bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

rescuelife wrote:
Quote:

rescuelife wrote:
a HUGE +1 to Metrovet, located within the Club Barks daycare.

The prices are great (they don't try to gauge you) and the veterinary care is second to none. I could not recommend this vet enough.

I completely rescind this review! Since 2013 they have changed ownership and I would not send any animal I cared about there. Same goes for Club Barks.

The most recent change in ownership happened around 2016. That's when we switched to Secaucus Animal Hospital, and we haven't looked back. You need a car to get there (or, I suppose, a sympathetic Uber/Lyft driver willing to drive you and your pet) but definitely worth it.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ILRie wrote:
I'm trying to figure this out- is it possible that 100% of the value of the abatements goes to the city, and then the city needs to make a separate payment, calculated as 5% of that, to the county?
It sounds weirdly convoluted to me but if it resulted from a settlement from a lawsuit... anything's possible, I guess. (And isn't that basically 95/5 when it comes right down to it? Like, 100 out of 105 is 95.2%?)

This why Yvonne is continually mocked, she attends meetings and calls officials, but is unable to actually understand numbers. most of us can instantly see that 95-5 or 100-5 comes out the same no matter what you call it.

This. All the brouhaha over the numbers is simply a distraction. Even if her contention is right (which I seriously doubt) 5 out of 105 works out to 4.8%.

So instead of reaching out to the city law department or calling the city clerk for the ordinance, it is easier to mock me. It is easy to mock anyone when you hide behind phony names. I challenge anyone of you to attend the next council meeting and ask any city attorney the break down of JC tax abatements. I stand by what I said.

Jersey City (the municipality) consumed 95% of the PILOT, siphoning money from the county (which received 5%) and and schools (which received 0%).

stc4blues wrote:
Can't say the the images fill me with joy, but the design does seem to echo the stepped ziggurat motif you find in The Beacon and in other buildings in the city.
...

Dolomiti wrote:


Quote:

Vape tax-way to hurt those trying to kick nicotine.

Vaping doesn't do anything to help kick nicotine. Not only does it deliver the drug to those trying to quit smoking, it's enticing young people to start vaping. The health effects are unknown, but already do not look good.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JC_rider wrote:
Does anyone know how to remove tax abatement from a property? Just got the new assesment and heading to City Hall tomorrow.

Bought a condo on Westside last year near Mallory and knew taxes were too high because it was originally sold at peak of 2005 with abatement. Now I get a tax bill and city is increasing the % on the improvements. If I were to get rid of the abatement it will save me more than 30% for 2018! Kicker is with abatement dropped some of that money will go to school system that badly needs it.

We knew that people in Greenville, B/L & Westside were subsidizing rest of downtown Hamilton Park but this is just crazy.If you have an abated property make sure to compare what it would be without it.

Yvonne, do you have anything to say about this?

I find it interesting because only improvements can receive an tax abatement. Land is taxed normally.

Are you seriously suggesting that because of the reval, your taxes are going up and you would pay 30% less if you were taxed normally?

Can anyone else help me understand this situation?

Paging Yvonne

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Needs to be state driven, IMO. Property tax deferral for retirees with the accumulated balance plus interest due upon sale.

The state is not involved in the property taxation process at all, it's the cities and counties, why should they get involved in this solution?

brewster wrote:
...
I think most people saw that low assessment number and thought they better keep their mouths shut.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

The issue here is, you have three decades where some residents were screwed. They were paying a tax rate double that of those living with much better means. The poor were subsidizing the wealthy. A reval one year later would mean that the poorer areas only receive one year relief to earn back the money they lost over those decades.

During the entire time since the 1998 reval anybody who believed their property taxes were ?unfair? had the right to appeal.

It should not be the responsibility of individual citizens to fix an abject failure of by the city to uphold its legal responsibilities to keep property taxes accurate.

It's also my understanding that tax appeals are limited in how much they can adjust your tax amount.

mscottc wrote:
I was constantly bothered by them referring to the park as "Liberty Park," as opposed to "Liberty State Park." Am I the only one who's never heard it called just "Liberty Park?"

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Addendum:
Because I know that neither of you two parrots have a single clue about what the NJ Teacher?s Union has for healthcare benefits, I?ll do you both a favor and educate you. This is a link to the specifics on the policies.

...

The doc ony shows payments. Taking the first plan on the list "AETNA FREEDOM10 #018" - gives this link.

http://www.nj.gov/treasury/pensions/h ... lment_2015/sbc/sbc001.pdf

Not an expert - but given the deductibles and max out-of-pocket, that sure looks like it's NJ Gold plan or better. Most private employers take around the same $1k/month but will only provide silver-level coverage. In dollar terms, that's about $12k for ~$25k benefit public sector, compared to $12k for ~$16k benefit private sector.

Not massive. But to be honest I'd prefer to give that $9k difference to teachers as a pay increase. Colletively we need to exert more downward pressure on drug and treatment costs. Teachers and public employees will shop around for treatment if it's coming out of their own pockets. As it stands, public sector plans help create the spiralling healthcare costs.

Comparing it to where I work... To get the same plan, I'd pay $250 per month. If I were to spend $1,000 per month, it would cover me, a spouse and two children or more.

Where are you getting the number that private sector averages are $1k per month for an individual?

Pebble wrote:
Addendum:
Because I know that neither of you two parrots have a single clue about what the NJ Teacher?s Union has for healthcare benefits, I?ll do you both a favor and educate you. This is a link to the specifics on the policies.

...

brewster wrote:

We need transparency...

mle267 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
[quote]
mle267 wrote:
[quote]
dtjcview wrote:
No problem with youths near voting age expressing their support. But bringing young kids to a protest looks like exploitation to many. But I'm not the one looking for a pay increase - just the one that may vote against it....

So who elects the JC BOE? And the point was general and not specific to me, nor a single vote.

You said you weren?t looking for a pay increase - just the one who may vote against it. Sure sounded to me like you were referring to yourself, as that is what the first person is often used for.

Teachers need to keep the BOE, City, County and State electorates on their side. Exploiting young kids looks bad to a high percentage of that electorate.


Again, you saw (I?m assuming) children present at one school. If I am mistaken about the number of schools you visited to make your claims, I apologize. I believe PS 16 was the original school mentioned in this message thread. You were provided with explanations as to why the children were there- either employees own kids or children brought by their parents who chose to support teachers. You disagree with those decisions but that's about it. Time to move on.

mle267 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
No problem with youths near voting age expressing their support. But bringing young kids to a protest looks like exploitation to many. But I'm not the one looking for a pay increase - just the one that may vote against it....

Unless you are a member of the Jersey City Board of Education or a member of the Jersey City Education Association, I am not quite sure when you feel you will have the opportunity to vote on the pay increase. The negotiations teams of each party come to an agreement on a contract proposal that each feels is acceptable. The membership of the union votes to ratify or not, then it is presented to the board for approval. So unless you happen to be a member of one of the organizations, you aren't voting on anything.

avinandre wrote:
...

Most people are ranting about a 1 million dollar home should pay 16K. No problem but if 100K home is 1M in 15 years, wages should have also gone up by same proportion and that is totally nuts.. If I have to pay local taxes as percent of my income I will do that and that is better way to tax and provide local services IMHO.

thomash844 wrote:
I have been a JC resident and invested in Jersey City long before it was hip, happening or cool. I have also worked as a Jersey City public school teacher for 12 years, about half the time I?ve lived here. I am still at a salary on which it is increasingly difficult to continue living here. My 2018 workload is compensated with a 2009 paycheck, due to the extremely harsh increases in health benefit premiums, and with each new contract being set back on the steps of the pay scale. I have dedicated the last 12 years for the good of the children of this city. I was Teacher Of the Year in my school in 2014. At this point I feel WHAT THE HELL DO I HAVE TO LOSE. I, and others, are picketing so people like the haters on here will know we have a valid complaint. I don?t want to strike but I WILL if I?m pushed to it. With my real estate taxes about to explode and premiums skyrocketing every year what the hell am I supposed to do ? Take on ANOTHER side job?? (I already have THREE: i work before school, after school and on Saturdays). Don?t tell me to go find something that pays better?- pay me better! Don?t tell me to ?find a job I?m happier with,? because I happen to love my job.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Since JC gets almost as much from other state taxpayers to support JC schools as its total budget it's laughable to say JC had high taxes, especially given the proposed 1.62 rate.

Where is stateaidguy when you need him? That 1.62 rate is a pretty big hammer...

If you think that 1.62 is a big hammer, just wait a year or two. Once the county decides to adjust the JC contribution, it will go up. And, there is a very good chance that the state will cut back on the school funding, which will also lead to a higher school tax for residents. Also, if the market valuations drop, the rate will have to go up to compensate for the drop. I wouldn't be surprised to see a rate of 2% (or, higher) in the next few years.

Monroe wrote:
Since JC gets almost as much from other state taxpayers to support JC schools as its total budget it's laughable to say JC had high taxes, especially given the proposed 1.62 rate.

JCGuys wrote:
Jersey City's real estate valuations can't be viewed in a vacuum...