Private ownership of public transportation just doesn't work.

Yvonne wrote:
This is the type of person who would walk to a women's restroom to assault someone. He has no fear of attacking someone on the PATH.

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I'm going to be very unpopular with this viewpoint but raise PATH fares to combat the overcrowding issue...

Quote:

@ $5 a ride the trains would still be overcrowded and also
run inefficiently.

Is that a fact?

Quote:

4 bilion dollars for the oculus that already has huge portions of the exterior finish peeling off from it shows what idiots are running the show.

Agreed. A complete waste. We should have just stuck with the temporary PATH station and put the $4 billion into capacity improvements!!

Quote:

Why da fuk on weekends are the trains packed out? because of some bullshit half schedule the Port Authority gets away with running? management (i.e. assholes) pull a few less trains and motormen to save some money and fuck over 100's of folks trying to get back forth on this bullshit antiquated system.

Dedicate a portion of the toll revenue to PATH and have fares responsible for the rest. I would beg to pay more if it meant better weekend service. Better yet, PA should sell PATH to MTA and integrate into NYC's subway system.

Monroe wrote:
Fulop's problem with the reval will get worse if JC is forced to pay for 25% of its school costs, as per this bi-partisan push for equality in school funding.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/ ... la-must-changed/85343328/

iGreg wrote:

The train to the ass end of Queens takes time but cheap as chips and plenty of broke ass nigas using that system.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
an immediate Reval (as opposed to a more sensible, one time phase in)

Does such a thing exist?

The state should hire a revaluation company if Fulop does not put our a bid soon. Then deduct that money from any funds JC receives.

user1111 wrote:
A Republican assemblyman has introduced a bill that would allow the state to withhold aid from towns that let their assessed value fall far behind their market value, a symptom of overdue revaluations, NJ Advance Media reported.
The state Division of Taxation has ordered three municipalities, including Jersey City, to undergo revals. Bayonne, East Newark and Harrison were recently ordered to undergo revals by the county taxation board.

In New Jersey, more than 30 municipalities haven't held reassessments in at least 25 years, and most are in Hudson, Union and Middlesex counties.

The proposed bill would require county tax boards to force a revaluation at a town's expense.

It would also give state officials the authority to remove from office any board of taxation member who "willfully or intentionally failed, neglected or refused to comply with the requirements."

More

SOS wrote:
If you want to help the disadvantaged, encouraging in place renovations and new construction is important. Much of the housing stock in the village is crap. Tear it down as needed, and replace with R-5. Four stories?shocking! The only wonder is why the push for R-5 has taken so long.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Thanks again for an informative post SAG. If only everyone, never mind an outsider with an agenda built into his name, were so civil and fact based.

All of stateaidguy's posts have been extremely informative and factual. I'm curious, who the outsider with an agenda built into his name - SOS? lol

I had a candid discussion with a long time city employee who's opinion I trust. This person isn't a politician and has served under many administrations. He believes that we'll have taxes of $25 per thousand (or what tax newbs call 2.5%) if we are very fortunate. It could easily be in the high 20's +. So if you want to shoot the messenger, go for it! I can guarantee that he knows more about the reval and jc taxes than anyone posting in this thread. Certainly more than me.

If you repeat a lie often enough, does it become true?

Quote:

I had a candid discussion with a long time city employee who's opinion I trust. This person isn't a politician and has served under many administrations. He believes that we'll have taxes of $17 per thousand (or what tax newbs call 1.7%) if we are very fortunate. It could easily be in the low teens. So if you want to shoot the messenger, go for it! I can guarantee that he knows more about the reval and jc taxes than anyone posting in this thread. Certainly more than me.

The State has finally lowered the hammer and JC has a zero chance of pushing the reval back any further. So I'm not sure who you're shilling for or who you're trying to convince. It's a done deal and we will soon find out what the true tax rate. It's impossible to know until the total ratable base is discovered.

Saying $25 per thousand is meaningless without the total ratable base. If your "trusted" long-time city employee that knows more than anyone about the reval is accurate, then he must have an idea of what the ratable base will be. Since JC hasn't done a reval in 27 years, it could be your source doesn't know what he's talking about. The folks in Hoboken were also screaming armageddon for their reval, but they turned up alright.

It's currently $5,997,768,597 based on state records found here: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/abstractrate.shtml

It's anyone guess what the new ratabale base will be - once that's known, then the tax rate will be set. Will it be $25 per thousand, possibly. That would be much higher than the current equalized value of 2.2 percent...

Are you trying to scare people that there taxes will be higher with the reval? It's a zero sum game, which means there will be some winners and losers...

I'm not trying to scare people. Comparing Hoboken to JC? You obviously don't have a clue to how different the fundamental are between the two cities. And parroting back what you've read here about how the reval works isn't going to help you once you get the post-reval tax bill. Unless JC exploits some new revenue source in the next two years, this reval will hit some taxpayers very hard. So go ahead and characterize my comments as a lie, and bury your head in the sand. We'll see.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Thanks again for an informative post SAG. If only everyone, never mind an outsider with an agenda built into his name, were so civil and fact based.

All of stateaidguy's posts have been extremely informative and factual. I'm curious, who the outsider with an agenda built into his name - SOS? lol

I had a candid discussion with a long time city employee who's opinion I trust. This person isn't a politician and has served under many administrations. He believes that we'll have taxes of $25 per thousand (or what tax newbs call 2.5%) if we are very fortunate. It could easily be in the high 20's +. So if you want to shoot the messenger, go for it! I can guarantee that he knows more about the reval and jc taxes than anyone posting in this thread. Certainly more than me.

If you repeat a lie often enough, does it become true?

Quote:

I had a candid discussion with a long time city employee who's opinion I trust. This person isn't a politician and has served under many administrations. He believes that we'll have taxes of $17 per thousand (or what tax newbs call 1.7%) if we are very fortunate. It could easily be in the low teens. So if you want to shoot the messenger, go for it! I can guarantee that he knows more about the reval and jc taxes than anyone posting in this thread. Certainly more than me.

The State has finally lowered the hammer and JC has a zero chance of pushing the reval back any further. So I'm not sure who you're shilling for or who you're trying to convince. It's a done deal and we will soon find out what the true tax rate. It's impossible to know until the total ratable base is discovered.

Saying $25 per thousand is meaningless without the total ratable base. If your "trusted" long-time city employee that knows more than anyone about the reval is accurate, then he must have an idea of what the ratable base will be. Since JC hasn't done a reval in 27 years, it could be your source doesn't know what he's talking about. The folks in Hoboken were also screaming armageddon for their reval, but they turned up alright.

It's currently $5,997,768,597 based on state records found here: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/abstractrate.shtml

It's anyone guess what the new ratabale base will be - once that's known, then the tax rate will be set. Will it be $25 per thousand, possibly. That would be much higher than the current equalized value of 2.2 percent...

Are you trying to scare people that there taxes will be higher with the reval? It's a zero sum game, which means there will be some winners and losers...

I'm not trying to scare people. Comparing Hoboken to JC? You obviously don't have a clue to how different the fundamental are between the two cities. And parroting back what you've read here about how the reval works isn't going to help you once you get the post-reval tax bill. Unless JC exploits some new revenue source in the next two years, this reval will hit some taxpayers very hard. So go ahead and characterize my comments as a lie, and bury your head in the sand. We'll see.

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
SAG - you clearly are well versed in the topic and I don't disagree that school $$ are inequitably distributed (as with most $$ in NJ), but there is a path of self help that could (and should) be pursued at the same time: consolidation of small towns, boroughs, municipalities, townships and school districts. The towns you point to (Swedesboro, Chesterfield, Newton, Delran, Freehold and Red Bank) all share one thing in common: populations under 20,000. In fact, three of them are under 8,000. Swedesboro's population is 2,584! That's probably the population of three towers in Newport.

I agree that the suburbs shouldn't be overly burdened in funding poorer districts (although we would probably have a vigorous debate around "overly burdened") but at the same time, why should a stubborn (and unnecessarily expensive) desire for "home rule" on such a ridiculously small level play such a big role in the discussion?

I've seen this argument about municipal and school district consolidation before. It's theoretically compelling, but when
researchers study tax rates and the cost of government per person on the municipal level, the cost per government are effectively the same for the smallest towns and the largest towns, with the lowest costs per person being in municipalities that have populations between 3,601 and 5,150.

Suntime wrote:
Stateaidguy - you need to do the research on lead. the problem with lead in jc schools makes newark look like child's play - no pun intended. It has been known about by local, state and federal officials since at least 2005. Some school faucets have tested at astronomical levels of lead. Its widespread throughout the older schools in the district. The solution has been to use bottled water and microwavable food. It is a cost issue - the city says they have no control over it. Thr board of ed says they dont have the money to replace the pipes and parts leaching the lead. The state is offering nothing to fix these schools. Its a disgrace, with no end in sight. Recently the playground to a local school was shut down due to lead contamination from the turnpike.
And I've seen the flooding. Some of these very old schools are in a terrible state of disrepair.

T-Bird wrote:
SAG - you clearly are well versed in the topic and I don't disagree that school $$ are inequitably distributed (as with most $$ in NJ), but there is a path of self help that could (and should) be pursued at the same time: consolidation of small towns, boroughs, municipalities, townships and school districts. The towns you point to (Swedesboro, Chesterfield, Newton, Delran, Freehold and Red Bank) all share one thing in common: populations under 20,000. In fact, three of them are under 8,000. Swedesboro's population is 2,584! That's probably the population of three towers in Newport.

I agree that the suburbs shouldn't be overly burdened in funding poorer districts (although we would probably have a vigorous debate around "overly burdened") but at the same time, why should a stubborn (and unnecessarily expensive) desire for "home rule" on such a ridiculously small level play such a big role in the discussion?

SOS wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Thanks again for an informative post SAG. If only everyone, never mind an outsider with an agenda built into his name, were so civil and fact based.

All of stateaidguy's posts have been extremely informative and factual. I'm curious, who the outsider with an agenda built into his name - SOS? lol

I had a candid discussion with a long time city employee who's opinion I trust. This person isn't a politician and has served under many administrations. He believes that we'll have taxes of $25 per thousand (or what tax newbs call 2.5%) if we are very fortunate. It could easily be in the high 20's +. So if you want to shoot the messenger, go for it! I can guarantee that he knows more about the reval and jc taxes than anyone posting in this thread. Certainly more than me.

I had a candid discussion with a long time city employee who's opinion I trust. This person isn't a politician and has served under many administrations. He believes that we'll have taxes of $17 per thousand (or what tax newbs call 1.7%) if we are very fortunate. It could easily be in the low teens. So if you want to shoot the messenger, go for it! I can guarantee that he knows more about the reval and jc taxes than anyone posting in this thread. Certainly more than me.

Thanks again for an informative post SAG. If only everyone, never mind an outsider with an agenda built into his name, were so civil and fact based.

JcDevil wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I was hoping there would be more of a redevelopment of the site. I always thought WF would occupy a base of one of the new towers going up around town. Why have a stand alone store in what basically will be a strip mall.

Hope what you want - it's a co-op. The idea that the shareholders would be willing to be homeless for a decade while they completely redevelop the site is absurd, no matter what sort of money they'd be making. Getting rid of the parking lot and replacing it with a garage and ground floor retail is the best we could hope for, and having a Whole Foods be part of it is even better than what we could have reasonably hoped for.

thor800 wrote:
If the rateable base is higher (all the new construction), shouldn't this spread the overall burden assuming a similar rate of required revenue for the city ?

Monroe wrote:
So Mayor Fulop is accusing Norcross of being an unelected power broker having undue influence over NJ politics-after he's met with him on occasion trying to get his support, and having given Norcross's brother city contracts? Is anyone buying this??

OneSkirt wrote:
After losing reval contract case, Jersey City ordered to pay $216.37 in interest ? daily