Ugh.

In fact, New Jersey ranked 2nd for highest number of title washed cars (according to Donut Media), after the one and only Mississippi.

Nice.

I was there last week but didn’t try much. Glad it has good food. Needs to, given its footprint.

They have a full bar, but a beer menu that’s… meh.

The wings are great, as are the dumplings. Oh, also the Parmesan fries. My biggest complaint is that I got too many fries to eat.

I have no experience with this dealer as a customer, but one thing to keep in mind is that Florida was slammed a few months ago by Hurricane Ian, wrecking an ungodly number of cars. Shady dealers will buy hurricane flooded cars out of state, for pennies on the dollar and then “wash” the title when they put it up for sale in another state. Not saying that’s the case with these cars you listed, but just keep that in mind.

What did you order? What’s good?

Don’t set your bar too high

Better than the empty lot that was there eh?

Do you personally know of the Global Motor Group or know somebody who bought their cars there?

I feel like this site is a bit shady, given they only take pictures of the outside and don't have any interior images.

More than likely those prices mean you have to agree to their in house financing which will have a super high interest rate. Most used car spots do this. But they have one goal and that is to sell you a car. A buddy of mine bought from auto spot in Garfield. There are a ton of used car dealerships heading east on 46 between elm wood park and fort lee. Try there.

I don't disagree with your sentiment in the last paragraphs about enforcing existing codes and worrying about developers not being held accountable, but to ignore that some land use choices generate more stormwater run off and other externalities than others, seems short sighted to me. I also like to point out, that the residential structures, may have been built prior to the current building/zoning codes being made and hence may have been grandfathered in. I don't know the history of how building codes evolved in Newark so that is only educated guess on my part. Additionally, in 2018, Newark's Office of Sustainability had established some programs regarding stormwater runoff. One of them was a catch basin adoption program and another was a rain barrel giveaway, while the City hasn't seemed to follow up on these efforts, their decision to run these programs indicates to me that this issue isn't purely seen in the way you describe. Additionally, the NJDEP's Resilient NJ for Northeastern NJ, also looks at variety of strategy to mitigate flooding issues from the micro to the macro level. While there are plenty of big ticket items suggested in various scenarios, plenty was written on the importance of small scale action.

Your method is based on false logic. The only thing that matters is the ratio of expected impervious surface into actual impervious surface. That is the only apples to apples comparison.

I believe code requires the max buildable area for a standard lot not exceed 50%. I am almost certain that there isn’t a single lot in the ironbound that adheres to code. A combination of reasons are to blame:

1. Loose granting of variance as a result of corruption and/or apathy
2. Illegal extension
3. Illegal paving over of unpaved surface area

The question is not what the best land use is; it’s whether or not parking lots are the cause of the flooding problem. On that count, they are no more responsible than the average residential lot that is paved over.

If we are Ok with allowing the owners of the average residential lot paving over their lots; why hold the owners of the parking lots to a different standard?

The article perpetuates a popular talking point amongst “activist”, that paved parking lots are either wholly or disproportionately responsible for access run off. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. It’s wise to remember that the parking lots are paved over with the permission of the city, which I presume approves these request on the basis that the residential lots have the impervious surface area required by code.

Bottom line, it does not matter if the parking lots are converted to housing, from a run off perspective; it’s more them likely that there will be no change in net impervious surface area.

A more pertinent question is why don’t we tell the truth? Tell property owners that their homes are flooding because they choose to pave over their yards, throw trash in the street and clog up the catch basins. That their unwillingness to co-operate with the street cleaning schedule has a direct causal effect to flooding.

Unfortunately, In the neo liberal zeitgeist, every issue has to be viewed through a lens of victim and culprit, hence the false narrative that paved over parking lots cause flooding. Poor home owner= victim; greedy parking lot owner = culprit.

How does this false narrative help homeowners ?? It does not! The proposed solution creates more Bureaucracy. Dozens of 100k / year paper pushers, who will raise taxes that the wealthy developers will bribe their way out of. It’s the rest of us who will have to foot the bill.

Start by enforcing existing laws and zoning standards. Restore impervious surfaces and clean up the streets and catch basins.create more open spaces. If all that fails, then we can start billing landowners for runoff.

I did some quick maths. Using satellite imagery on Google Maps I compared the 61-94 Main Street in Newark's Ironbound to the Edison Parking Lot at 160 Edison Place. Bare in mind this isn't a perfect methodology for multiple reason but the simplified maths are interesting. I picked that particular portion of that block on Main Street as it had 24 residential buildings with "Bayonne Boxes," these were 61-85 Main St and 70-94 Main St. I decided to roughly measure the square footage of their front yards, excluding what appeared to be the City sidewalk. I also excluded measuring the backyards as it was a little harder to determine what was and wasn't paved. I estimated the two rows of homes on each side of the street had roughly 6,880 sq ft of paved driveway/front yard area. In caparison, I estimated that the aforementioned Edison Parking Lot had around roughly 77,112 sq ft of paved parking area. If we assume that each of the residential buildings I measured on that block of Main Street can accommodate two families (households) per building, you have dwelling space for 48 households. Even if we assume one household per building, we still have 24 households. I agree that property owners, regardless of the size of the properties they own should seek any reasonable means to reduce stormwater runoff (reducing impervious surfaces with green space, using more previous types of paving, installing rain barrels, etc), we have to remember the old adage about being "penny wise and pound foolish." I don't think one has to stretch an inference to determine that residences probably provide more value to a community than a parking lot, and that's before we even considers the numbers I calculated.

I would take the #62 or G028 bus. Bus tickets don't have the surcharge. They also will drop you off right next to each terminal. I personally take the G028 and I really like that service.

[deleted]

What are you talking about? There haven't been factories in the Ironbound for decades and no, deindustrialization did not lead to better wages in other industries for the majority of the working class.

🤣🤣🤣 you keep saying the same thing over and over without explaining how. It’s almost as if you are a robot whose program as malfunctioned🤷🏾‍♂️.

They are all related…. 🤔, tell me how?

Me too. I hated it when NWK was dead on weekends!

Yes and parking, housing, etc are all related to land use bub. That’s why the debate is should housing, parking, etc occupy a space.

🤣🤣🤣🤣 you switched the discussion to land use now🤦🏾😂🤣

Did you even read the article ? The article blames flooding on surface parking , presumably because it is paved over and therefore does not absorb rain water. My point is, that is a false and dishonest argument. Houses that have their backyards paved over in violation of code are equally responsible.

What you are taking about; i haven’t a clue.

How does land use not factor into this discussion?

🤣🤣that has nothing to do with the issue at hand but good try🤣🤣

So your bright idea is to convert all the paved over parking lots to paved over single family houses and that will somehow fix the flooding problem?

What’s the better use of land housing or parking lots?

It involve simple math. If you have a parking lot that is 25,000 sqft that is completely paved over it has an impervious surface areas of 0. On the other hand you have 10 single family homes on 2500 sqft lots each that are completely paved over, each of those lots have an impervious surface area of 0; 10 x 0 = 0.

I live in the ironbound.and know for a fact that surface parking lots make up a small fraction of land use. The vast majority are housing unit, that, regardless of occupancy class have their back and side yards paved over, in violation of code.

The article is written in such away as to lead the uncritical reader to believe that the paved over parking lots are largely responsible for the runoff problem when in fact sqft for sqft, the average homeowner is contributing just as much to the problem as the parking lot owner.

Once you sell this lie to the uncritical reader, you then sell them a “solution” that will almost always end up costing them in taxes. When you think about it, it’s a perfect ponzi scheme.

If the city sent out inspectors tomorrow to issue citations to every homeowner who has illegally paved over his backyard, they could create impervious surfaces the equivalent of 10x the surface parking area. That of course will involve telling the truth and potentially loosing a few votes and that’s bad for business. So here we are with an ever growing govt. and more taxes.

Thank you!!