How is that bieng "wussy"? Sorry I don't want to get beat up, sure I'll 'respect' when I walk by. But I wish the block was nicer too.
Duh, Not everyone that lives in those Section 8s is a crack head. But lets be honest, there is a lot drug dealing, bottle smashing, chicken bone throwing, and general disrespect that goes in that park. Why should that be allowed? I heard a little kid call an old lady "white cracker bitch"! How is that OK?

Quote:

So if you had it your way, these section 8, drug-building-renters would be kicked out of their apartments and off your nice block. But when you're forced to come face to face with them and their brood, you put on this act like you're giving them respect?

Having it both ways sounds kinda wussy.

Your neighbor who takes issue with the dealers and has the cojones to flaunt it, sounds like he's just being straight up.

Face it. They hate you and you hate them. The sooner everyone comes to grip with this, the faster y'all can have THE ultimate breakdancing challange to see who really owns the block. Or whatever.

Quote:

No, its not usually about corruption, its mostly about hiring College students to go knock on people's door on election day, or in more rural areas, make phone calls. Most of the time you are talking about small armies of college students, or in some cases, high school students, descending on neighborhoods starting in the late afternoon and ending just before the polls close, which is why when you come home on election day there is often a sign or piece of literature stuck under the door reminding you its election day. My guess is many of the college students don't even bother voting, and many of the high school students are underage, so its mostly not about buying votes. Labor unions will also send members going door to door, and as I said, in urban areas you'll have adults who think $50 or $70 is a lot of money, and so they'll sign up to do it.

In this case, like I said previously, it at the very least seems scandalous because they all reside in the ward. But at the same time, a simple explanation could be that these people were working the entire city of Hoboken, not just the ward, on his campaign was footing the bill because he had the money in his account.

Street money is one thing, but the ratio of "workers" to cast votes in the 4th ward has got to be pretty unusual.

Does a $1 lottery ticket really compare to a $70 payout? Even in the project $1 doesn't go too far.

Quote:

They did create the crisis, but by deregulating the S&L's so they could make very risky investments with government guaranteed deposits.

Quote:

One thing that could make things worse is that Congress is so dysfunctional.

On the other hand, one thing that could make things better is that people still remember the Resolution Trust Corp. It led to all sorts of crookedness, but I think it got the market moving again pretty quickly, and I think the S&L crisis was a more serious crisis than the mortgage loan crisis.

I don't remember the details, but I think the federal government somehow created the S&L crisis by changing lending and real estate tax laws in a way that systematically crushed the S&L system. Only extremely profitable S&Ls could survive the changes.

As far as I know, the mortgage lenders have just been dorks. I don't think the government has stomped on the mortgage lenders the way it stomped on the S&Ls.

Is the fact that Corzine paid $135 a day for "campaign workers' cited as proof that the whole system is rotten, or that when Corzine does it, its not buying votes. Street money is a staple of Democratic campaigns around the country and is nothing new. Those with long memories may recall the brouhaha that ensued when an enebriated Whitman campain manager (Rollins? or something) bragged about street money to black ministers in Camden. The hypocritical outrage from the Democrats was deafening. (As a coda, there was an investigation that revealed the boast was braggadacio and not true). But why is everyone beating up on Justiciero?

Here's some info that'll combat the REal-T-Whores trying to pump hot air up peoples' backsides in order to squeeze those last remaining greater fools...

The excerpts below from an article in the WSJ shows that in the housing market the beat goes on.

Most forecasts don?t see the market turning around until 2009 or 2010, mostly that is about as far out as they can see with any level of confidence. If you look at previous downturns (bursting bubbles) in previous housing markets, commodity markets , even stock markets history demonstrates that the return to the peak prices seen in 2005 or 2006 could take 8 to 10 years. The housing decline of the early 1990s took just over 8 years for the prices to go from peak in 1989 back to that peak price in the late 1990s. This process takes so long because first the selling public and homebuilders must come to the realization that the market is severely depressed. Second, prices must drop to work-off the excess inventory (currently a problem with existing home sellers), and third consumers need to return to the market to buy (also a problem now because many consumers understand that the bottom as not been reached). It appears that we are still in the middle of this process and make no mistake this is a process that is not only financial, but psychological as well.

Quote:

This is true, and I'm sure the lenders that are still making loans are trying to make them here.

The problem is that a lot of the lenders get capital through the national investment markets. The investors hate all sorts of lenders and borrowers right now, not just subprime mortgage lenders and borrowers.

Because of that investor hostility toward lending and borrowing money, even lenders that only lend to millionaires with great credit might have a hard time getting the investor money they need to make loans.

Of course, in the real world, there are smart people out there figuring out ways around these obstacles, but doing that might take a few months and cause huge headaches for people who want to borrow money and buy homes immediately.

Quote:

If "you can afford it" without taking out a mortgage loan, then, of course, you should buy the property outright.

The problem is that most buyers need to take out mortgage loans to pay for $600,000 homes, and the market for jumbo loans -- mortgage loans for more than about $300,000 -- is in a state of panicked paralysis right now.

The mortgage loan companies can't get the cash they usually get to operate, because the investors are so spooked, so some loan companies (e.g., Countrywide) are suspending their lending operations.

The bad thing about owner financing is that it's probably a terrible system for most people. The good thing about it is that it can be made available even when regular mortgage lenders are all hiding in a cave.

Looks like they threw in the towel on September 11th:

http://www.abora3.de/index-eng.html

Quote:

In the past, the rent to own market was small and not so great.

If the current mortgage market paralysis ends quickly, or people can actually get loans if they put a little effort into it, then rent-to-own arrangements will continue to be rare.

If the paralysis continues, THEN sellers might start setting up these arrangements, and maybe some desperate sellers would agree to this now if a buyer made it easy.

The problem with this arrangement for the seller is that the seller ends up having to police the loan and collect the payments. If the buyer runs into problems, the seller has to spend a lot of time and money getting the home back.

A problem for both the buyer and the seller is that transaction costs will be high. You'll have to try to find an honest lawyer who understands all of this stuff, and what can go wrong, and set this up for you. My assumption is that this is expensive, and that sorting the good lawyers from the mediocre lawyers in this area is difficult.

A problem for the buyer is that the buyer has to put up with dealing with a quirky, inexperienced individual lender, rather than a big institution. Countrywide might have a 24/7 customer service line, but chances are that John Doe, the Former Owner of the Home, won't have people in Singapore to pick up the phone at 4 a.m. EDT.

On the other hand: if the current regular mortgage market paralysis does continue, and if lots and lots of people start setting up owner financing or rent-to-own arrangements, then the mortgage bankers will start selling administration services for owner financing/rent to own arrangements. So, in 2 years, it could be that an owner financing arrangement will look to the consumers involved almost exactly like an ordinary mortgage loan.

I agree with Bert's comment about prices going down more in areas outside downtown because there are fewer subprime folks who bought downtown.

The homes that we looked at that I referred to in an earlier post were outside downtown -- JSQ, Lincoln Park and the Heights.

We did encounter a few desperate sellers and I suspect there will be more in the next year.

One other observation: there were some streets that had several homes for sale around the same price, but one home would be nicely renovated and the others were rundown. There's just no way that some of those rundown homes are going to get anywhere near their asking prices, at least not while similar homes that have new kitchens, baths, landscaped yards, etc. are sitting on the market.

Quote: OK, that's pretty funny, right there.

There is one with a some sort of affordable mortgage plan. Google Harbor Lights Condominiums. It is a new project that will be built south of WALDO lofts. I don't think the developer is very ethical though. Watch out for that. But the units sounds very affordable.

amen cow. the whole wayne st debate reminds me of Hairspray, the REAL 1988 one, when Penny's mother gets off the bus realizes it's "not her part of town" and immediately takes something out of her clutch purse to wave off the "voodoo savages" ... and all they can do is laugh.

There will probably be significant discrepancies in price developments of single-family house / townhouses in Jersey City when comparing downtown with the rest of the City.

If subprime lending is any indication, prices outside of downtown should go down more than in downtown. Check nj.com / New Jersey by the numbers for subprime data. The percentage of subprime buyers in downtown is very low.

if someone can please explain to me the pros and cons of "rent to own" i might be spared searching and moving twice

Steven Fulop [info@stevenfulop.com]
Wed 9/26/07 9:02 AM

Opportunity for Change in Jersey CIty and Meeting Information


The events of the last few weeks may be looked upon in the future as a defining moment for New Jersey's political legacy. A series of seemingly separate and unrelated events may prove to be the starting point for much needed change in the way politics and government are conducted in Jersey City, Hudson County, and the state of NJ.

Eleven elected officials and politically connected individuals were arrested in a statewide sting of persons illegally receiving kickbacks and bribes. This is just the latest instance of what is a disturbingly long line of political figures to be arrested for public corruption. Whether is dual office holding, blatant conflicts of interest, pension padding, or pay-to-play, a sense of personal entitlement has been a part of New Jersey's political culture for so long that many politicians see it as a normal way of doing business.

Separatly, as a councilman, I see what I believe to be an abuse of government for ones own purposes. City officials take municipal cars on long trips to the Jersey Shore on the taxpayer's dime. There are council members holding paid positions with entities that do business with the city or are regulated by a city board. A majority of the members of the current city council hold paid positions with Hudson County's administration, and then vote on issues where the City's interests diverge with the County's. The conflicts are blatant, the hypocrisy is disturbing and the explanation that these practices are "public service" is alarming.

Governor Corzine, who has the best of intentions when it comes to making real changes in the state's political culture, tried to bring real reform through the Legislature. Regrettably, he was forced to pass a watered down version of a dual office holding ban because many Trenton legislators did not seem interested in real reform. Earlier this month in Jersey City, my colleagues voted down an ethics reform package that I proposed that would have been the strictest of its kind in the state. This reform package could have been a model for other municipalities. Based on these recent actions, I believe we can only conclude that when New Jersey politicians are offered an opportunity to police themselves, they refuse. I am proposing a way that will allow the voters to force them the changes needed to make our form of government stronger, more efficient, more transparent and more difficult for ill intentioned politicians to ply their trade.

In the weeks ahead we will begin the process of getting two legally binding questions placed on the ballot that give Jersey City's voters the opportunity to institute new ethics reform measures. The first prevents elected officials or government employees from collecting more than one taxpayer-funded salary. If we can't stop individuals from serving multiple government positions as that is permitted by the state, we must ensure that there is less incentive to collect multiple paychecks and pensions by changing pay structures at the local level for individuals already collecting a government paycheck. The second question prevents any entity, such as a developer or contractor that does business with the city, from making any kind of political contribution to local candidates during the times when they are negotiating with the city.

In some cases, people may not realize how much political corruption directly relates to how much they pay in taxes, how it creates barriers to new ideas, and it infringes on delivery of government resources.

I am confident that our vision for a better form of government will become a reality with Jersey City as a model. The change begins with our initial meeting on Wednesday, October 3rd, 7PM at 140 Newark Avenue (LITM).

I am hopeful that you find time to attend this important meeting as the only way to improve our city is with your involvement and working together.

Sincerely,


Councilman Steven Fulop
Ward "E"


Steven Fulop For Jersey City | 107 Christopher Columbus Dr | Jersey City, NJ 07302 | NJ | 07302

I don't think there are any 'rent to own' around here. It is probably not worth it. If you see something you like and you can afford it, why not buy it. If you are from out of town, try renting short term so that you can shop around more carefully.

I am thinking of selling my condo, but I have two neighbors who hasn't found a buyer for the last several months. Probably they are overpriced. I'm not sure what to do either. I have my eye on this condo that went down in price two times. Maybe I should buy it and rent my old place out.

Prices are going to come down a little, but that is just a correction from the 200% increases we witnessed over the early 2000's.

I don't think they are going to crash by any means, but when you look at a "normal" 5-6% annual appreciation in the housing market over eternity, then you have the outrageous appreciation over the last 8 years, that leads me to believe there is a correction coming.

I do think you will see a small correction now, then an extended period (3-5 years) of flat prices while natural forces catch up.

The mortgage problem is temporary, that will work itself out, when normal business and lending practices prevail over 350 credit scores getting 105% financing on properties.

alb wrote:
For sellers who have to sell immediately, the best thing is probably to address the mortgage market paralysis by figuring out how to sell through some kind of rent to own arrangement
I am looking to buy a condo in jersey city I am just afraid to buy now but i do want to move to JC immediatly can some one tell me if offering a "rent to own arrangment" is possible? what are the drawbacks?

I have been looking to buy a single-family home/townhome in JC for the last few months. For what it's worth, here's my perspective:

We've looked at about 15-20 properties since June. Of those, only one has sold (for near the asking price, I think). Two were under contract and came back on the market this month because the buyers' financing didn't go through. I'd say at least half of the others have dropped their price.

We actually tried to buy one place that dropped it's price by 100K, but the home inspection showed major structural problems, so we backed out. We are moving to the area for my job, and at this point, we are resigned to rent for awhile. If we found the right place, we'd buy, but at this point, I do feel like prices are going to come down a bit. And renting will give us time to find the right place.

There's my two cents.

Quote:

I was watching a recording of city council meeting on Comcast Channel 1 last night.

Thoughts:

- I find I'm watching Channel 1 and Channel 51 (the local access channels) more than any other channel but Comedy Central. Pretty sad.

- I don't know enough about the Faulkner Act to know whether Fulop and people here are right about it or the "Intelligent Woman Lawyer" at the meeting (the council counsel?? obviously some kind of city lawyer) was right. But, if the intelligent woman was wrong, she certainly SOUNDED as if she were making a great case. I think Fulop has to take her very seriously and get a great lawyer to help him deal with the objections she raised.

- The city council guy who talked about how unfair it would be to keep school district employees off the council really kneecapped Intelligent Woman Lawyer. She was making a what sounded like a good argument, then he came along and sounded (sorry, maybe he's a wonderful guy) like Tony Soprano complaining about the FBI cracking down on the marijuana trade.

- My general reaction is that most of the council members other than Fulop came off as nonentities. While the council was waiting for him to show up, it seemed as if the meeting droned on and on. It felt to me as if the council probably was rushing past potentially interesting matters (example: parking near the Korean War memorial by Portside) without comment. Then, once Fulop showed and dropped the ethics bomb, the meeting came to life.

- Given how much smarter and livelier that Intelligent Woman Lawyer seemed to be than most of the council members, I think that G_Elkind's point about the staff is really important. I don't even remember seeing the names of any of the staff people, let alone remember the names, but it seems likely to me that the staff people may be a lot more powerful than the council members, just because the staff people know more.

I think it probably goes a lot more along the lines of letting the right people know that they should not support the referendum, who in turn will tell their associates how to vote.

Quote: That's monthly.

Can the machine really be that stupid as to run ads against a
referendum on ethics.What would they say?No they will run an underground campaign of city workers and their families.

I think the machine can be beat on this one.

This is a Ward Map compiled by Hoboken 411; Ward 4 is the southwest corner, include the largest portion of Hoboken's low income housing:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF ... 000111d75bbe8d8ca68&msa=0


I took a look at the ELEC report from 5/23/07 Schedule D, (to view reports, check them out here http://www.elec.state.nj.us/ElecWeb/StandardSearch.aspx but be warned it only works with I.Explorer)

Most of the election day workers appear to have addresses in Ward 4, specifically, the projects. This obviously gives the perception that these votes were "bought."

On the other hand, get out the vote efforts usually include hiring election day workers at $50 to $70 a head. (Corzine's Senate campaign paid the most at between $100 and $135 a head.) Election day workers do a number of less than exciting things like holding up signs at roadway intersections, telephone voters who have not voted, and walking door to door getting people to vote. There are basically three types of people who are willing to do degrading and labor intensive work for 4 or 5 hours for $50. High School kids, college kids, and poor people. That alone of course does not explain the more than 300 election day workers where a total of 1600 or so votes were cast. However, its possible that some of these election day workers were electioneering in other wards of Hoboken, which would explain the large numbers.

On the other hand, its politics in Hudson County, so the possibility its not all on the up and up is always there.

Quote:

hehehe...I said I was a pollyanna! I do believe that we can make changes.

Gina

City rejects 2nd unauthorized bill

Wednesday, September 26, 2007
By KEN THORBOURNE
JERSEY JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

The Urban Times News is at it again.

The African American weekly has sent yet another bill to the city of Jersey City for publishing legal ads that it wasn't authorized to run, according to city officials. This time for $6,800.

The city, however, will not pay this one.

Last week, The Jersey Journal reported that the Urban Times News copied ads for a tax lien sale that originally ran in the Journal, published the ads in its newspaper, and then sent the city a bill for $15,300 - $1,100 more than the Journal charged for running the authorized ad.

Maureen Cosgrove, the city tax collector, balked at paying the bill, stating in an e-mail to various city honchos that she never authorized the Urban Times News to run the ads.

Carl Czaplicki, chief of staff to Mayor Jerramiah Healy, said he told Cosgrove to pay half the bill since one ad ran roughly a week before the sale. But, he said, she didn't have to pay for the ad that ran the day of the sale.

The City Council nonetheless approved full payment on Sept. 11.

This latest bill - for a sewer tax lien sale taking place tomorrow - will not be treated as generously.

"We are not going to pay it," said Stan H. Eason, a spokesman for the city. "We've instructed no one to pay for ads that are not properly obtained. Any copied ads will not be paid for by the city."

At a council caucus Monday, Business Administrator Brian O'Reilly said the city's policy for paying ads is simple: "If we don't have a contract with them, we don't have to pay them."

Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop asked O'Reilly to come up with a policy for how the city doles out non-legal ads, such as cultural events sponsored by the city.

According to state law, the city's legal ads must be published in The Jersey Journal as the largest English-language newspaper that's sold in the city, officials said.

Bobby Jackson, publisher of the Urban Times News, couldn't be reached for comment.