JCLAW wrote:
"As a real estate tax payer, I am concerned about the whole nut; city, school, county (and state) taxes. What good does it do for me if PILOTs surpress my city taxes and force my school and county taxes higher.

You stated expert knowledge in this area, please explain. "

I thought I had answered this before but once more just for good measure. Here goes:

The Jersey City School system is controlled and paid for by the State of NJ using money from the state income tax and other sources. So basically as it stands, people in Princeton are paying for JC's schools. When the City's budget started improving due to the cash influx from waterfront PILOTs, Mayor Cunningham took the City off the NJ Distressed (aka Dysfunctional) Cities Program. The State of NJ said "Woah, if you can skip out on the program because of all your new PILOT money, you need to start paying for you own school system." Well, the Cunningham administration wasn't about to force these expenses on regular voting taxpayers, so it imposed a 5% surcharge on top of all PILOT payments (a tax on top of a tax - so to speak) which goes towards defraying the State of NJ's costs of running the JC school system. Right now the NJ school system costs the state about $70 million/year and the PILOTs are generating a few million dollars against that which cuts the State's cost.

As far as the county goes, again during the Cunningham administration, the City of Weehawken sued Jersey City claiming that the PILOT program made it possible for JC to keep all the $ and Weehawken wanted to get its hands on the same loot. So to keep political peace, the Cunningham administration imposed a 2% tax on PILOT payments to enrich the County coffers. In any case, I need to correct your understanding about the County's revenue stream as follows. If the PILOT payments were converted to a regular tax payments, your regular taxes would skyrocket because JC would need to triple its local taxes in order to satisfy the county's 60% share of regular tax revenues and still pay off its own needs. Remember, the county gets a tax share but it doesn't set the rates. It's an illogical system, but the only one we have.

Hoping that helps.

JCLAW wrote:
I find myself responding to these posts because there is so much misinformation out there. Here is another perfect example.

In condominium projects, the real estate tax "abatement" aka. PILOT program goes to the BUYER not the builder. In fact the BUILDER has to pre-pay the city an entire year of taxes in exchange for this "abatement" which applies to the BUYER. The PILOT for condos is based on a complicated formula derived from the purchase price, the monthly maintenance charges and current interest rates. You can call the local tax assessor and he will calculate the numbers for you, as they can change.

The number 1.65% is about right, and if it seems high to you for taxes, its because it IS high. In fact, its HIGHER than regular taxes on a new "UN-abated" condo. An new unabated condo today would pay taxes based on the current published Equilization Ratio x Tax Rate, which is .28 x .0522 = 1.46%

So, as you can see, there is no such thing as an "Abatement" in Jersey City. The good news is, as a buyer you have the right to cancel your "abatement" anytime after 1 year from date of purchase, so after the 1st year you can go down to regular JC taxes like everybody else.

The biggest problem with condo "abatments" is the name. JC is so screwed up that buyers feel they need to hear the word "abatement" when buying a condo, so builders go to the city to get an "abatement" and the city says ok, I'll give you one but only if the "abatement" charges you more taxes than regular taxes. The builders have no choice so they get this PILOT "abatement" and then just assume the buyers will cancel it as soon as they buy. The only benefit of the PILOT program is that it protects the buyer from massive city tax increases in between the time that the buyer signs the purchase contract and the closing date - so at least you are protected for the perhaps 12-month wait until your move-in date.

If you are a new buyer in any of the new condo developments on the JC waterfront, after you move in, I strongly recommend that you write a note to the JC tax department (c/o Mr. Ed Toloza) and cancel your abatement at the legally permitted date which is one-year after you take title.

On 10/5/06, Captain McDonough <jcpdeastdistrict@yahoo.com > wrote: PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING AND PASS ALONG TO ALL. The JCPD, East District, has received two complaints stating that on Wednesday, October 4, 2006, in the area of Third St. between Coles and Monmouth, an unknown male was ringing doorbells and asking if occupant (without stating name) was home, did not provide further information, and appeared suspicious in his manner. In report #1 the unknown male is described as follows; slighty heavyset, with short blonde hair and was wearing a gray jacket, brown colored jeans and a large gold chain with a cross around his neck. In report #2 the unknown male is described as follows; light skinned with a pinkish face, blondish short hair, thin build, 5'7" - 5'8", wearing a light brown plaid jacket, brown shirt and light khaki pants. PLEASE CONTINUE TO AND ADVISE ALL TO REPORT ALL SUSPICOUS PERSON(S). Please do not give out information to unknown individuals regarding yourself or your neighbors. And, as always DO NOT allow anyone you do not know or anyone you have not scheduled to come into your home. If anyone has further information please contact the JCPD at 201-547-5477. Regards. P.O. Dina Reilly

deathmask wrote:
Thank god I'm not the only one that is sick of hearing from these people that think they know best for everyone. It truly makes me sick to see they same handful of people trying to dicate the adgenda month after month. Folks, wake up. Let's meet and remove these people and their adgenda. Please email me at mcginn63@aol.com to organize something.

07310 wrote:
Hooray! the value of my condo is gonna double again!

r_pinkowitz wrote:

Dan, you?ve lost your mind!

You?re correct on one point and ONE point only, we never corresponded via city e-mail. BECAUSE YOU WOULD ONLY SEND E-MAILS TO MY AOL HOME ACCOUNT! Btw, the tickets we offered to you and everyone else? was to the fundraiser that was being done for the victims of the Tsunami, where 100% of the proceeds went to Unicef.

Also, I had nothing to do with PAD and left that strictly to the Councilman, the only involvement I had was with 110/111 when they were not working within the scoop of their permits and the city ordinances. I would never have made a call to anyone to discuss the PAD since I wasn?t fully knowledgeable in that area.

You really do have a distorted view on the correct facts.

Have a happy day, as always it's a pleasure.

brian_em wrote:
Well, I have a motorscooter in JC and basically no one knows how to handle it. The dmv has a hard time classifying scooters in general, and calling the JCPA will just frustrate you and waste your time. Parking your scooter on the street without a permit is no problem, as long as you move it for street cleaning. Sometimes i park mine on a wide sidewalk, outside my house. But im just lucky that i haven't had a problem yet.

Having a scooter is a huge pain in the ass b.c laws for them are so dated, and honestly, dmv officials just don't know how to handle them. They try and force you to get a motorcycle liscense, but then won't let you ride it on a highway, so how do you get the bike to rahway (the nearest motorcycle roadtest facility) to take the test?

alb wrote:
Quote:

injcsince81 wrote:

The judge in the lengthy legal battle invalidated the Warehouse Historic District - which shielded the area's historic structures from wreckage - and forced the city to make the changes, said Jersey City Corporation Counsel Bill Matsikoudis.

Does anyone know if the city tried to appeal the judge's ruling? If not, did the city give some reason? (Other than the actual likely reason of everyone being on the take.)

Skadave wrote:
I saw Healy on a television ad the other day pushing the warehouse. How much time and money is he spending on this and is it worth it?

A latest article in the Jersey Journal states that the warehouse will create 300 jobs. Is three hundred jobs for a city of 250,000 people a considerable amount? For the amount of space it is using it does not seem like it.

Healy also states that it will only accept 75 deliveries a day which should not create traffic congestion. I am assuming that the 75 trucks do not stay there so that number has to be doubled. Would you want 150 trucks driving past your neighborhood every day? How can this not create congestion?

It seems odd that Healy has invested way too much time on this issue. Am I missing something? It is not creating that many jobs, the amount of money received is decent but it won't make our lives any better, and the community does not support it.

Perhaps I am being naive and the main issue is, what is HEALY getting out of this deal?

JCLAW wrote:...

The so-called "abatements" benefit the city more than the developer. That is why the city is always in a rush to give them out. For more info, please read my post here: http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... 29e446f20a#forumpost58135....

....The State provides these refunds (75% of actual payroll taxes collected by the State from employees who relocated from NY) under the B.E.I.P. program, not the City - it costs the City nothing. The State does this in order to compete head-to-head with the incentives offered in Lower Manhattan (which are actually much more generous)......