Jersey City, NJ Community Forums

i love that baby stoat.

Shouldn't Pet Shop Bar be on the West End?

  would be proud.

Woodsy: Too bad jehu didn't make it but at least the Gorton's fisherman showed up.

He knows what you did last summer.

If you're looking for a realtor, don't use Harsimus Cove Realty, Gregory P. Wright.

Are you saying don't use Gregory P. Wright at Harsimus Cove Realty or are you signing off as Gregory P. Wright?

Fulop, Loew's group tussle over grant funding
By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on August 13, 2015 at 9:11 AM, updated August 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM

After a brief summer hiatus, the battle between Jersey City and the nonprofit group that runs the Landmark Loew's Jersey Theatre is resuming, with city officials asking Hudson County to take back a roughly $500,000 grant from the former movie palace.

The grant, which city officials want to give instead to the construction of Berry Lane Park on Garfield Avenue, was supposed to pay to bring some elements of the city-owned Loew's up to fire and safety code standards. The Hudson County freeholders are expected to vote to repurpose the funds to Berry Lane Park at their 1 p.m. meeting today.

In a letter to the county obtained by The Jersey Journal, Mayor Steve Fulop slams Friends of the Loew's, the nonprofit group that runs the Journal Square theater, saying the group provides "a minimal amount of community benefit and to a small number of residents."

Fulop's move comes two months after the city lost a pivotal court case to FOL. That May 29 decision gave the nonprofit group the right to remain the city's tenant until 2020, putting into jeopardy the mayor's plan to have concert promoter AEG Live take over management of the Loew's in FOL's place.

This latest salvo has city officials accusing FOL of financial mismanagement and FOL charging the city with attempting to strip grant funding as retaliation for losing in court.

For more, read here.

Admins, can you put dates on these posts?  It's making me nuts that you have to scroll all the way up to find out when these events are occurring, and that the dates aren't even in a conspicuous spot.

Quote from: Frank M on 08-13-2014, 02:55pm

GMO refers only to organisms that that have been modified through genetic engineering.  GMO foods have only been available for the past twenty years and are the result of techniques very different than the ones we’ve been using to tailor plants and animals to our needs for centuries.  They share similar if not identical goals, but it's not accurate to call them then same thing. 

In my opinion, the biggest problem is that we don't know what to look for in terms of negative effects.  As with many young technologies, there's a chance we've introduced variables we don't know exist yet.

Maybe we need to use different terms then.  "Genetically modified" and "genetic engineering" are too broad and would encompass selective breeding and unnatural selection in addition to laboratory modification; we identify a trait in a plant or animal we like and encourage its propagation and expression in future generations.  Yes, doing it in a laboratory can involve different techniques than doing it on a farm but they have the same goals and the same results. 

As for your concern that we don’t know what to look for in terms of negative effects, how is that any different with cross breading different plant species?  OMG I created a Pluot.  Maybe there was something in an apricot and plum that shouldn’t have been mixed.   Maybe this synthetic fruit includes a chemical in that raises blood pressure, or increases cholesterol, or reduces fertility.  How do we know?  I don’t object to testing all of our foods to find out what is safe and what is dangerous but I don’t see why we should fool ourselves into thinking that laboratory-GMO foods are inherently more dangerous than unnaturally selected-GMO foods or native species for that matter (don’t get me started on ignorant people self-medicating with herbal supplements (not that herbal supplements are inherently bad, ignorance is the problem)).

I beg to differ, Frank M.  The term GMO apparently derives from The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.  That Protocol, however, does not itself use the term Genetically Modified Organism, but instead uses the term "Living Modified Organism."  In turn, that term is defined specifically as "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology."  https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf

All Living Modified Organisms are Genetically Modified, but not all Genetically Modified Organisms are Living Modified Organisms as defined in the Protocol. Just because something is genetically modified (which is what the term GMO implies) does not mean that it was done so through modern biotech means.

That said, I agree that we need to be more careful with new technologies and better regulate.

Also, what Woodsy said.   

I do think that it's a mistake to group all "GMOs" into one group.  Not all GMOs are Monsanto, and it's ignorant to assume so.  See, e.g., the work being carried out by IRRI on developing golden rice to address vitamin deficiencies in impoverished countries.

See also http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html

The reason I am concerned about incorporation is because that is what determines what people are allowed to do as far as your separation of church and state goes.  If we were just talking about separation of church and state in a vacuum, then it would be a much less vigorous discussion because who on this site here would disagree that church and state should be separated?  It's the implementation that's at issue.

Quote from: Darna on 08-05-2014, 04:27pm

The thing is, sometimes people say religious things because they think it makes others feel more comfortable.  Not saying it's right all the time.

I think you are failing to see my point.  You said very specific things about the JC government funding a religious org.  My point is we don't even know if it's separately incorporated.  Maybe it's not a religious ORG.  Emphasis on the org, not so much on the religious.

You are the one all fixated on IRS filings. I don't know that it is incorporated at all. I mean, what do you call a city agency that expresses a particular faith?

If it makes you feel better eliminate my use of term "faith based org" and pay attention to the rest of what is being said. And find me an example of where expressions of specific religious beliefs in government agencies is tolerable.

But it does mean they are promoting religion.
Imagine if it were a verse of the Koran?

Sure.  But that's not really what I was responding to.  I was commenting because Bobble said,

2. This seems not to be public money going to a faith-based org, but rather a governmental agency creating a faith-based org. Martin's Place appears to have been started by the JCETP.

I was just questioning his assumption that Martin's Place is, in his words, "a faith-based org."

Since they list the JCETP address as the location of Martin's Place, I assume they are one and the same.

http://www.jcetonline.org/

So, that said, a city agency that blatantly advocate Christianity seems to be crossing a line.

But I still don't see how you conclude that Martin's Place is religious.

FYI, your tax dollars are allowed to go to faith-based groups as long as services are provided without regard to the beneficiary's religious beliefs.  Also, faith-based orgs

may use their facilities to provide social services supported with Federal financial assistance, without removing or altering religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols from these facilities.  In addition, a faith-based organization that applies for, or participates in, a social service program supported with Federal financial assistance may retain religious terms in its name, select its board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization's mission statements and other chartering or governing documents.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/17/executive-order-fundamental-principles-and-policymaking-criteria-partner