Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - just watching

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 62
31
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: July 19, 2015, 04:01:15 pm »
You have to subscribe to read the article.  If you can pull it up, copy and paste the text, that would be great for the rest of us

32
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Masonic Temple (State and Warren)
« on: July 05, 2015, 09:30:43 pm »
THe centermost rectangle of the park has surrounding sidewalks that are too narrow.  Or, perhaps the entire center should be patio pavers.  I hope that is the plan, not grass.  With the intensity of activity in that center rectangle, grass would be a mistake.  The park will be used not only for outdoor arts events, but possible flee markets or other things going on.  As Homer' said, maintenance is the key

33
Hackensack History / Re: YMHA Essex St
« on: June 05, 2015, 08:42:35 pm »
Correct.  The building was completely rehabilitated, and resurfaced.  It's still there, completely unrecognizable.

34
Guys, don't forget that the first issue for any family with kids is economics. Does it make economic sense for all the folks with kids who can't buy houses for one reason or another.  Could be a lot of single-parent families, we don't know. Families aren't choosing to rent over home buying, they rent because they CAN'T buy a house.  And that is increasingly more and more people.

The rent there is still less than the "better" towns in northern Bergen County, it's walking distance to the New Bridge Train station, and there's shopping next door.  Whether its Pathmark (closed) or not, there's shopping right there, a 100 foot walk direct to the stores.

35
My source is a Hackensack official.  He says that families are attracted to the complex because you can live there without a car.  You can walk to Pathmark next door and the other small stores in that complex. There's even a little walkway connecting Avalon Hackensack to the shops.  And it's a prominent corner of Hackensack that can be called "northern Bergen County" because its north of Route 4.  And there's a pool, and the desire to raise kids where there are other kids for them to have friends.  Somehow, it does 'sell' to families with kids.

36
There was a discussion on this website, couldn't find it, regarding how many children Avalon Hackensack would put into the school system.  So I'll post here on this string.

A Hackensack official told me today that over 100 children registered into the Hackensack school system from the Avalon property.  More than 3 times the estimated 30 children that their "expert" testified to the city during the application process.  I was told that the buildings are now fully rented.  The project is "mostly Caucasian, with the balance of various ethnicities".

This is entirely different from the Linden Street property recently completed by Daibes.  The same official told me that building places NONE or ALMOST NONE children into the school system.

What's the difference?  Why does one new property have so many kids, and the other has none ?  It's not the number of bedrooms, it's the size of the bedrooms.  Linden Street has much nicer floor plans, much larger units. Families with kids typically have limited finances, and they will settle for the smaller bedrooms in order to get lower rent or purchase price. So if there are 2-bedroom units renting for $1500, $2000, and $2300, the families with kids will gravitate to the units renting $1500 to $1600.  And those are the units with the tiny bedrooms.

Same for 3-bedroom properties. There's a price range for the rents, and the cheapest ones will fill up with kids. Those are the ones with tiny bedrooms.  And it's no different for 1-bedroom units.  Families with a child(ren) will again gravitate to the cheapest ones with a small bedroom The family will use the living room as a bedroom for the child, and the single mother will take the actual bedroom.

So, my message to the Zoning and Planning Boards is not to allow the tiny bedroom units, no matter what if they are 1, 2, 3, or 4-bedroom units

37
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Area in need of Rehabilitation
« on: May 15, 2015, 11:24:20 pm »
Oh, and I also agree that the more iconic buildings should be preserved.  They could have built around that bank, and attached it to the new development.  And I'll be real upset if Poor's Tavern and that really old red-brick building (Main & Sussex) are torn down for some future development. Hackensack needs to balance history and progress. 

38
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Area in need of Rehabilitation
« on: May 15, 2015, 11:22:00 pm »
Bob, they started taking down the smaller buildings next to this old bank weeks before.  Maybe the first demolition was at least a month before.  Have you not driven or walked by there  in all that time ?

39
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Rose Greenman
« on: May 15, 2015, 11:19:09 pm »
I've been biting my tongue on this one for quite some time, since I moved out of Hackensack years before this city council took power.  I know nothing about Rose Greenman except what I read online, in the newspaper, and in talking with Hackensack friends. 

However, seeing this recent article and all the allegations she has made, and her choice to use the same law firm that specializes in sueing the city, I know enough to form an opinion.  And it's not very favorable to Ms. Greenman.  THis woman actually thinks she can manipulate public opinion by making broad and sweeping accusations. Anyone can see that without knowing a thing about the issues.   That's all I need to know to form my opinion.  Thank you Ms. Greenman.

40
I like Old Homer's idea, and let's go one step further.

Let the Hackensack City Council pass a kiosk ordinance.  And this ordinance will allow the City of Hackensack to place a kiosk in any commercial public space, and the content can be regulated by the City of Hackensack.  For instance, it could talk up our residential neighborhoods, our high rises, our schools, our Arts initiative, mass transit, our very low crime rates compared to other cities in NJ, or any other aspect of the city.  Not including politics, please. 

And then we can decide where to put these Hackensack-promoting kiosks.  Surely a few in the Shops at Riverside, perhaps a few at the County complex, HUMC, Target, Costco, etc.

41
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Area in need of Rehabilitation
« on: March 30, 2015, 09:18:13 am »
And a New Jersey case law decision by the NJ Supreme Court is going to count more in New Jersey than some other case in Connecticut.

42
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Area in need of Rehabilitation
« on: March 29, 2015, 11:55:02 am »
Wow, this has really become a precedent-setting case affecting all of New Jersey.

I agree that there needs to be eminent domain, certainly for construction of schools and highway, etc.  And in the case of downtown areas in the State's inner cities, it is needed for economic development, to provide jobs for residents and tax revenues for struggling cities. Furthermore, the new development will have either residents or employees who will patronize local stores and restaurants, improving the economy. That is all good in principle. The issue is whether or not that principle is relevant in Hackensack.

Hackensack should consider itself VERY lucky to have won this, because that whole block is not blighted.  It's really just one property, and the property owner was taking steps to redevelop on his own.  The city is very lucky to have won.

I am glad for the precedent, and I believe that the precedent is needed more in much more troubled areas of Paterson, Passaic, Newark, etc., where there are many vacant properties, burned houses, vacant lots, graffiti and dumping, etc. These are areas with high crime and gang activity.  In some cases, there's a need to develop new housing that is affordable, and if a whole block needs to be cleared out, and most of it meets the definition of blight, that's a step in the right direction.

43
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Hackensack River Eco-tourism
« on: March 22, 2015, 08:20:39 am »
I think they are fishing in River Edge. I see garden apartments in the background, those might be in the middle portion of New Milford 1/4 mile north of the New Milford Borough Hall.

44
yes, the mural was there in the late 1970's, not 1968.  And it was there throughout the 80's.

As for Jack Schlein, good chance that name is Jewish, but could have been German.  But back when that photo was taken, the majority of people in Bergen County were of white Protestant background, and it was considered unacceptable to be Catholic or Jewish (and to be Black was even worse). There were riots and demonstrations and marches against Catholics in the 1920's and 1930's. This part of our history is not well recorded. There was sheer hysteria in Maywood when Queen of Peace began construction. There was a full-scale riot in Teaneck when a Catholic family rented an apartment above a fire station. History records the discrimination against Blacks, but not against Catholics and Jews. 

And of the population of Bergen County which was NOT of white Protestant background, many were working class people who couldn't afford to buy a car. To be a car dealer at that time meant dealing with the racist buyers.  So from a business perspective, as sad it is sounds, a Jewish businessperson might want to appeal to the racist Klan mentality by dressing up in that fashion, just to attract buyers. Truly pathetic if he was German, and even worse if he was Jewish

45
Yes, I do remember that hideous mural across from BW Bakery.  And I remember despising it, and wishing that the city council would order it to be painted over.

And picture #4 makes me bristle.  It shows how establishment the KKK used to be, so much so that businesses duplicated that look in their ads

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 62