Jury finds Sharpe James and his mistress guilty on all counts. Sentencing on July 29th.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008 ... s_convicted.html#comments

I dont think she has to give up her Senate seat if she RUNS for mayor but she will have to give it up if she wins and is sworn is as mayor. She cant hold two elected positions. Nothing stops her from holding one and running for another.

Jimmy,

Thanks for shedding some light on what the area is like as I did not know.

What we are talking about here is a HUGE social issue and will only get worse as the gap between rich and poor grows. This growing gap will be especially evident as the population of JC grows and the city develops. New residents are coming in and for the most part poor, working class people def. get pushed out and replaced with people who can afford the higher prices.

Lafayette,

you def. have a good point, but developers are afraid that if they chose to place affordable units in thier luxury buildings they will cease to be luxury buildings. I dont know whether this is true or not but the city should be commended for requiring that developers provide/build/create a certain number of affordable units as the create thier luxury units.

The reason I say the city should be commended is that many municipalities send thier affordable units to other municipalities. One popular example is Princeton being extremely reluctant to build affordable housing within its borders, instead they send them to muncipalities nearby..like Trenton. In fact, many of the muncipalities that surround Trenton, send their affordable units there..basically paying Trenton to take people they dont want in their neighborhood.


So what the city is allowing in this case is not as bad as it could be. It could be worse. JC could send all their affordable units to kearny, harrison, etc..Could it be better? Yes. But I highly doubt that JC government would force developers on the waterfront or in downtown to create affordable units within their luxury buildings.

I see your point about the same thing happening on a smaller scale in JC..where the developers create all their luxury units downtown and all their affordable units outside of downtown. Not sure if it is completely accurate but I would not be surprised.

Wish it were different. It scares me to think that downtown JC can easily become another Hoboken.

I think this will free up cash for banks. With more cash, banks will be more willing to lend.

If banks know that they are guaranteed a buyer for their loans, they will lend. The straw that broke the camel's back was banks not being able to find buyers for their loans. This guarantees a buyer.

Will we return to being able to buy a house with just a signature and a smile, def. not. But I think that markets like JC have been affected by banks tightening and being able to buy a single family in JC under the new limit is going to be easier (rates more favorable) than it currently is using jumbo and second products.

Will the new limits help everyone..NO...but it seems as if it will def. make a difference in places like NYC metro.

I think it will have a significant impact. I have heard many stories about buyers who have decent income, credit score and the like but because of the underwriting standards and rates being charged for jumbos were not able to find financing.

According to the article, when compared to rates on current jumbos the rates on new conforming loans under the limit should be more favorable. These new limits will at least free up cash for the banks, allowing them to write more loans. Places like JC should see significant benefit.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/06/real_ ... ges_get_cheaper/index.htm

Thoughts?

That place has been vacant for at least two years now. Heard some rumors it was to be turned into condos but in light of the most recent info..I guess not.

Don't park your car there as I think there is either a vigilante resident who calls the parking authority or the parking authority employee who lives on the block is a complete a...hole.

PILOTs is really only a small part of the problem. Fact is that JC is spending around 17K per pupil..the proposed formula is based on a per pupil spending of around 9K (adequacy). so currently JC is spending almost twice adequecy. That is a big part of the reason the city is only getting a 2% increase (the lowest) from this year. Added to that JC has high "relative" property wealth..even in "bad" parts of the city when compared to other municipalities. JC falls into the group of municipalities that according to state are overspending AND are not paying their fair share for school funding. Under the proposed formula BOTH will be dealt with.

Best case scenario is that JC state aid will be frozen at this year's amount+ 2%, which will not cover the current and expected expenses if the city maintains its current educational services/worforce/etc.. The city will have to raise taxes AND cut services. It cannot continue to increase spending annually at the clip it has been because the state will not pay AND the city can only raise school tax levy by 4% annually, which will not support its current need.

whether to do a reval in light of this formula MUSt be on their minds. Simply raising taxes across the board would be bearable for a year or two..but at some point if they continue to just tack on tax increases without doing a reval and the tax disparity among neighbors increases residents will revolt.

As it relates to school funding, not having a reval in over 10 years and having all these PILOTed properties def. DOES NOT help the situation but the PILOTs are really not THE problem, however it will make addressing the problems (overspending and not paying fair share..according to formula) much harder to deal with.

Assuming the proposed formula gets adopted as is, this is terrible news for JC.

Property taxes will increase and they will be forced to cut spending/services because the formula will basically "freeze" the city at the current state aid amount and I dont think a 4% annual increase would cover "built-in" cost increases.

Let's not forget that there is also a 4% cap on the amount that the local tax level can increase to cover school spending. There are some things that fall outside the cap, but all in all, the cap provides some protection against the school portion of property taxes increasing astronomically from year to year. I think that if the city wants to increase by more than that they have to go the voters and we know what the result of that would be.

The city should really do a reval to spread the tax burden more equitable. STOP piling tax increases on residents whose tax bills are already inflated. No more PILOTs and rescind all previous PILOT agreements, if possible.

Pay close attention to this issue and register to vote if you have not already done so. How this plays out in this city is going to be interesting.

Consult a tax accountant...

People I know in your situation get NYS taxes and all the Fed related stuff taken out, basically all the mandatory stuff for anyone working in NYS. Withhold nothing for Jersey as your jersey taxes owed will most likely be less than what NYS withholds. You def. should not be paying NYC taxes.

Credit your NYS taxes paid against your NJ taxes owed when you file your return. Will most likely end up owing nothing to NJ since NYS income tax rates are generally higher then NJs.

In the end if your tax situation is straightforward and simple and that company isn't helping you to get rich...you end up paying "only" all the federal stuff and NYS income tax.

Also, I believe you should be able to get the NYC income tax paid back. You may have to wait till you file your return, but you should be able to get it back.

Again..talk to a tax accountant or at minimum search the web for posts on "Live in NJ work in NY".

Two-thirds of schools in line for more aid
Corzine provides a peek at his controversial plan

Sunday, December 02, 2007

BY JOHN MOONEY
Star-Ledger Staff

Gov. Jon Corzine said yesterday a majority of school districts would receive significant increases in state aid under his upcoming school funding plan, and he did not rule out the possibility that every district could get at least a small bump in money from Trenton.

A specific accounting of how much each district would receive remains fluid until updated enrollment numbers are factored in, Corzine said in a 45-minute interview with The Star-Ledger.

However, he revealed that preliminary estimates indicate up to two-thirds of the state's 618 districts would get a marked increase in funding under a plan that sends the bulk of about $450 million in additional money to middle-class communities that have rising low-income and immigrant populations.

Providing the first look at how the plan would affect local schools, Corzine said the beneficiaries would include a handful of the poorest districts that already have been helped by court-mandated funds, as well as a few wealthy ones.

Acknowledging the money pressures on all districts, Corzine said small increases in the 1 to 2 percent range may be feasible for the remainder of the state -- "so that everybody gets at least a little. We haven't decided that yet. It's a matter of how much we can afford."

A full public presentation, including the town-by-town figures, is expected in the next 10 days.

With a state budget yet to be proposed, neither the governor nor administration officials said where the additional money will come from. How much the state can afford in the face of a $3billion deficit is among the many issues sure to mark the upcoming funding debate. New Jersey currently distributes nearly $8 billion in direct aid to schools, about a quarter of the state's $33.5 billion budget.

School organizations and others already are picking at Corzine's broad approach to funding, as well as at the various details that have filtered out. But the governor maintained yesterday that the Legislature can approve a new formula in its current session, which ends Jan. 8.

During the interview, over coffee at a Union Township diner, Corzine alternated between optimism about his prospects and realism concerning the political challenges.

"I make no claims that this will be an easy hill to climb," he said.

Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) said he suggested the added aid to all districts, calling it "overall a plus for districts." The plan has yet to be formally presented, but Codey predicted it will be approved.

"It won't be an overwhelming majority, but it will be a majority," he said.


NEW STANDARD OF 'ADEQUATE'

Corzine provided the interview at the end of a week during which he and his administration started rolling out details of his long-awaited plan to legislators, school associations and interest groups.

Breaking from the current court-mandated system that focuses on the poorest districts, Corzine's plan directs money based on specific needs of each district. It would tie funding to the number of students in each district who are low-income or have limited English skills -- a recognition of the greater expenses for programs like tutoring and bilingual education.

It would set new guidelines for what amount is "adequate" for each child and would weigh a community's own wealth and income to determine the state's share. It also would include additional funding for preschool in any district with low-income students, and add money for school security.

Corzine called the plan's spending models on "the high end," and he rebutted critics who have said many schools would be forced to cut programs and many communities would come under greater pressure to raise property taxes.

"We will still be spending among the most in the nation, and very well may move up," he said. "I don't know why anyone would say it's dumbing down when we are trying to improve the education for a broad set of children."

New Jersey was the second highest-spending state in the country in 2005, spending about $13,800 per pupil overall, according to the most recent figures available from the Census Bureau. The national average that year was $8,700 per pupil.

The state budget puts New Jersey's average this year at about $16,000.

Corzine cited an array of suburban districts that have high numbers of impoverished or immigrant families, without the resources to help them. Those towns include Edison, Clifton, Bloomfield, Dover and Carteret, he said.

"The places where people are really, really strapped," Corzine said. "We have tried to build a formula that acknowledges those needs."

Much of the toughest criticism has come from those representing the 31 urban districts represented in the state Supreme Court's landmark Abbott vs. Burke rulings, which seek to lift the schooling of the poorest children to that of the state's richest.

Corzine maintained that the Abbott districts would not be hurt, and that a half-dozen of the lowest-spending among them could see significant increases. But he repeated that he wants to remove the special status of these districts -- something the court would have to approve -- and extend their programs to poor students who live outside their borders.

"The point is, it is not expansive enough," he said of Abbott funding.

Most legislators and school associations continue to take a wait-and-see approach toward the plan until specific numbers are released. Some Republican leaders are especially skeptical that it will provide property tax relief to their districts, something they said has been downplayed in the latest discussions.

"This all sounds good, but we don't know what it really means," said Assemblyman Joseph Malone (R-Burlington). "There is a time bomb ticking in some of these suburban and rural districts. They will go off the wall if they don't see some real relief."



John Mooney may be reached at jmooney@starledger.com or (973) 392-1548.

20% increase in capacity 7 years from now (2014)? Aren't the trains already severly overcrowded and by 2014 won't a 20% increase in capacity mean that we will be riding trains that will be just as packed - if not more crowded - as they are right now?

Now that's "progress"

The articles and posts mentioned the place on Fairmont that the ordinance would save. There was also a mention of a place on Bentley that was in the pipeline. Anyone know the address of the place on Bentley?