General Category > Community Soapbox
Eye on The Record
BLeafe:
--- Quote from: vsasson on February 22, 2013, 10:31:06 AM ---North Jersey Media Group -- which fled Hackensack in 2009 -- says its 20 acres on River Street are for sale:
http://eyeontherecord.blogspot.com/2013/02/two-hackensack-stories-for-change.html
--- End quote ---
In this link from today, it says, "This apparently is the first time NJMG has discussed what will happen to its 20 acres since The Record abandoned Hackensack in 2009."
In 2011, you reported (http://eyeontherecord.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-walmart-coming-to-hackensack.html) that a sale of The Record property to Walmart was imminent and that the deal was brokered by Jon Hanson - Mac Borg's good buddy.
How could such a supposed transaction happen without NJMG discussion?
just watching:
Borg was smart to get out before Superstorm Sandy. Knock the buildings down, landfill the whole property 3 to 5 feet higher, and then it's actually worth something to rebuild. This is the biggest single-site redevelopment in the history of Hackensack. Build something to define the City, to make us proud. To energize the downtown center. Not a Walmart, please. And if a WalMart is proposed, go right to ShopRite to help lead the opposition. They've hated WalMart for decades, and they kept the WalMarts out of NJ for a very long time.
Victor E Sasson:
That post in Eye on The Record was based on information from an usually reliable source, but I am not sure the transaction ever took place. In any case, NJMG never made any discussions public or discussed them in a story in The Record. Subsequent rumors were that Wal-Mart would lease the land.
Victor E Sasson:
Another day without Hackensack news in The Record:
http://eyeontherecord.blogspot.com/2013/02/another-farce-from-road-warrior.html
BLeafe:
--- Quote from: vsasson on February 23, 2013, 10:44:31 AM ---That post in Eye on The Record was based on information from an usually reliable source...
--- End quote ---
Fair enough, but the "usually reliable source" was referred to in the article as "an anonymous source", yet you criticized someone today in the 2013 Election thread for hiding behind "a single name or an anonymous tag" - even though you and most everyone else here seem to know who she is BECAUSE of the single name she uses.
So, complete anonymity is good, but barely-there anonymity is bad?
I don't know her (or you), but I do find these inconsistencies to be a bit troublesome.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version