K/mo spot that's vacant. But you could rent it at $8K/mo easily. You're giving up $8K x 12 every year, $96K! But if you have 5 other units renting at $10K on the same block and at renewal they'll pay market rate, you could lose $2K per month per renewal which would eat up your increased revenue. This is happening all over Manhattan especially where there's only a few landlords for a lot of the commercial space.

Meanwhile, you can write off the $120K loss with no tenant (possibly, depends on a variety of things) which might save you $40K-$60K on your taxes.

Pretty much everywhere you find homeowners you find NIMBYs. I mean California, especially San Francisco, might be ground zero for the whole NIMBY movement.

2055 is going to be amazing.

The language barrier will be tough, but you can overcome it in London.

I guess we just need Fulop to get the Gov seat.

We also have the most children to educate.

You're right this is how the state calculates it, but it's a pretty unrealistic way to allocate budget.

Yeah, he's our State Senator too! If this whole thing is Stack's doing, you'd think he wouldn't screw most of his constituents.

Jersey City has 4 times the population of Union City and gets $93M less in aid from the state. Can someone tell me what makes Union City so special?

They also give you a written ticket. If you don't have ID, there's basically no way to write you a ticket.

If the officer didn't ask for ID, you're off the hook for sure.

You're assuming this person isn't the police, which is the first way this fails. The second way is that they're likely to be the kind of person with a gun and willing to threaten you for looking at them the wrong way, let alone getting into a fender bender. Oops, I already said they're the police.

Yes, you're right. However, merely making 6 to 10 loading spaces would alleviate the vast majority of the traffic and that would solve the problem for everyone.

Unfortunately, making it difficult, which is what we've done, is not a big enough disincentive to stop people from driving to drop their kids off. Combined with the fact that it is nearly impossible to find parking, even semi legal parking for 5 minutes, means we've created this disaster on a daily basis.

Erie from Pavonia to 9th outside Cordero should be no parking on school days from 7-10. Then all the parents that would normally double park can just use the curb as their loading zone. I walk by nearly every morning and it's all school induced chaos clashing with a lot of late commuters. I can walk from several blocks away and go faster than the cars waiting on Erie. By the time they make it up Erie, a lot of drivers are super frustrated.

It's so much worse in downtown JC than in Hoboken or parts of Manhattan that I've lived in. I'm not sure I understand why, but a little enforcement would go a long way.

Unfortunately the only thing I can think of is doing a traffic study on the lack of stopping and submitting it repeatedly to JCPD and City Council. The remedy is relatively simple, but we need attention on the issue from elected officials.

Terminal A is brand new as of a month ago and now actually has Precheck and Clear options that are open and work.

Between 34 and 38 Congress Street presumably?

This isn't the same thing. This was comments on the budget.

Where did you make your comment? I'm trying to figure out where they allowed people to submit.

Actually just sounds like a person looking for advice? They were overly specific because so many on here aren't and those people get bad/no advice.

I did Google it, and it's ridiculous.

It's usually called infill, and it's unequivocally supported by most and opposed by NIMBYs. From an article in NYT about the infill happening in downtown Brooklyn in 2006

>“Regions and cities, in trying to combat sprawl, are encouraging infill development,” said Ted Droettboom, an official with the Association of Bay Area Governments. “But you’re doing that with existing neighborhoods with existing neighbors, who fear traffic, who fear density and height.”

>The trend toward infill development is in part a product of the “smart growth” movement that has gained currency among land-use planners and environmentalists. Higher-density, mixed-use development built around mass transit hubs, they argue, is more environmentally sound than suburban sprawl and produces better quality of life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/weekinreview/06confessore.html

"Vertical sprawl" is a new one for me. That's some serious NIMBYism.

Nope, I was wrong. It's gonna be a farm.

You know they don't grow the food at the store, right?

I have bad news about what happens when you take away the bathrooms. The homeless crisis doesn't go away and neither do people's bodily functions.

I'm interested in reading more about that, but couldn't find anything about the pilot failing. Can you point me in the right direction?