On 3/19/21, since deleted: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1sK1zzWUAAXJ-x?format=png&name=small

Why was it necessary to say all the stuff about "this is a very densely populated community" if you didn't want it to pass? I also don't agree that the majority of Union City residents (an extremely Democratic city) oppose marijuana legalization. The true majority would have supported (had it not been for suppression through machine power) and a no vote on that would have given them a voice.

You're the one who bragged about your Stack endorsement. While you're here, care to tell us why you believe marijuana doesn't belong in Union City? You made public comments claiming to be in support of marijuana sales in Union City and then went ahead and voted to ban it anyways, just like Stack. The literal textbook machine politician play.

He's also a fake progressive like Brian Stack (who is currently using gobs of taxpayer money to fight Hoboken on their plan to build housing that might slightly block some Union City millionaires NYC views). The machine likes him. He voted to ban all marijuana stores from opening in Union City and I have no doubt he'd extend that to all of Hudson County if allowed.

Because there are tons of light skinned Asians living downtown who are still POC despite being "melanin deprived"

Want to protect long term residents? Build dense housing instead of letting people build more one unit Bayonne Boxes that are net decreases in the housing stock.

In every community that's tried restrictive zoning, the end result has been mansions, not affordable housing. Jersey City still has tons of old buildings, if we ban new construction, everyone who would have moved to the new construction will move to the old homes and turn them into mansions instead.

People like him are why I don't ID as progressive anymore

If you actually disagreed with what was in the tweet you'd say it outright.

> The money will come from surplus tax revenue.

What happens when there is no longer surplus tax revenue? Service cuts. They certainly won't bring fares back to maintain service levels.

That's a different story, allowing one fare to be used across multiple systems is a very good thing as it generates additional trips that wouldn't be done otherwise due to high cost. Since the fare is still existent, those extra trips add revenue which otherwise wouldn't have been there.

The problem is the cost of fare controls is not in the same universe as the revenue generated by fares

If such a fare free scheme were passed, it would have to be passed as a package deal with the revenue - if it's not, the revenue drop will just make them cut service

World class public transit systems aren't free anywhere in the world

You need fares to fund high service levels

Pushes for fare free transit are good in theory but in reality, the charge cars part will fail to pass and the end result will be lower service

"This bad thing can happen too, therefore nothing ever matters! Look at me, I'm so smart!"

Love to purposely advocate for policies wrecking the environment and climate to own the libs. Why don't we just rip down the light rail and put a highway where it is while we're at it. Let's bulldoze some houses and turn them into parking lots too. Anything to make life easier for those who "deign to enter the downtown bubble."

Or you could move to the suburbs (or better yet, Ohio, where there is plenty of land for driving and parking) and quit whining about people wanting to improve the environment, tackle climate change, and allow easy emergency vehicle access. You will be happier in the suburbs. You will be happier in Ohio.

Don't the ticket checks happen as you get off?

We are not even close to "turning all the housing supply into luxury rentals." And believe it or not an 800k old townhouse is not affordable. It's already expensive as hell. Thus it's better to put 5x the number of units there, some smaller and cheaper than that. If you were to replace every single old home in the entire city with 5x the units on the same amount of land rents would very clearly go down. You're asking for San Francisco pro single family policy and that does not work. Or you can try taking a quick trip to NYC and see how "affordable" all the downtown Brooklyn brownstones are since they never replaced them with more density. And if you don't like population growth I recommend inner city Baltimore or rural Ohio.

They tried to factor in climate for no reason, the climate is really not that big a deal. It wasn't a big deal 10 years ago either, but true winter isn't a thing anymore.

The city and state are paying to renovate the building, which the city owns

Leasing out the building to the museum will generate revenue

Why do you live in a place for 32 years and still bash it? And let's stop pretending cost is an issue, this is Jersey City, your rent will be lower elsewhere in the country.

Depends on personality. I did the exact same thing once and as an introvert was very glad to be saving the money despite living in an older people neighborhood

After city tax plus slightly higher rent vs living with roommates here, for a high earner it could easily be a $400-500 premium to live in the city

How exactly does a developer "open up Jersey Avenue to Turnpike traffic." A "developer" is not in charge of that, the state of New Jersey is, and the state of New Jersey already stopped Leonia when Leonia tried to ban interstate traffic from local streets.

1. The median overall rent says absolutely nothing about whether a very recent building spurt lowers rents relative to the status quo.
2. The median Jersey City unit is much newer than in any of those big cities. Unless you account for this your number will be biased high. Compare the rent of an old Jersey City unit to an old Boston unit, Jersey City is not more expensive. A new centrally located luxury unit in Boston is more expensive than a new centrally located luxury unit in Jersey City. Except Jersey City has way more of them. You're only observing Simpson's Paradox.

Why banning construction won't do a thing but make it worse.

Has already played out in Manhattan and outer neighborhoods of San Francisco.

Most expensive places in America because when you refuse to build more supply, the rich will simply outcompete the poor for bad-quality housing and then renovate it on the inside. That is literally every expensive area of Manhattan. And the ones that don't get renovated, still get bid up anyways, because people don't choose where to move based on whether there's new housing there, else everyone would be moving to Williston ND where a bunch of oil boom housing from 5 years ago sits empty.