Recent comments in /f/jerseycity

FanHistorical223 t1_j7qd4li wrote

Lol, says “luxury” but far from luxurious. This is someone that is currently living there and looking to move out. I’ve been here for 4 years and lease it almost up. But I mean if you want to get the “experience” then go for it!

5

moobycow t1_j7qa510 wrote

I guess I just don't see what people expect the city to be doing that they aren't doing. It doesn't own a bunch of land to make parks DT and it is getting some givebacks to get parks when the opportunity arises while also trying to require affordable housing, which lowers what else you can ask for.

There's a new park on Cole, one on 8th between Grove and Marin. There will be at least open space in the Shorite development. The Newport Green area is relatively new. They're putting something behind City Hall. Morris Sq is new. The area around the Colgate Clock is finally starting to open up.

Many of the big buildings also come with small dog parks.

2

originatorn t1_j7q99eh wrote

Licensing actually is required in JC for all dogs over 7 months. It's super easy and cheap, but most dog owners are unaware of the requirement or just don't care because there's no enforcement.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH90AN_ARTIIIDOOTAN_S90-12DE

https://www.jerseycitynj.gov/cityhall/health/division_of_animal_care___control

4

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7q7as3 wrote

I’m sorry that you don’t understand. I hope one day you’re able to see the value some humans and dogs get out of their relationships because it’s a great thing. Personally I would like to see dog ownership require licensing over a certain weight, particularly in urban environments, but I’m culturally aware enough to know that will not happen in jersey city. Additionally the dog rescue infrastructure isn’t set up to support the number of dogs they would need to with this solution so it’s not realistic and more dogs would end up suffering. It’s a difficult issue to solve. I’m curious what your solution is?

−1

PrincipleOfMoments t1_j7q5w8j wrote

You are the perfect example of my point - insisting that nothing more than posting bitchy comments on-line can be done based on something you think you remember hearing at some point in the past.

If you, or any of the people who regularly complain about her on this forum actually cared, you'd expend even the slightest effort to learn what, how and when you could do something more than snark at her on Reddit.

0

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j7q48f5 wrote

Because parks take money and time, and most of JC is people who plan to leave for someplace else in a few years. They want to see a return on tax dollars quicker.

Same reason most don’t care about schools. They’ll move to the burbs before their kids need schools.

9

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j7q2j8f wrote

Agreed, the article did mention that LSP has a lot of land behind a chain link fence that isn't currently used in any form (due to pollution) so a best case scenario I think would be cleaning up and using only that land. Otherwise the park is already great.

3

Lowkeylowthreadcount t1_j7q0e1d wrote

As someone who stopped bringing their dogs to van vorst I agree. It’s too small. All the dog parks downtown are just too small to accommodate how many people have dogs and rely on a dog park to exercise their dog. At a certain point, van vorst gets so full that it’s actually pointless to even have dogs in there. It’s very very stupid.

10