bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Walters wrote:
The State is going to change it . The public sector pension fund is becoming " The Walking Dead " if they sniff money someplace in NJ they are going to want it . The public sector is not blue or red , it's all about funding pensions . And all this talk recently about JC , Hoboken and tax abatments has just shot a flare up.

We can only hope. 3.5% sales taxes, no property reval in 25+ years, and the rest of the state subsidizing 70% of our school costs thanks to Mr. Abbot. Sounds like a sweet deal and we'll see if anyone has the balls at the state to change it.

Until then, let the happy times in Jersey City roll. If Fulop does become governor, I wonder if he'll just leave the abatement policy in place.

Lots of prognosticating going on here... since we are guessing, I will add that despite what is being bandied about in other threads as to the biggest risks to DTJC real estate being the PATH issues and other infrastructure problems, I think the BIGGEST THREAT to all of that is the pending reval (lots of homeowners living on thin monthly margins will have some serious issues affording their new tax bills if their brownstones and other properties start to get assessed at their true value) and an even bigger risk to all of JC overall is the question of Abbott funding. That topic is getting lots of attention lately, and if the state starts to cut back on JC PS funding, and the city is forced to make up the difference, local taxes could see a serious increase, which would affect all residents, not just DTJC.

Walters wrote:
The State is going to change it . The public sector pension fund is becoming " The Walking Dead " if they sniff money someplace in NJ they are going to want it . The public sector is not blue or red , it's all about funding pensions . And all this talk recently about JC , Hoboken and tax abatments has just shot a flare up.

Yvonne wrote:
When reval goes through and that one third goes up you will see city hall flooded with opposition to tax abatements.

dtjcview wrote:
Thanks Dan. There's zero incentive for JC to change. This change has to come from the state.

Yvonne wrote:
Or taxpayers could show up at council meetings to tell the council no when voting on tax abatements.

Monroe wrote:
The Senator is looking for everyone to pay their fair share, not to have some pay the share of others. Correcting PILOT's wouldn't add to JC taxes, but would reduce JC taxpayers sponging off suburban taxpayers.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
It is a sweet deal and when the state leaves, they will be left holding the bag or in this case millions more in taxes.

Yup!

Is there something that the city could do now to better prepare the coming shock when property taxes soar? Hint: new high density development that will grow the ratabale base, which will generate more in taxes for the county, school, and city than it costs to provide services to them. The folks in these new developments that can afford the $3000 rents are probably sending their kids (if they have them) to private school.

Maybe Jersey City will lose its Abbot district status just in time for when all the tax abatements expire.

Do you have a crystal ball?

Mayor Fulop is continuing adding 30 year tax abatements?

I am sure Senator Doherty, who attacked Fulop on the taxes he pays on his home is thinking of ways to increase JC taxes.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
jtjcview, you do not pay the taxes for anyone except yourself. Anyone has the right to complain about increased spending especially when JC gives a sweetheart deal for 30 years to a developer. These deals bring in school children regardless of the administration says.

But the reval is a zero-sum game. Is it not?

There will be winners (most of the residents of the city, excluding property owners in Ward E) and losers (most of the property owners in Ward E). Please correct me if I'm wrong...

I'm in the Heights and if my property taxes go down then why would I be mad at 30 year tax abatement given to a developer, risking their capital to revitalize Journal Square, an area of the city that desperately needs the investment dollars!!

I don't think anyone (reasonable) gets upset at JSQ abatements. The issue is when abatements are issued in booming parts of downtown, such as the proposed 20 or 30 year abatement to the Shoprite developer.

Yvonne wrote:
jtjcview, you do not pay the taxes for anyone except yourself. Anyone has the right to complain about increased spending especially when JC gives a sweetheart deal for 30 years to a developer. These deals bring in school children regardless of the administration says.

Yvonne wrote:
It is a sweet deal and when the state leaves, they will be left holding the bag or in this case millions more in taxes.

Monroe wrote:
As taxes continue to go up across the state expect there to be pressure to prevent Abbott district cities from giving PILOTS. PILOTS artificially reduce lower school tax receipts, while pushing the costs onto other taxpayers across the state.

Yvonne wrote:
There is no reason for tax abatements: JC has 1 & 9, the turnpike, lite rail, PATH, near the airport, close to New York City. We don't need to entice, development is happening all over Hudson County, many without long term abatements. Development only happens when the stock market is hot. Right now the interest rates are low. Developers ask for it because they know they will get it.

Yvonne wrote:
I am sure everyone got their email for Steve Fulop on the budget and how the ratable base went up.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
... Did the ciyt and Silverman collude on this project? Why does the city seem to be engaging in subterfuge with such easily discoverable facts of ownership?

If that building is in a Historic Preservation District ? as some have said ? then before it can be demolished the Historic Preservation Commission must approve - so that might be the next step. I wonder if it is on for review? I just looked for Monday's meeting (July 20th) but there's no agenda posted. Those agendas are usually available the Friday before....

Curiouser and curiouser...

From the perspective of a professional working in historic preservation, this building is a probably a good candidate for preserving.

While it's been clad in aluminum siding, and has had it's windows replaced, it retains it's historic scale, cornice (under the aluminum, if not salvageable at least enough left possibly to replicate it), and particularly important - it's original pattern of windows and doors.

I checked the 1928 Hopkins & Co. Map - this building was one of a group of frame buildings with outbuildings in the back - the small street level door may have been a "horse trot" accessing the stable or other shop in the rear yard http://www.wardmaps.com/viewasset.php?aid=3471 in which case it retains it's 'historic spatial designation', a defining characteristic. As a simple frame structure, it would not take much to restore this building, and incorporate it into a larger development. The ground floor, along with the yard and the "horse trot" could be repurposed for some sort of public retail/dining amenity, which could be very cool.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

You are propping up and knocking down scarecrows.

I think 202 York is a shithole. However, the circumstances behind the developer purchasing it and the City's "report," combined with the City's weekday 10am meeting to discuss it, seem extremely questionable.

I want to see how much support Fulop gets from this developer when he runs for governor. That might explain some of what's going on.

"I just find the inclusion of 202 York very odd and smelly..."

What more do you want from me?

Fair enough. I guess we are starting to run in circles on this thread. The consensus seems to be that this looks shady, but since it will benefit the community, is it that big a deal?

JCMan8 wrote:

You are propping up and knocking down scarecrows.

I think 202 York is a shithole. However, the circumstances behind the developer purchasing it and the City's "report," combined with the City's weekday 10am meeting to discuss it, seem extremely questionable.

I want to see how much support Fulop gets from this developer when he runs for governor. That might explain some of what's going on.

Yvonne wrote:
If you start including other properties in this redevelopment plan, then you will take homes from private owners and give them on one developer. Do we really want to be the town that does that? I may not like your home but should the city have the right to take your property and allow another person to develop it?