Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
48 user(s) are online (27 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 48

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (bodhipooh)




Re: Boonton Reservoir
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

psyop wrote:
Fulop tweeted this morning:

@StevenFulop: We’re working on an amazing plan w/the @OpenSpaceInst to open #JerseyCity ‘s Boonton Reservoir in Morris County to the public. It’s a great JC asset that will serve conservationists, school children + surrounding community. It’ll be safer + accessible. Moving 4ward in September https://twitter.com/StevenFulop/status/1022089777267527680/photo/1


YES. Another loss for Yvonne and her NIMBY army.

Posted on: 7/25 9:38
Top


Re: Lottery open for affordable units in Jersey City apartment building
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I think he misspoke or didn’t understand the question.


I considered that too, but I actually think he fully meant what was quoted. Supposedly, locally, the median income for a family of 4 is 94K. No way they could afford a 6K/mo rent but, then again, I fundamentally disagree that just because someone wants to live somewhere, they are entitled to do so.

I think people like Mr. Walsh actually do a disservice to the affordable housing concept by trying to expand its availability to what many would consider to be upper middle class residents.

Posted on: 7/24 22:06
Top


Re: Lottery open for affordable units in Jersey City apartment building
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
"The 485 Marin rents are 19 to 33 percent higher than the "good faith estimate" of rents submitted to the council in 2015 when the project's 20-year tax break was approved. Then, the rents were estimated to range from $990 and $1,643.

Spokeswomen for the city and for KRE Group declined to comment on the change."


I don't understand this part:
"Kevin Walsh, executive director of advocacy group Fair Share Housing Center, said restricting the 485 Marin affordable units to people who make no more than 80 percent of the county's AMI excludes too many residents of Jersey City"

So, if a maximum of 80% of median salary excludes too many people, what should it be? 100%? Wouldn't that be a subversion of the principle/idea of affordable housing for those who would otherwise be relegated to living in economically depressed areas??

Posted on: 7/24 19:10
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
How do you know they were incorrect, nicky? You want a third world mentality where the same people who are for the removal of the monument are also working for the people who wants this removal.


So, are you saying that both Bill Clinton and Dennis Rodman signed your petition? And, are you also claiming they both live in JC? Because both of those must be true in order for the signatures to be considered valid.

Posted on: 7/24 9:32
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

llee wrote:
In other words, tax reval is actually a relief on the tax burden of recent dtjc owners of tax-abated buildings, as opposed to how the media sometimes depicts it.

Based on that ratable base should increase well before abatement expires as more and more owners choose to opt out.



Well, I wouldn't make THAT assumption. I doubt many people will do the math and then the legwork to terminate their abatement contract in favor of regular taxes. Like I said earlier, I think the power of inertia is such that most people will remain in their abatements, even if regular taxes are lower. Most people automatically assume they are saving money by being in an abatement contract.

But, if I am wrong and your assumption is correct, then the city will be facing a deficit in revenue. That could be an interesting development given the expected drop in state funding of our local BOE, even despite the potential revenue from the business tax.

Posted on: 7/22 22:08
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
On the topic of Fulop, I'm kinda pissed off One Journal Square remains a vacant plot of land collecting weed and garbage.

Yeah, that's mostly the Kushner family's fault.

After buying the property, the Kushners got it on the EB-5 program. This allows foreign investors to get fast-tracked for a green card. The Kushners got caught using this as a selling point for Chinese investors to the project, which in turn started a federal investigation.

The project stalled, an anchor tenant (WeWork) pulled out, the Kushners couldn't get it funded. It was only a few months ago that the city declared the project in default.

It might make sense to start the clock on the Fulop blame now, but yeah, most of the failure is because the Kushners got busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors.


Wow... that's some incredibly selective retelling of history. That lot has been sitting empty, and used as political booty, since the previous decade. The project has changed hands at least twice over the past 10 years. Every time an election cycle rolled around, Healy and his cronies would announce some new project, make a huge splash outside the site, and garner votes by making empty promises. As far back as 2009, we were promised imminent construction with a completion within 3 years. Obviously, that didn't happen, so in 2013 more empty promises were made, but Fulop managed to eke out a victory. Then the Kushners took over in 2015.

That last paragraph is also disingenuous: they [the Kushners] weren't "busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors". What triggered the investigation was the mentioning (and, use) of Jared's name and connections to the White House. The use of conferences in overseas markets to drum up investments and funding for hot real estate markets in several US cities is very, very common. It is how so much of Miami has been built up over the years. How do you think all those rich Mexicans, Brazilians, and other Latin American families manage to get visas to live in Miami year-round? The US immigration code/law allows for foreigners to get permanent residence in exchange for investments of at least half a million dollars. Some satisfy the requirement by opening businesses and hiring the requisite number of time employees (I think it is a minimum of 10, but I can't remember right now) and others do this by putting up half a million dollars towards real estate. There is nothing illegal about advertising this to a foreigner. It is 100% legal.

Posted on: 7/22 15:43
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

llee wrote:
Quote:

At 1.488, the need for abatements is probably diminished. I'm okay if they go away, but don't expect any developer to voluntarily build affordable housing.



In fact, a lot of realtors are advising their clients to opt out of tax abatement in dtjc properties. PILOT tax = rate x SALE price and that rate is generally in the 1.6-1.9 range, whereas in the opt-out scenario, it would be 1.488 x assessed value. Wouldn't it be a no-brainer to opt out of abatement unless home owner feels that tax rate will eventually exceed their PILOT rate?


BINGO! Any smart, savvy person should do the math on their tax situation and take the appropriate actions. Sadly, lots of people will continue to to pay PILOTs that exceed regular taxation because... well, inertia. I am sure lots of people on PILOTs on recent sales are likely paying a rate that is higher than 1.488. For example: all those condos in CanCo Lofts are definitely paying a higher rate via PILOTs than 1.488. In fact, I don't know of any new building paying less than 1.488 in PILOTs, except for The Oakman, which got a sweetheart deal of a 0.9% rate in a 20-year abatement program. Most of the buildings in the PADNA area are now paying well over 1.488% in PILOTs. But, I also doubt that they are paying enough attention to do the math and make the moves to switch to the lower tax rate.

Posted on: 7/22 15:27
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.


“Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.”

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here’s what “Stateaidguy” said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.


Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.



Yes and the part YOU and Fulop's shills keep distracting from is that under the PILOT scenario, ZERO of it goes to the schools. This was the greatest scam going as long as the state agreed to keep picking up the bulk of the school budget.

But again, at an avg property tax rate of 2.4%, the state woke up, and is pulling back educational funding to JC, which it should have done long ago.

This long term abuse of abatements, coupled with the delayed reval, is a huge financial powder keg waiting to blow. Steve got lucky the state allowed him to impose a business tax. That's a bandaid to a hatchet wound.


Dude, you are attacking the messenger. My only aim is to present facts, devoid of feelings or emotions. I was an early supporter of the reval and it pretty much played out the way I expected, except for the final rate, which I initially fully expected to end up being close to 2%, and later on 1.8%. I am quite surprised it ended up at 1.488%.

In any case, I am neither in favor, or against, abatements. I think abatements can be used smartly to spur development, but they are likely not necessary in DTJC, or even JSQ nowadays.

Of course, I also recognize that the city is "pulling a scam" on the state and county residents by abusing abatements and leaving it to them to subsidize our school budget. I even noted as much when I stated "they [JC] collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state". Facts are facts. My stating them does not make me a shill. In fact, I am far from that, as I have been quite vocal about my disapproval of the many delays of the reval. If you were to go through my posting history on the topic of taxes, the reval, and other such things, you will find a consistent position.

Posted on: 7/22 15:21
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.


“Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.”

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here’s what “Stateaidguy” said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.


Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.


Posted on: 7/22 13:24
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Abatements artificially keep our taxes high because they are not added to the ratable base. Using the 2017 formula, the residents had a tax rate of $78 per thousand. If tax abatement were ratables, then the rate would probably be around $55 per thousand. That is the reason why other towns do not grant tax abatements.


You must love to believe your own nonsense. You *know* that those properties are paying to the city just as much money (and, in some cases, much more money) in PILOTs than if they paid regular taxes. PLEASE, stop your lies by omission.

If those abatements were to go away, the city would need to raise the same amount of revenue they currently do, so the taxes would have to go up to make up the difference between what those properties pay to the city now, and what the city would get through the regular property taxes.

Posted on: 7/21 17:17
Top


Re: Home Invasion Leaves Woman Tied Up, Robbed Inside Jersey City High-Rise Apartment Building (Monaco)
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jsh278 wrote:
was it the same apartment? were four women living together?


Not at all a rare occurrence. Lots of apartments in Newport seem to get shared by twice the amount of people you would expect. They share rooms and sometimes even turn their living rooms into partitioned rooms, that way they can afford to live in a place much nicer than any of them would be able to afford independently.


Posted on: 7/20 11:40
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#42
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Final rate is 1.488.


Oh man; once the rest of the state gets a whiff of that rate...


Hoboken was 1.592 last year, and no one made a stink about their Abbott. At least you can see the Abbott money in their schools, they have far more extracurriculars and enrichment.


Of course no one made a stink about their Abbott: Hoboken pays for 80% of their school operating budget! It's not about Abbott status. Even when you look at total revenue for the Hoboken school district, the revenue from all state sources, including grants, amounts to ~34% (24.5MM out of 72MM). That's a far cry from the current situation in JC, where the city pays for about 17% of the local school budget. That's really the issue that I think (would assume) other municipalities will use to lobby for reduced assistance.

Posted on: 7/20 11:36
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#43
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Final rate is 1.488.


Oh man; once the rest of the state gets a whiff of that rate...


THIS. That's an incredibly low rate, which will only embolden state legislators and other municipalities to lobby for reduced financial support for JC. It's just not possible to claim poverty and inability to support the local schools when you are levying what is likely the lowest property tax rate in the entire state.

Posted on: 7/20 9:01
Top


Re: Home Invasion Leaves Woman Tied Up, Robbed Inside Jersey City High-Rise Apartment Building (Monaco)
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
Where is the victim from?

I have found it pretty common for non Americans (excluding Western Europeans) to mistrust banks and keep everything in cash.

It took a while to convince a Turkish woman I knew to put the $50k she had in cash into an actual bank account.


While part of me is as skeptical as some of the other posters, I know that what you say is also very true. I had a grandfather who was so mistrustful of banks (I think he was partly senile, tbh) that he kept a ton of cash under the mattress. Literally kept well over 10K in $100 denomination. Some people come from different backgrounds at complete odds with our more modern way of thinking. Even my mother likes to keep a lot of cash on hand "just in case". Hard to tell without more details about the situation and victim.

Posted on: 7/19 17:44
Top


Re: Boonton Reservoir
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
I have no idea what your real agenda is here, but now that you've brought this to my attention, I plan to support it. Thanks!


Same here!! I had no idea this was up for discussion and vote, but now that I do, I plan to support it and will encourage others to do the same.

Posted on: 7/17 9:57
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


For anyone who wishes to see actual data, and not the lies pushed by Yvonne, refer to the actual JC budget documents, or take a look here: https://public.tableau.com/profile/jer ... 11-2016/2016TotalRevenues.

You will see that PILOTs account for a full 35% (a little higher, actually) of the taxation revenue (~128MM out of 350MM).

In order to replace that much revenue, you would need to have 16 BILLION worth of real estate property, paying the new rate of 1.62%. Remember that the city only gets to keep about half of that rate (with 25% going to the county and 25% going to the schools) which is why 16 BLLION would only generate 128 MM in taxes. Explain to me how we are going to replace 128 MM worth of revenue by adding a paltry 3 Billion dollars worth of real estate??

Posted on: 7/10 15:48
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
bodhipooh, bodhipooh, bodhipooh, Collecting more money still put JC in the hole compared to towns that do not give out tax abatements. Before reval, the ratable base was 6 billion, about $2.4 to $2.8 billion is missing know as tax abatements. If they were added the ratable base would be nearly $9 billion and the tax rate would probably drop down to $55.00 per thousand instead of the $78.00 per thousand.


Goodness, woman. You are SO USED to your own lies, that repeating them must come easy. Adding the existing abated properties to the regular ratables will not lead to lower taxes! That's a TOTAL LIE. Those properties are paying taxes in the form of PILOTs, and the city gets to keep 95% of those funds. If you could wave a magic stick and overnight convert every abatement to a ratable, you would have a HUGE budget hole. How would that hole get plugged??

Posted on: 7/10 15:31
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.


You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??


Bodhi, you know I am a fan, and it pains me to say this, but Yvonne's point is very valid. Yes, abatements add to the city's coffers, but at the expense of the schools. It works as long as the state never realizes they're overfunding the district and the state aid continues unchanged, or increases.

Right before our very eyes, we're seeing the house of cards situation unfold. The state now recognizes it sends way too much money to Jersey (those paying property taxes post reval will have one of the lowest property tax rates in the state), and are pulling the funding. If you had less abatements, the city would be better prepared to absorb the tax increase that will result from the state pulling the aid. Instead, they're going to levy a corporate tax. And when that option runs out, guess who pays? The rateable portion of the city. Fulop will stop at nothing to keep from raising municipal taxes to fund the schools, because he has a streak to protect, but that day WILL come. And it's going to be ugly.

Abataments definitely have their place. I'm not anti abatement. But, abatements in JC help any sitting mayor fund pet projects that win votes. When abused, you create a massive fiscal issue, just like the 30 year delayed tax reval.


Yes, abatements don't get shared with the county (except for a paltry 5%) but the city still contributes to the school budget! The school does not rely on just direct taxation and contributions by the state and federal governments. The city government also sends a chunk of money to the BOE.

The part that drives me nuts about Yvonne's selective presentation of information is that she conveniently leaves out that the city collects MORE money through the abatements than it would under regular taxation. That larger amount translates to lower taxes. Ultimately, the budget is essentially a fixed amount (call it X) and it is made up of several sources of revenue, mostly taxes, PILOTs (abatement payments) and things like fines and fees. If the PILOTs were to go down, then the revenue has to be made up elsewhere, and since you can't force fees and fines high enough, fast enough, the only viable solution is to increase revenue from taxation. That means taxes would have to go up to make up the decrease from revenue generated through abatements, and go up by a larger overall amount than the one paid through the PILOT to make up the effective difference.

Posted on: 7/10 9:19
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
This item has been moved to the July 24 Planning Board. Tonight's big item is the Mocco projects, built way beyond permitted plans using materials strictly forbidden. Should be fun.


Now THIS is something that people SHOULD be vigilant about, and insist that the city hold the developer accountable. Enforcing approved plans, and ensuring that suitable materials are used, should be a major concern of the city's buildings department and inspectors.

Posted on: 7/10 9:06
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.


You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

Posted on: 7/9 20:20
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Does every crevice of the city have to be built up as soon as possible as much as possible?

I used to live on Monmouth on the other side of Old Colony Mall. I still take my kids to P.S. 3. I go shopping at Ranch 99 and have the occasional craving for Popeyes or a donut from Dunkin Donuts. A while back I used the auto body shop to fix a banged up car for a few hundred bucks that the insurance company insisted was totalled. Point being that I've been around there and still have occasion to go there.

Sure you could spruce up those few blocks and build some townhouses or apartments, but is the city really hurting because they haven't done so yet? If the current landowners are really squatting or speculating that's one thing, but if it's just a question of waiting a couple of years, or maybe building a little smaller, then why give a developer the power of eminent domain at the expense of current owners, residents, and business owners?


In light of the recent tax increases in Downtown due to the reval and pending school tax increases, it's in DTJC's best interest to build as dense as it can, wherever it can. Many homeless people live in that area in the abandoned housing and that area does not feel safe at night.


This right here is the most convincing and honest argument for increased development. We just completed a reval that is causing many homeowners to cough up substantial increases in property taxes. Those taxes will invariably go up substantially in two or three years, once school funding is adjusted. Any opposition to increasing the tax base is silly given the financial realities of the city.

Posted on: 7/9 18:04
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

ecoindie wrote:

Regard your comment on how the areas looks--Not everything has to be luxury residential buildings.



It's not a binary thing, you know!? It's not "third world country, sh!thole situation" or "luxury". Any development in that area would be an improvement. The area, as it currently stands, is really, really nasty and it is almost impassable. The road is a mess and the body shop parks cars all over the place. It's way past time to get something done about that area.


Posted on: 7/9 13:37
Top


Re: Kushner in New Jersey unraveling
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I find it amazing how liberals tout themselves as tolerant until you have a different point of view. Then the hate and bullying comes out. It is bullying plain and simple.
You said the secret word!!
Resized Image


I like how this has become a constant refrain from the very same people that spew hatred against every minority group on the planet. That somehow we all need to be tolerant of your hatred and lies and bigotry. It's almost comical how frequently right wingers complain about the "so-called tolerant left" and my favorite recent example is this:

http://www.wpta21.com/story/38592321/ ... is-forced-out-of-building

Quote:
The church maintains it is not intolerant of others beliefs, but that it's finding those on the other side of this issue are intolerant of the beliefs of Remnant Fellowship Church.


"whaaaaaa, why won't the left tolerate us telling gays that they are all going to burn in hell?"


As much as I dislike Yvonne, and agree with your overall point about certain people/organizations demanding/expecting tolerance for their outrageous views, I do feel compelled to point out that I think some liberals willfully conflate the attitudes or behavior of some far right kooks with that of your garden variety conservative. That's just intellectually dishonest.

Being a conservative, or Republican, does not automatically make you a bigot or a kook.

Posted on: 7/7 22:11
Top


Re: Kushner in New Jersey unraveling
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I find it amazing how liberals tout themselves as tolerant until you have a different point of view. Then the hate and bullying comes out. It is bullying plain and simple.


Ha ha ha! You are the only person to have ever accused me of being a liberal.

Stop grasping at straws, and please stop embarrassing yourself. Your lying ways, hypocrisy, and ignorance are in full display. Just because so many of us have collectively decided to call you out on it, and not just stand by idly, it does not make any of us a bully.

Posted on: 7/7 18:10
Top


Re: 4th of July in JC @ Exchange Place - Featuring Snoop Dog
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Haggis wrote:
Was this supposed to be a "concert" or a "performance?"
Notice that Kelly Clarkson and all the Macy's 4th of July entertainment is called a "performance."


Re: concert vs performance... isn't that a distinction without a difference?

Posted on: 7/7 11:20
Top


Re: Kushner, Unfiltered - The Real Deal
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
This information on his personal life did not bother Fulop when he gave the tax abatements in 2013 along with $10 million in redevelopment bonds.


That's not the same Kushner. The KRE Group Kushners are Murray and Jonathan. Murray is Charles' brother. They are estranged.


This has been pointed out to Yvonne on multiple occasions. But, as usual, she ignores any facts that stand in the way of her narrative. Her actual answer to someone pointing out to her that these were two different people (and, who are estranged from each other) was "well, I don't believe they are estranged because they are brothers". She is legit ignoring established facts to push her false narrative. I have said it before, people like Yvonne are an embarrassment and a danger to society and democracy. Her wanton lies are truly deplorable.


The one thing you can count on from JClist and some of its bloggers, is the fact, they trash someone who posts a different point of view, believing they are defenders of truth but are are nothing but bullies.


Pointing out your falsehoods and hypocrisy is not bullying. It is holding you accountable. Which, ironically, it is the very same thing you claim to be doing when criticizing the mayor, the city's administration, or any other number of things.

Posted on: 7/7 11:17
Top


Re: Kushner, Unfiltered - The Real Deal
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
This information on his personal life did not bother Fulop when he gave the tax abatements in 2013 along with $10 million in redevelopment bonds.


That's not the same Kushner. The KRE Group Kushners are Murray and Jonathan. Murray is Charles' brother. They are estranged.


This has been pointed out to Yvonne on multiple occasions. But, as usual, she ignores any facts that stand in the way of her narrative. Her actual answer to someone pointing out to her that these were two different people (and, who are estranged from each other) was "well, I don't believe they are estranged because they are brothers". She is legit ignoring established facts to push her false narrative. I have said it before, people like Yvonne are an embarrassment and a danger to society and democracy. Her wanton lies are truly deplorable.

Posted on: 7/6 19:44
Top


Re: 4th of July in JC @ Exchange Place - Featuring Snoop Dog
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Just rode the PATH home and they had a repeating announcement letting people know that tomorrow will be a Saturday schedule with additional trains running on the WTC/NWK line. So, there WILL BE increased service for those going to Exchange Place. No word on times for this increased service or how it will impact regular schedule.

NB: PATH service will be suspended all weekend long for the WTC and Exchange Place stops. Service suspension starts at 11:59 PM Friday, and runs until 5 AM Monday.

Posted on: 7/3 19:05
Top


Re: 4th of July in JC @ Exchange Place - Featuring Snoop Dog
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Agreed on the PATH.. that schedule is just a disaster waiting to happen... especially where it empties out into the stage area. Feel like that schedule is just another opportunity to stick to Fulop and Jersey City.


Way more likely it's just the rigidity of Union contracts and shit like that. Think about it, you'd be asking people to work on the 4th that would be working otherwise.


Could very well be a factor... it is just that in most cities/states hosting events like this, all the public agencies step up and increase service levels like providing extra train service... seems like a public safety issue to potentially let thousands linger after an event is over?

Of course NJ Transit did a great job during the Super Bowl hosting... wasn't it like 20000 people stuck in Secaucus Junction after people were encouraged to use public transportation?



The Super Bowl thing was a total debacle.

What someone else mentioned about the crowds streaming out at Exchange Place is definitely a concern once the festival area fills up. They will likely have to stop the escalators, so it will end up being people walking up the steps, or waiting forever to board one of the two elevators.

Posted on: 7/3 9:25
Top


Re: What Will Be Closed in HC if the State Shuts Down
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

Adonis wrote:
Funny how nobody is mentioning how this "deal" is going to screw the Jersey City school system. Thanks Murphy.


Correction: This deal is going to finally force JC to pay for it's own schools. Post after post from Steve (and his sycophants) bragging about JC's successes and growths, it's almost like he was daring the state to do this. Well, they did. And, now we will. Party's over.


Agreed on this. A lot. The smugness of parading JC as a success, while building that success on the collective backs of the NJ taxpayers, was almost like prodding a sleeping bear.

I am super glad to see JC doing well. After almost 12 years here, I am still a happy resident and would love for the city to continue to do well, but fair is fair, and the JC of today is undoubtedly riding a gravy train and being smug about it. It was only a matter of time before this all happened. Only those in denial, or the ones completely indifferent, were unable to see it.

Posted on: 7/3 9:16
Top



TopTop
« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 117 »






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