LoL you are one of those ppl that can't take an L and just keeps talking. We aren't talking about getting rid of incinerators. I'm in the middle of eviscerating your absurd assertion that Philly had less of a pollution/superfund/incineration problem than Newark.

I was also cracking a joke...since you hate rising prices and don't acknowledge that improvments lead to price increases...i.e., get rid of the incinerator, awesome...but then you'd complain about a house selling for more. You seem like you just want to have your cake and eat it to is what I'm getting....its not realistic.

But are at lest 4 or 5 of them in Philly?

LoL ok. So they can put the incinerator in Kearny or Rahway next time. That way the invisible Newark Borders will stop the smog...of course it may raise prices in the ironbound!

They did get rid of their in-city incinerator though...so I'm Surprised the prices didn't sky rocket!

https://hiddencityphila.org/2018/03/back-when-we-burned-trash-on-the-delaware-river/

And whattaya know?!?!?!

https://www.34st.com/article/2022/01/philadelphia-garbage-philly-trash-company-environmental-justice-chester-health

We were both making an assumption. Could have just left it there haha...

Whatever no bad blood or anything...you can actually have a debate so all in good fun. I get prices going up is scarey. If it were to become hoboken, we are all screwed. But it won't imo.

Over 200 superfund sites...

https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/superfund-sites/#:~:text=More%20Than%20200%20Superfund%20Sites&text=Philadelphia%20County%20had%20the%20most,Delaware%20(twenty%2Dnine).

That's not how this works. You didn't produce a source either. As of now, it's unknown.

I mean, I'd bet it does tbh lol.

And again, you're simply not getting it...what is a 15 minute train ride from Philly? That region is cheaper, period. It's not like oh Philly has crime so let's keep prices low, but the south jersey suburbs cost as much as Montclair bc of equal amentities inside the town, in a vacuum...no...its our suburbs are more pricey than Philly's, Newark is more pricey than similar parts of Philly, and NY at its apex is more pricey than downtown Philly, etc etc. It's not a reflection of Philly issues, it's that Philly is not located in such a desirable region the way Newark is. Newark again, is not in a vacuum. It's still affordable for the region precisely bc of the issues you point out, but its gonna have higher prices due to factors like the region ya know? Also, as it gets more amenities etc, it goes up in price. Hence this house...go literally 10 mins up Bloomfield Ave and that same house is 1.5-2 million.

You complain about artificial inflationary prices...how about artificial deflation? Should Newark stay cheaper than a place up the sidewalk just bc an imaginary border and sign that says "welcome to south orange" is there? Seems silly. Just as silly as pretending the border exists so as to deny people educational opportunities and etc.

You've got nuanced views and can see the flaws in a myriad of ideas/discussions...thats just being an inquisitive mind and being open...its frowned upon these days lol!! Today you are the poster child of gentrification... yesterday, you were anti-developer....its all just weak attempts to put you into a limited box so that folks don't feel threatened by being challenged on their stances. Frustrating sometimes.

White wash? Several young well-off professionals of color...but ok. And yeah Philly is an environmental beacon lmao.

So basically you live-in newark bc it sucks and is cheap, and you'd like it to stay that way bc it's convenient for you?

If you'd rather live in Philly...I think the Turnpike takes all types of U-Hauls.

But, again, the size of the region is akin to Philly. Philly is huge. Newark is not on its own island. You live in Newark partly for Newark itself and partly for the greater region. I do anyway. That comes into account when discussing prices.

I just took it as you owned it. I do say "going home" but I personally wouldn't have said "can't afford to stay in my home" referencing my apt. Just a miscommunication...

Yes I meant own. You said in "our homes"... and yeah, life can be a pain in the ass...I'm a renter, and I don't have a problem with it. I mean, sure maybe I'll be priced out. Would have been nice to buy...but that would be with the expectation that the prices would eventually go up and the areas would continue to improve. Maybe I missed the boat, but its not like I'd want the prices to stay low forever and Newark not continue to improve in many areas, which leads naturally to price increases. I think its inevitable is all.

Is it though? You're 15 mins by train from Manhattan, and close to everything else in North Jersey and NYC. Close to airport, every major highway and train etc. Similar to Philly, but Phillys general region is overall less expensive. There are still affordable spots in Newark, but they won't be the nicest in town. Same for Philly. I also bet Newark has a way larger proportion of affordable units in these new buildings than most cities.

Always found it interesting that folks from Montclair want to preach to Newark about regional equity, but their proposed solutions always just include putting/keeping as many poor people as possible into Newark.. how about spreading it out more, and having more in Montclair and Glen ridge and vice-versa? Isn't that REGIONAL EQUITY? Modern political tropes are quite inside the box lol.

People can live in the west, large swaths of the south, and large swaths of the north ward. It isn't like Philly's most affordable apartments are in center city lol. You seem to have an issue with Newark having any higher-end neighborhoods. The fact is, Newark has plenty of really struggling neighborhoods and some nice working class ones, but not enough middle class...the horror everytime something pricier opens is a bit melodramatic imo. I live in a rent controlled apartment. Increased amentities and residents in close proximity is good with me. When it comes time to buy something, I'll see what is best for me in terms of price and area. Maybe Newark, maybe elsewhere. But downtown is probably gonna be a bit pricier...it's like that everywhere. Philly has neighborhoods that might as well be Belleville or Bloomfield to downtown Newark, the way those places are to downtown Philly.

If you already live in your home, this will be a financial windfall for you. Things happen...Newark is going to see increased value in certain neighborhoods. It is what it is. It's too important a city and has too much potential to fight the organic tides of development and increased value forever.

LOL at people being mad about this.

Good. Although panhandling is the least of lower vailsburg's current problems sadly.

I lived in 1180 for 3 years...I think many transplants start there before they get to know the city better. It's a great building, with a great staff and close to all downtown amenities plus arena and NJPAC districts and train....its woefully overpriced imo with no rent control. Walker House is a gorgeous building as well. I've only been inside one person's apartment. It was a tad small and seemed similar to 1180. But very nice and again, nice amenities. Close to NJPAC and Halsey but considerably farther from the Arena district.

Are you under age?

Well it isn't being used correctly. I'd love to have a detailed conversation regarding some of the intellectuals you're referencing. I'm sure some of them are up for debate as well, as far as people's take on their ideas. Again, people should be exposed to everyone's work and ideas, as long as they aren't singularly put forth.

I appreciate your engagement and intellectually honest response....This debate is nuanced and people want to make it zero sum/binary. Essentially, in today's academic environment if you don't subscribe to Bell's theorhetical "critical" school of thought on race, or don't want to include that philosophy as part of a curriculum, you're "banning" or "against teaching" black history. But black history is a different conversation...thats factual history, not a theorhetical approach to teaching, analyzing, or discussing it. There are a number of valid paradigms in which to do those things, including but not limited to a critical approach. I do not know of any state or school district that bans the teaching of black history in the factual sense. And in NJ, Murphy just doubled down on the AP curriculum, which I'm certain includes a heavy dose of "critical" philosophy (which I'm fine with including and discussing...but am skeptical of having it guide entire curriculums exclusively...i feel that way about any theorhetical approach to any subject). If AP h.s. students learn about critical approaches to history, and choose to subscribe to them, thats fine with me. But introduce them to competing frames of thought as well, and let them engage and discuss...do not construct an entire curriculum based on just one theorhetical approach, designed to make the case for just that theory, and then pretend its a comprehensive curriculum. I'm not saying that's what's happening...just defining the actual parameters and competing perspectives in today's current discussion.

I don't agree with Hamm's politics. . . And I don't subscribe to the current predominant academic conceptualization of everything boiling down to some inherently and irredeemable system....removing the nuance and complexity of the conversation, and instead creating a straw man - i.e., "you don't agree with all critical perspectives on race, and therefore take issue with an unfettered pedagogical approach to teaching it...therefore, you are BANNING black history, and are against teaching black history"...is not true, but its a convenient way to paint a competeting perspective as problematic and to remove voices and perspectives from the conversation without having to actually take up the debate on the merits. This seems to be a common tactic these days with folks at Hamm's position on the political spectrum. I'm simply calling out the straw man, and hyperbolic headline. To your credit, you acknowledged the nuance.

Now, if certain academics or their works are being pulled from the curriculum without reason, or bc they are critical perspectives, that could very well be a problem. But if they are simply diversifying the theorhetical approaches to analyzing the history, or making the course less theorhetical in general, whether we agree or disagree, all I'm saying is that's a conversation to have, but it isn't banning the factual teaching of history.

This would be akin to teaching an English class, but only selecting works, and pushing students to analyze works exclusively through an existentialist lens, and when someone asserts that some existentialist works should be removed to make room for epistemology, and therefore a more diversified theorhetical approach to analyzing the printed page, the existentialist shouting "they want to ban philosophy!"

There is no ban on black history, and certainly not in New Jersey.

Amazeeeeeeeeeee. Gorgeous shot! 😍 🔥

They had the black students union at my community College. I'm straight up white...I was invited to many of their events and loved it...nothing wrong w having black organizations. They have been some of the most welcoming and good-will facilitating groups I've been around...I'm sure it's the same for Latino groups and others. Kids will also be kids and find beef over whatever they can. For every crew beefing over race though, I'm sure there are diverse crews beefing over something else. This societyl is race OBSESSED on every level and from every political angle though, so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that kids are resorting to this type of nonsense. Of course, due to our societal obsession, this type of story is highlighted though too..