Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
52 user(s) are online (26 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 52

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (brewster)




Re: seeking Art Replicator / Forger - odd request
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jcity wrote:
It is suppose to be a 'Jackson Pollock'


Ok, I take it back about time consuming craftsmanship!! I was thinking more like a Rembrandt.

Posted on: 8/8 13:01

Edited by brewster on 2018/8/8 13:28:24
Top


Re: seeking Art Replicator / Forger - odd request
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jcity wrote:
Note: not looking to do anything illegal...ha! Just needing a prop
for an upcoming play.
Clay


I cannot imagine paying an artist for a time consuming repro is cost effective for the typical shoestring local theater company. Have you considered acquiring a digital image and having 20x30 photoprints made? At <$20 a pop you can tile them to make a big image if need be.

Posted on: 8/7 13:07
Top


Re: Dixon Leasing Cheating JC out of Taxes with the help of Rebecca Sysmes
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
You don't need to submit a FOIA request to get this information. Property tax information is open to the public at large, and you can look it up yourself via the property tax portal.


Unlikely to be easy if the company uses layers of LLCs like many do. There's probably a separate LLC for each property. Maybe correlating the owner addresses would work, but I doubt it.

Posted on: 8/7 11:40
Top


Re: Do you recommend particular Roofer?
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

thor800 wrote:
stay away from Imperial Roofing.


You got that right!

Capital's price on PVC seemed great considering the warranty, till another roofer pointed out that the parapets were crumbling and the mortar was gone! They were going to wrap the crumbling masonry in PVC and walk away making it a hidden time bomb. Not good.

Another roofer on another roof ignored that the timber on the roof edge was rotted away where water had pooled. After the roof was done I noticed the siding shingles buckling from the whole roof sagging! I had to tear down the ceiling under it to get at it to shore up the roof.

Lastly, not roofing, I discovered that 2 bathrooms I had build had no waterproofing membrane on the cement board under the tile, considered mandatory today by tile professionals. I discovered this when I had to rip out a windowsill in the shower that they had failed to pitch so the water would run off rather than pool and leak through.

Lesson is most contractors are happy to leave you with a time bomb if they can argue it wasn't in their scope of work or you didn't ask for it specifically. I've learned my lesson, I'm going to hover over the next contractor I hire and make sure it's done right. I have no idea what people with less skills, knowledge & free time can do. Sorry for the rant, I'm disgusted.

Posted on: 8/6 22:45
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


No I didn't see it. Maybe I'll swing by again tomorrow and see if they're still around. FWIW Parking is still a shitshow, now they take CC and DON'T take personal checks!!!

Posted on: 8/1 21:05
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Today outside the Parking Authority office I was asked to sign a petition against "them tearing down all the statues in JC". Well there's a classic bit of deception! I pointed out they were moving just one statue a few hundred feet, and the woman walked off in a huff.

Posted on: 8/1 18:05
Top


Re: Boonton Reservoir
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
He tried drinking nothing but bottled water... the locals would refill bottles with tap water.


That actually did kill my dad, very slowly. He contracted a rare Hepatitis (E or some such) in Ukraine when he didn't want to offend his hosts even though he saw them filling the bottle from the tap. He eventually died of cirrhosis and the liver cancer it caused. (No, he was not a drinker at all)

Posted on: 8/1 18:00
Top


Re: its official: entire heights must buy resident parking permit
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

But, if indeed this is a problem in your neck of the woods, here is some good news for you: residents of developments which have parking (even if the parking is not free) are not eligible for on-street parking. So, once the rules go into effect, all those residents of high rises with parking decks/lots will have to figure a place to park, or risk getting ticketed. At $100/ticket, paying for monthly parking will be a relative bargain.


I can't wait for them to zone "Soho West". Those buildings all have parking but few seem to use it, making the streets a parking lot, complete with cars stopping in middle of Coles and people walking in the middle of the street. I think what makes it worse than any normal parked up street is the lots without sidewalks, The city should make the owners build sidewalks now that there's a ton of pedestrians, before someone gets hurt. I"ve now seen a woman pushing her double stroller in the street several times, presumably to and from poor overused HP.

Posted on: 7/27 12:47
Top


Re: Exchange Physical Therapy Group-Liberty Humane Society-Cut-Ribbon-jersey-citys-first-low-cost-spay-n
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Due to current capacity and resources, the program is designed initially for large dogs (40+ pounds) and outdoor cats in colonies of 10 or fewer whose owners/caretakers reside in the contracted service areas of Jersey City and Hoboken. Eligible pet owners would pay $10 to spay or neuter their dog or cat.


Weird, so if you just have a cat, this doesn't help you. I had a tenant asking where to get her cat spayed just the other day. I've previously bought a discounted coupon from LHS and taken in the cat of my low functioning tenants. It was just beyond them.

Posted on: 7/23 23:13
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
[quote]
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.


Same as all the people paying effective tax rates of 3 to 4% who looked at their assessment of a fraction of fair market value, assumed they were getting a deal on their taxes rather than getting ripped off, and never appealed them.

So much of this whole casino game of taxes runs on deliberate obscurity and confusion. Even just the ridiculous method of quoting taxes by "dollars per thousand" value rather than just a fucking percentage which any grade-schooler would understand.

Posted on: 7/22 23:23
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
You were not at the budget hearings either Brewster. You do not hear the questions being asked or the answers given. You are another person who feels threaten facts are presented.


Some of us have lives and don't feel we need to be at meetings and harass officials to understand this. Why don't you start by presenting facts? At no time have you ever acknowledged that PILOT payments are a significant part of the the city's income. Your "facts" are incorrect, and when called on it, you double down and say "you weren't there" rather than actually show your work like in any grade school math class.

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.

Yes, this bypasses the issue of the county and schools, but that hasn't been your point, you just yammer on and on that "our taxes are high".

Posted on: 7/22 11:29
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
bodhipooh, when did you speak to the business administrator or the county tax board? I do all the time. So, yes I do believe what I post because the information comes from those who do our budgets. By the way, I did not see you at the last budget hearing.


I believe you understand about as much when you talk to these officials as my cat does when I've repeatedly tried to explain quantum physics to him. He seems interested and attentive, but I guess it's just beyond him.

Posted on: 7/21 18:53
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yvonne's numbers assume there are no PILOTS lowering the tax rate already.

Does anyone remember where in the mess of city/county/state docs is the table that shows the total PILOTS vs what they'd pay as ratables? I saw it once, but can't find it anymore.

Posted on: 7/21 12:12
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#74
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...


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.

Posted on: 7/20 11:06
Top


Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
What do you have against a home grow provision? That's what's most confusing to me. Why are you arguing against one?


Umm, I think you need to read slower. When you said you can always grow your own, I was merely pointing out that it might not necessarily be so.

I was warning against the possibility that New Jersey could not include a grow provision, after it was brought up that taxes were the primary motivation and they might limit grow. That does not mean I support it!


I now understand that you are not aware of the details of the bill. There is currently no provision for home growing in this bill. It's not a "possibility", it's the current reality. Also, at no point did I say you can, "always grow your own." I'm advocating for the right to do so, which under the current bill will still be illegal. Understand?


Yes, and that sucks. You're right, I did not read the bill, but in all your posts you did not actually say growing would still be illegal.

Posted on: 7/19 12:02
Top


Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Seagull wrote:
What do you have against a home grow provision? That's what's most confusing to me. Why are you arguing against one?


Umm, I think you need to read slower. When you said you can always grow your own, I was merely pointing out that it might not necessarily be so.

I was warning against the possibility that New Jersey could not include a grow provision, after it was brought up that taxes were the primary motivation and they might limit grow. That does not mean I support it!

Posted on: 7/19 1:55
Top


Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Seagull wrote:
An excellent straw man argument there.

Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
I don't personally have a problem with paying the tax on marijuana if there is a home grow provision. Alcohol is similarly taxed, but people also have the liberty to brew their own alcohol at home


Home brewing wasn't legalized till 1979.
https://beerandbrewing.com/the-day-homebrewing-was-legalized/


Huh? What argument do you think I am making? It's already been established that Washington passed recreational legalization without home growing. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that New Jersey could do likewise.

Posted on: 7/18 20:52
Top


Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Seagull wrote:
I don't personally have a problem with paying the tax on marijuana if there is a home grow provision. Alcohol is similarly taxed, but people also have the liberty to brew their own alcohol at home


Home brewing wasn't legalized till 1979.
https://beerandbrewing.com/the-day-homebrewing-was-legalized/

Posted on: 7/18 13:01
Top


Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Seagull wrote:
The only state that did not include a home growing provision was Washington state, and if you look into it, the people in the state are now having to contact their elected officials to try to get on board with a home growing provision. NJ doesn't want a home grow provision because they want everyone to buy marijuana from the state. They keep saying this is for racial justice, but I think it would be more just of them to not be so transparently greedy. Many minorities are too poor to have a car to drive to a dispensary let alone have enough money to spend on overtaxed marijuana. If this is really about racial justice, they should prove it and provide the masses with a sensible home grow provision like Vermont. Two mature female plants in flowering at any time, and six plants total.


Didn't know about WA. But this "overtaxed" is overblown. If an $8 gram has $2 tax, do you really think that's so awful? Booze is similarly taxed and no one is hysterical. The dispensary limiting IS a big deal. If you have to drive an hour, or spend hours on public transit to reach the nearest dispensary, that's deliberate hardship.

Posted on: 7/18 12:27
Top


Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
Weed is even easier than tobacco (which has to be dried, toasted, and has other stuff added to it). Anyone with $500 to spare can setup a pretty nice grow room in a spare closet.


I don't think any of the rec legal states have outlawed growing your own, some have pretty liberal ideas of how much is required for "personal use", typically 4-6 plants. And as it turns out, the taxes are not a big deal when the market is driving the price into the basement. I hear in CA its crazy cheap now.

All the gloom and doom predictions of corporate control of this product don't make any sense as long as personal growing is possible. Corps will do all the concentrates and such, where the money is, just like ADM makes far more than the farmer growing corn.

Our state lawmakers are morons, wanting to legalize possession but leave all the distribution in the hands of criminals. Is this Rice guy on dealer's payrolls?

Quote:
Senator Ronald R. Rice, the chairman of the state’s legislative black caucus and one of the most vocal opponents of legalization, fears dispensaries would be concentrated in cities. “In my heart, and from my experience, I know the detriment it’s going to cause long-term in urban communities in particular,” he said. He supports decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana instead.

Posted on: 7/17 23:42
Top


Re: Boonton Reservoir
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Can anyone recall a change of any kind that Yvonne was FOR? Whatever it is, she's against it!




Posted on: 7/17 22:37
Top


Re: Developers at odds over future of Jersey City neighborhood
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
This is interesting. I assume this is the Mecca project:

http://wiki.realmart.com/golden-100-i ... ed-a-full-house-audience/

Looks like he was offering EB5 for investors in this building. How on earth does he have the connections for that?


That's interesting. So a guy with many millions in real estate as collateral couldn't or wouldn't just borrow development money from a bank in this era of historically low rates? Either he was trying to wring every penny out of the deal or the banks know why he's not a good risk.

Posted on: 7/11 20:46
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The top biggest spenders includes votechs, charter schools, and K-8 districts. A direct K-12 comparison would yield different results.


What in the world are you talking about? Charters get a fraction of district schools and have to pay the mortgage or rent for their property out of that!

Posted on: 7/11 17:20
Top


Re: Developers at odds over future of Jersey City neighborhood
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Maybe the local owners wanted to see the results from the multi year delayed reval? Or maybe they wanted to see if any infrastructure improvements would take place (like extending Jersey Ave, or fixing Grand St, or improving sewerage?)


Or maybe they wanted to do nothing, sit back and watch their values soar with low taxes on undeveloped property. The land has been appreciating far faster than improvements. I get doing nothing, I do it very well myself, but that isn't what they agreed to over a decade ago.

Posted on: 7/11 12:24
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

135jc wrote:
Brewster,
I am aware of the so called equalization rate. I almost included in my postbut figured it was common knowledge.


Ok, when you said "The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value." you gave the impression you thought they were paying their "fraction" assessed value but new was paying full FMV.

I don't know how abatement could be used to equalize property tax, they should only be used as they were intended to promote development of "blighted" areas. That they became expected by any developer is the problem, along with the developers greasing the pols to make it happen.

Posted on: 7/10 23:09
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

135jc wrote:
The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.


You show a common misunderstanding about how this system works. Not that it's critical to this discussion, but I've made eliminating ignorance of this system a mission, to counter Yvonne's lies, smoke, and mirrors.

Older properties had a low assessment relative to FMV, but this was compensated for by the Equalization Rate, in 2017 23.66. What this meant was the assessments of the city as a whole were 23.66% of the FMV. When new (or gutted) ratable properties are assessed, they take 23.66% of FMV and make that it's new assessment, to keep it in line with the rest of the city as it would be taxed at the official rate (in 2017 7.8%).

Where the unfairness came from was some areas of the city appreciated faster or slower than others over 30 years, meaning they were outliers of that average represented by the Equalization Rate. This is how Downtown brownstones were paying 0.8% and Greenville hovels 4%. So a new JC ratable property would have been at 1.826% last year, higher than the older DT properties, but lower than most of the rest of the city, which were subsidizing the low taxed Downtowners. Got it?

https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... lized/2017/2017Hudson.pdf

https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtr/Hudson17.pdf

Gotta love how Yvonne can't answer numbers with numbers, she just says she bothers tax officials, and then doesn't understand what they tell her.

Posted on: 7/10 20:35
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
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.


You keep repeating this kind of nonsense, utterly ignoring the lost PILOT revenue aspect. The rate would NOT go down like that since it would have to make up for the lost PILOTS, revenue you pretend does not exist.

Posted on: 7/10 12:58
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

ecoindie wrote:
There was already two developments (including Mecca) in place to be built... you should read the article again. Also remember the 2008 crash and Hurricane Sandy, not exactly great development times.


Yet there has been new development of all scales completed and at least broken ground all over DT in that time, some also right next to the Tpk further north. It does not sound like Mr Mecca has credibility as a developer, a comment on NJ.com said he has never built anything anywhere, is just a speculator. It's a common speculator tactic to get permits before selling, it increases the price asked.

Posted on: 7/9 12:51
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#89
Home away from home
Home away from home


Seems to me from reading the story that the owners are fighting the city, which after giving them 12 years to break ground has said that enough is enough and brought in Weiss. You gotta admit it's startlingly nasty back there.

Posted on: 7/9 12:12
Top


Re: 4th of July in JC @ Exchange Place - Featuring Snoop Dog
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
We were told that this was a parade of horribles waiting to happen. One critic even tried to link this to school funding AND Katyn by saying the city was spending its own money and moved it to the Waterfront to showcase Mack Cali! Then there was the talk about crime, the inability to host an event of this size, and comparisons to the Bread and Circuses of the Roman Empire.

And after the event, the only complaint is - the fireworks started about 45 minutes late?

Child, please.


that reasoning only works if you ever paid attention to the cranks predicting the Apocalypse. Almost nobody does. But the undisputed fact is that the fireworks show started 45min late for what, >100k people? That's real, and unprofessional at the least. A professional organizing this large event would include an on-time clause in the contract, and if the chosen performer refuses, find one that will.

Posted on: 7/8 2:22
Top



TopTop
« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 171 »






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