Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
21 user(s) are online (13 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 21

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts




Re: Hudson Cinemas closed?
#31
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Looks like it closed again in November 2019... any one know if there are any plans to reopen or is it gone for good? At least the Hudson mall is still going ..

Posted on: 1/22 6:04
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
You wrote:

"Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! "

"Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218"

The 1st paragraph is wrong. The second paragraph is correct. Take a deep breath. Do you understand the problem?

Now, back to the original thread title. If all PILOTS were to expire overnight, yes indeed there would be less (tax) revenue for the municipal government** and more for the school district. However, all other things remain equal, Jersey City would still remain an Abbott school district.

Collectively, there is not enough revenue among the municipality and the school district. The district has a big budget deficit. That redistribution of tax revenue would only go towards plugging the district deficit, while creating a deficit in the municipal budget (short term)

I'll let you do the math, i sure am not going to do so on my phone - but the MUNICIPAL property tax rate would increase dramatically on the 100% PILOT overnight expiry. That will create great economic harm to many JC residents. There is a very good reason why JC was designated as an Abbott district.

Also it would be counterproductive to NJS, despite all their school aid doled out to the district, the City does generate a lot of tax revenue for the State, much like NYC overwhelmingly does for NYS. How much that is above my pay grade, but I bet it is very significant. The folks in Trenton should realize that. That shock in residents and commercial property taxes would hurt the local economy. Leas economic activity means less revenue for the State.

Overtime, as PILOTs do expire and RE development activity drops off, then I could see JC losing its Abbott status. That is less shocking - fiscally, economically, and the thought itself.

Losing such status - it is not quite there, yet. **In part, with emphasis on "in part" due to what you meant to write originally - a big drop in revenue for the municipality.


It would have been a lot easier for you to simply admit you were wrong when you said "Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition" instead of writing all of that nonsense above.

As for Abbott, it is essentially impossible for JC to lose Abbott status. It has to do with the way legislation was written, and the many Abbott court rulings.

Also, as to your contention that municipal taxes would have to go up dramatically to make up the shortfall as abatements expire (btw, that budget shortfall was my initial contention, which you failed to understand) that will not necessarily be true. Using the numbers from the 2017 User Friendly Budget, the necessary increase to cover the shortfall would have to be about 32%, which translates to a 16% increase in our total tex levy. That's a heck of a lot less than what the school budget shortfall (after the state proposed cuts) will require, which will be in excess of a doubling, leading to an increase in our total tax levy of at least 25%, and quite likely much higher.

Posted on: 1/22 2:07
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


You wrote:

"Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! "

"Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218"

The 1st paragraph is wrong. The second paragraph is correct. Take a deep breath. Do you understand the problem?

Now, back to the original thread title. If all PILOTS were to expire overnight, yes indeed there would be less (tax) revenue for the municipal government** and more for the school district. However, all other things remain equal, Jersey City would still remain an Abbott school district.

Collectively, there is not enough revenue among the municipality and the school district. The district has a big budget deficit. That redistribution of tax revenue would only go towards plugging the district deficit, while creating a deficit in the municipal budget (short term)

I'll let you do the math, i sure am not going to do so on my phone - but the MUNICIPAL property tax rate would increase dramatically on the 100% PILOT overnight expiry. That will create great economic harm to many JC residents. There is a very good reason why JC was designated as an Abbott district.

Also it would be counterproductive to NJS, despite all their school aid doled out to the district, the City does generate a lot of tax revenue for the State, much like NYC overwhelmingly does for NYS. How much that is above my pay grade, but I bet it is very significant. The folks in Trenton should realize that. That shock in residents and commercial property taxes would hurt the local economy. Leas economic activity means less revenue for the State.

Overtime, as PILOTs do expire and RE development activity drops off, then I could see JC losing its Abbott status. That is less shocking - fiscally, economically, and the thought itself.

Losing such status - it is not quite there, yet. **In part, with emphasis on "in part" due to what you meant to write originally - a big drop in revenue for the municipality.

Posted on: 1/22 0:02
Top


Choir Auditions
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Choir auditions are continuing for Cantantes In Cordibus. This group of men and women is directed by Simone Ferraresi, a gifted composer and pianist. http://home.simoneferraresi.com/ The choir sings every Sunday morning at the Jersey City Latin Mass, currently at 8:30 am at Assumption Church which is at the corner of Pacific and Lafayette. Rehearsals are after Mass from 10:30 to 11:30. This takes up your entire Sunday morning but in a very rewarding manner. Signt reading ability is not a prerequisite though it is highly desired. The repetoire of the choir is the entire body of sacred music from the early medieval period until the present. However, the choir focus more on the Renaissance composers. Indeed, the choir has justed started to learn Monteverdi's Messa da Cappella of 1641. Call Dan Sexton at 201 406 9960 for more information.

Posted on: 1/21 21:38
Top


Indoor Places For Kids in Jersey City and Hoboken
#35
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


It is getting chilly outside! Don’t fear! There are plenty of fantastic indoor play spaces in Jersey City and Hoboken. Grab your energetic little ones and get them playing, singing, reading, crafting or exploring. And you don’t even have to travel that far. Check out our list of Places to Play Indoors in Jersey City and Hoboken.

https://jcfamilies.com/indoor-places-for-kids-in-jersey-city/

Posted on: 1/21 21:04
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.


You still write a lot of nonsense.

Here is what you do. Go to the city's website, finance section. Click on a link for the "User Friendly Budget" in that budget, there is a sheet that lists all PILOTS - what they currently pay and what they would/will be paying if it is not an abatement. Compare the two lists. You will see that you are wrong.

It is really as simple as that. There is no mystery. It's a simple fact.

Alternatively you can simply look up the definition of "abatement". It will be time better spent than typing out ignorant comments.


Sigh. I will try to explain it for you again, using the very documents you reference in your reply.

If you look up the most recent user-friendly budget document in the city's website, you can see a list/breakdown of all the long term abatements on the seventh page. Here is what the GRAND TOTAL line shows:

Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218

(Figures taken from here: 2017 User Friendly Budget)

The total revenue the city would get to keep from the "Taxes if Billed In Full" is ~50%, which would amount to about $104,295,000. That's because the total tax levy follows a breakdown close to 50/25/25 between the city, county, and BOE.

So, based on the 2017 User Friendly Budget, the city would stand to lose almost 33 million dollars if all abatements expired tomorrow and the formerly abated properties were to pay regular taxes, as those properties currently contribute just shy of 137 million dollars to the city budget.

Posted on: 1/21 16:53
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.


You still write a lot of nonsense.

Here is what you do. Go to the city's website, finance section. Click on a link for the "User Friendly Budget" in that budget, there is a sheet that lists all PILOTS - what they currently pay and what they would/will be paying if it is not an abatement. Compare the two lists. You will see that you are wrong.

It is really as simple as that. There is no mystery. It's a simple fact.

Alternatively you can simply look up the definition of "abatement". It will be time better spent than typing out ignorant comments.

Posted on: 1/21 12:24
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


State taxes are *supposed* to take more taxes from wealthier areas with relative surpluses, and use it to help areas in greater need, that is a goal of taxes!

If every district paid an equal 'fair share', there would be no point in collecting state taxes in the first place, they could just allow each municipality pay fully for their own schools (and everything else).

Robin.

Posted on: 1/21 2:47
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.

Posted on: 1/21 1:08
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


Wrong.

City recieves more money in Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) payments than it would receive under normal taxation.

I challenge you to look at the tax records of a recently expired building and compare the PILOT payment to the city portion of a property tax bill.

Posted on: 1/21 0:20
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.

Posted on: 1/20 23:43
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

azsrz wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.


Look at the numbers it will probably be around 2%, not too bad. And many of the abatements are going to expire soon. IMO they should put the rate at 1.8% like many people expected and start increasing from there so there wouldn't be another outcry like the reval.


Abatements expiring is not going to magically solve the tax problem: as those properties start to contribute directly to the school budget, the city itself will receive a LOT LESS in tax revenue from the formerly abated properties. And, since the city budget will not decrease, it is fair to conclude that as more and more abatements expire, the city will have to increase its tax levy to make up the loss of revenue.

Posted on: 1/20 2:42
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#43
Newbie
Newbie


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.


Look at the numbers it will probably be around 2%, not too bad. And many of the abatements are going to expire soon. IMO they should put the rate at 1.8% like many people expected and start increasing from there so there wouldn't be another outcry like the reval.

Posted on: 1/19 23:46
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:


"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."



Well that's the argument of the state, not necessarily the law.

The argument simply begs the question - whether the SFRA, as amended by S2, is constitutional. One way the legislature was able to convince the court it was, was that it provided for the hold harmless/adjustment aid. The aid that Jersey City and other Abbott districts received was based on prior court findings and mandates.

SFRA tried to cobble that all into a one size fits all formula. If they had not included the hold harmless/adjustment aid, the court may very well have rejected the formula entirely, because it would be ignoring the needs that had been demonstrated and the remedies that had been ordered.

SFRA used anodyne terms such as "local fair share" and "adequacy budget" in order to sell the SFRA as equitable. It doesn't mean one way or another that those terms have meaning as applied to the NJ Constitution's requirement for the state to provide a thorough and efficient education.


I know you are a smart, and reasonable, person. So, I respect your opinion. Having said that, I think it would be hard for the average person to look at the JC local school budget, and the fact that our local school taxes only pay for ~17% of said budget, and conclude that we are paying our fair share. Particularly when most towns cover a majority of their own local school budget.

In my opinion, we have gotten away for far too long with contributing a pittance towards our school budget, which has enabled the runaway spending we are now seeing. I suspect (hope?) that in the future, when local taxes are inevitably raised to cover the school budget, people will feel enough pain to expect and demand more accountability. If the proposed cuts are fully phased in as proposed, we will soon need to at least double our school taxes (not sure how much revenue is being generated by the recent payroll tax, so I am hedging my estimate, which would otherwise be a tripling of current rate) and our local tax rate would surpass 2%. That is still one of the lowest in the state, but given the reaction to the reval's 1.48% tax rate, I am sure we will see many more DTJCers picketing outside city hall complaining about unfair taxation.

Regardless, the court case, and its eventual result, will be very interesting to watch.

Posted on: 1/19 17:40
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:


"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."



Well that's the argument of the state, not necessarily the law.

The argument simply begs the question - whether the SFRA, as amended by S2, is constitutional. One way the legislature was able to convince the court it was, was that it provided for the hold harmless/adjustment aid. The aid that Jersey City and other Abbott districts received was based on prior court findings and mandates.

SFRA tried to cobble that all into a one size fits all formula. If they had not included the hold harmless/adjustment aid, the court may very well have rejected the formula entirely, because it would be ignoring the needs that had been demonstrated and the remedies that had been ordered.

SFRA used anodyne terms such as "local fair share" and "adequacy budget" in order to sell the SFRA as equitable. It doesn't mean one way or another that those terms have meaning as applied to the NJ Constitution's requirement for the state to provide a thorough and efficient education.

Posted on: 1/19 3:18
Top


Re: Did DPW neglect to brine the roads pre snowfall?
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
With just a quarter inch of snow the roads were as slippery as dog snot. I don't recall seeing any brine trucks overnight or this morning spraying the roads with brine. JC had this issue last winter with the salt trucks getting very late on the roads.


A real mess today! Driving up the Newark Avenue hill I got a first row seat to a bunch of cars slipping all over. Too many people around here driving as aggressively as usual, but without much traction. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a bunch of accidents or near misses.

Posted on: 1/18 22:15
Top


Did DPW neglect to brine the roads pre snowfall?
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


With just a quarter inch of snow the roads were as slippery as dog snot. I don't recall seeing any brine trucks overnight or this morning spraying the roads with brine. JC had this issue last winter with the salt trucks getting very late on the roads.

Posted on: 1/18 18:48
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
We need a new slate that will defund the school board and keep taxes low.


I am all for lower taxes and lean governments, but defunding the school board may not be a very practical or viable approach. We need to provide a public education (it is a "greater good" action that merits public funding) and that requires money. But, we should demand greater accountability from the BOE, and responsible stewardship of public funds. Currently, Jersey City has one of the most bloated/costly school budgets as evidenced by the per-pupil cost. Add to that stat that we also have one of the worst achievement/graduation rates, and you really have to start asking some questions.

BOE apologists bristle at the notion of citizens demanding better results and more accountability, but they seem to forget that their job and mission, by its very nature, implies accountability to the city residents.

Posted on: 1/18 17:52
Top


North River Sing Community Chorus
#49
Newbie
Newbie


Jersey City's own community chorus, North River Sing, is presenting our fifth anniversary concert Sunday, January 26, 4pm, at St. Matthew's Church, 83 Wayne Street (next door to the Barrow Mansion).
We invite you to join us at a reception with goodies and beverages after the performance.
Free (suggested donation is $15).
The Gershwins! Sondheim! Rodgers and Hammerstein! More! We'd love to have you come enjoy this music with us.
Also - we'll be having our auditions for next season on January 27 and February 1.
Please check our website for more information: NorthRiverSing.org

Posted on: 1/18 17:41
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#50
Newbie
Newbie


It's a basic necessity to have proper rules and this is kind of off track compared to other cities

Posted on: 1/18 17:14
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


We need a new slate that will defund the school board and keep taxes low.

Posted on: 1/18 14:24
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.

Posted on: 1/18 13:54
Top


Martin Luther King Jr. Day Events In and Around Jersey City
#53
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


We will never forget Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s words and actions, or his impact as an activist, working to give a voice to all. There are some great Martin Luther King Jr. Day Events happening In and Around Jersey City that we have compiled for you to celebrate the day.

https://jcfamilies.com/martin-luther-k ... n-and-around-jersey-city/

Posted on: 1/16 20:22
Top


Re: Green Jersey City
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


ahh.. ok. The video preview looked like what is shown when video has been deleted. It plays when you click it though.

Posted on: 1/16 17:10
Top


Re: Green Jersey City
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
Looks like the video was deleted.

It is still there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wBZmmcA8A8

Posted on: 1/16 17:00
Top


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Then who is buying up all of this real estate? I realize the real estate market in NYC and some areas of NNJ have cooled in part. But that's in part because the numbers had reached super, super stratospheric heights. Still, even with the dip, prices are high and people are still buying expensive real estate. In Asbury Park at least 20 units in the Ocean Club sold for anywhere from $1mm to $5mm. Properties in JC are still moving as are properties in the several million mark in NYC. It seems to me there's plenty of money floating around.


A lot (most?) of the high end real estate in NYC/Manhattan is being snapped up by foreigners who don't have to pay state taxes on income. As the real estate market in NYC has remained hot for so long, people have been pushed out into other areas, such as the ones you point out in your message. In many ways, Jersey City, and much of NJ, has benefitted from the overly-hot NYC real estate market, as people leave NY and relocate here.

The problem with foreigners snapping up real estate (which is also a problem locally in JC, btw) is that it can artificially inflate a local market but those buying properties don't contribute to state coffers much, if at all. They are not subject to state income taxes, and property taxes are super low in NYC.


Bingo! If there is one thing about the high property taxes in New Jersey, all of these foreign buyers of luxury real estate are contributing fairly local coffers. One example is 99 Hudson. It recieved no abatement and will generate millions for the city, county and school board but will not consume much in the city of city services. How many school-aged children living in 99 Hudson will goto JC public schools? Slim to none.

Posted on: 1/16 14:13
Top


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Then who is buying up all of this real estate? I realize the real estate market in NYC and some areas of NNJ have cooled in part. But that's in part because the numbers had reached super, super stratospheric heights. Still, even with the dip, prices are high and people are still buying expensive real estate. In Asbury Park at least 20 units in the Ocean Club sold for anywhere from $1mm to $5mm. Properties in JC are still moving as are properties in the several million mark in NYC. It seems to me there's plenty of money floating around.


A lot (most?) of the high end real estate in NYC/Manhattan is being snapped up by foreigners who don't have to pay state taxes on income. As the real estate market in NYC has remained hot for so long, people have been pushed out into other areas, such as the ones you point out in your message. In many ways, Jersey City, and much of NJ, has benefitted from the overly-hot NYC real estate market, as people leave NY and relocate here.

The problem with foreigners snapping up real estate (which is also a problem locally in JC, btw) is that it can artificially inflate a local market but those buying properties don't contribute to state coffers much, if at all. They are not subject to state income taxes, and property taxes are super low in NYC.

Posted on: 1/16 1:51
Top


Re: New Jersey-New York area lost 5,700 millionaires in 2018
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Unless most of those millionaires were renters, someone (other than Dixon Leasing in one city) is buying all of that real estate. Odds are most of them are millionaires too. What don't I get?


It is well known that a lot of the high-end, costly NYC real estate (particularly Manhattan, and Brooklyn to some extent) is being snapped up by foreigners. Those people are buying properties but they are not contributing state taxes (since they are not residents) which is why real estate is not a very good indicator as to whether or not millionaires are leaving.

Posted on: 1/16 1:47
Top


Re: Friends' Rally Supporting the Liberty State Park Protection Act
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


If I understood what happens in Trenton, I'd bottle it and sell it.

Posted on: 1/15 19:46
Top


Re: Friends' Rally Supporting the Liberty State Park Protection Act
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Someone please educate me: If the state senate passes something by a wide margin (in this case, 21-13), how can the assembly just shit-can it, with no stated reason?

LSP Protection Act dies after stalling in Assembly

Bill Derailed by Assembly Speaker

Posted on: 1/15 18:22
Top



TopTop
« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 7859 »






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017