Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
45 user(s) are online (28 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 2
Guests: 43

soaringswine1, Bike_Lane, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts




Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Your comments Frank M are truly out of context, I have been attending council meetings since the 1970s, in the time period, I have seen the city rename streets which had significant importance to Jersey City. An example is Henderson Street which became Marin Blvd. Henderson were actually two brothers that had an award winning factory in Paulus Hook, one of them was also a mayor of JC. Newer streets should have been named for ethnic groups. Looking at Newport, you have silly names that refer to garages. I have been all over JC getting signatures. The easier group to sign these petitions were African Americans. Many are war veterans and are appalled that any war memorial would be move. In JC, many people died in both the First and Second World Wars from JC, in fact there was a plaque somewhere near Mercer called "Old Glory" due to the number of JC people who died in war. They are buried in Europe and there are memorials attributed to them in Europe. Do we want those memorials remove for a land grab? I think not. Actually, the lost of that memorial on Mercer Street is the reason I said, we should honor American history, but that does not translate into approving in a land grab where Katyn sits on.

Posted on: 7/11 17:02
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


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

Posted on: 7/11 16:53
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Frank M, you do not go around insulting an ethnic group in Jersey City regardless of the group. Neither do you curse the Speak of the House in Poland. Fulop is an adult, it is time he grows up.


If that's your argument, how respectful were you toward the victims of the Katyn massacre, their families and their compatriots, when you dismissively stated that our memorials should only be concerned with events in America?

And when you came to the defense of Stanislaw Karczewski, do you know what you bought with that package? Do you approve of his work to censor dissent and sanitize history? How about his party's recent unconstitutional effort to purge their Supreme Court? Are you convinced that name-calling is a worse offense?

Posted on: 7/11 16:47
Top


Re: Developers at odds over future of Jersey City neighborhood
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


What the rich and connected want, they take.
Happened in New Orleans after Katrina, happens to poor neighborhoods and public housing all over.
Damn shame

Posted on: 7/11 16:43
Top


Re: Developers at odds over future of Jersey City neighborhood
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
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.


I asked this question before, why did the owner not start construction on his project that gained approval 1.5 years ago? The smaller lot owners now have targets on their backs because of this guy. Yes eminent domain is shitty, but Mecca really drove a knife through the back of his neighbors for stalling construction as long as he did. They should be equally angry at him.

Posted on: 7/11 16:09
Top


Re: Dolma Restaurant
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


Now Cafe Dolma....breakfast...

No more wonderful moussaka.

Posted on: 7/11 15:52
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home


And with that line of thinking, I'm thankful you're not on the school board (or in council office for that matter). No admission of a spending problem is concerning.

Posted on: 7/11 14:13
Top


Re: Trendy Management Strikes Again - CO Poisoning - 11 Injured/3 Critical
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home



Posted on: 7/11 14:13
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


no, it is closer to 15-20% of the state average which makes sense for our demographics, special needs and ESL. With the current budget it will drop to around $21,886, less than 10% over average. our budget and cost per pupil only grew under state control.

we are not even among the 50 schools that spend the most per pupil.

https://www.nj.com/education/2017/05/t ... pend_the_most_per_pu.html

now, back to the topic at hand.

Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
JC schools spend 25% more per student than the state average so calling them ‘starved for cash’ is misleading g, especially since JC funds such a tiny amount of the cost.


Bingo! The problem is an administrative one. I kinda wish the State would take back full control of JC schools until costs are under control.

25% more per student than state average is ridiculous, especially when you consider the level of service being provided... It's not as if our schools are 25% better than the state average.

The one way to force the issue is for the state to stop sending a ridiculous amount of money to JCBOE at the expenses of other school needs in the rest of the state. That would force JC schools to get their budget in order.

Posted on: 7/11 12:34
Top


Re: Developers at odds over future of Jersey City neighborhood
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: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
What is the source of that rate?


*Sigh* Yvonne relaying words from Councilman Yun. But I oddly enough believe her this time. The 1.62% number was preliminary and did not factor in commercial properties at that time. It seemed way to high since most properties would be paying more while few would be paying less. The 1.42% is more in line of a zero sum. Some will pay more, some will pay less, some will stay the same.

Posted on: 7/11 12:06
Top


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


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
JC schools spend 25% more per student than the state average so calling them ‘starved for cash’ is misleading g, especially since JC funds such a tiny amount of the cost.


Bingo! The problem is an administrative one. I kinda wish the State would take back full control of JC schools until costs are under control.

25% more per student than state average is ridiculous, especially when you consider the level of service being provided... It's not as if our schools are 25% better than the state average.

The one way to force the issue is for the state to stop sending a ridiculous amount of money to JCBOE at the expenses of other school needs in the rest of the state. That would force JC schools to get their budget in order.

Posted on: 7/11 12:02
Top


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


What is the source of that rate?

Posted on: 7/11 11:42
Top


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


1.42% will be red meat for education fairness advocates.

Posted on: 7/11 11:30
Top


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


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?)

Posted on: 7/11 11:29
Top


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



Posted on: 7/11 11:05
Top


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


JC schools spend 25% more per student than the state average so calling them ‘starved for cash’ is misleading g, especially since JC funds such a tiny amount of the cost.

Posted on: 7/11 11:00
Top


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


Mostly agree, but! At present the city gets (at the expense of the schools and county) more money from most, but not all abatements than if a project was taxed conventionally. But with two caveats, the amounts are fixed or adjusted by contract whereas ratables will generate more tax dollars as the rate is increased AND some abatements actually do pay less, ie. 1 Journal Squared which pays $1200-$1500/yr per apartment.

In the short term, a dollar is a dollar, but as time goes on "rateables" are more valuable because they are "rateables." Abatements distort our local finances and allowed our city budget to balloon while claiming taxes are flat (the rate but not the amount) and our schools are starved (and feeling it.) The payroll tax will help, but will not fully replace the monies that our city "stole" from our schools.

Oh, and I absolutely do not believe that we should be trying raise tax dollars by taking people's residences via eminent domain. We have numerous examples of redevelopment plans that have taken decades to be built (partially built), Liberty Harbor, Colgate, Whitock Cordage, Hotel on the Square etc.






Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
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: 7/11 10:44
Top


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


At Planning Board on July 24...postponed from yesterday.

Posted on: 7/11 9:43
Top


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


Is that number official?

Posted on: 7/11 8:19
Top


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


So we are getting are new tax bills this month, due August 10th?

Posted on: 7/11 8:18
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
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: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
At 1.62% I am looking at a significant cut in my taxes, even after adjusting my appraised value up significantly. For me this will be a savings of $10k to $15k a year (multiple properties).

That will cover most of my son's tuition, once he is old enough to attend school.


How about at 1.42%?

Posted on: 7/10 22:20
Top


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


Quote:

mfadam wrote:
I'd say the odds of Trump's tax plan going thru are about as good as the odds of DTJC property taxes staying at 1% of FMV...


1.42% and the plan went through. Good thing you're not a bookie.

Posted on: 7/10 22:19
Top


Re: Jersey City Council to introduce $587 million budget with zero tax increase
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The amendment to the budget was today, I did not see anyone from JC list there only regular people who attend council meetings. The Friendly Budget was not available even though, State Senator Stack contacted the Department of Community Affairs which stated all towns should have the Friendly Budget. Stack responds to his constituents. I asked for the ratable base and tax rate, no answer, but Councilman Yun informed me that the ratable base is now $34 billion and the tax rate for the three budget is $1.42 or $14.20.


This is actually valuable information (really). Thank you Yvonne. Ratable base of $34 billion and 1.42% tax rate.

Posted on: 7/10 22:15
Top


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


Quote:

brewster wrote:
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.


Brewster,
I am aware of the so called equalization rate. I almost included in my postbut figured it was common knowledge. As you pointed out it was not fair. As with other parts of the city even within downtown it was unbalanced between existing and new construction. To be fair as downtown prices adjust to the new tax rate there should be a new reval preformed. That probably wont happen so for a while areas outside of downtown will get the break. To my point abatements should not be used as property tax equalization

Posted on: 7/10 21:41
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
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: 4th of July in JC @ Exchange Place - Featuring Snoop Dog
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

GlitterQueen wrote:
I was in the area with lots of people with no free food or alcohol along the river and no one was complaining. Lots of kids playing and people talking to the other people standing or sitting near them. There were plenty of vendors and they were cheap as hell. People in JC will complain about anything and everything.

Any complaint should be valid enough to be concerned about, there must be some credibility to it because why would anyone make up an incident. Obviously with complaints / concerns there I room for improvement.

Posted on: 7/10 20:03
Get on your bikes and ride !
Top


Re: Jersey City Council to introduce $587 million budget with zero tax increase
Home away from home
Home away from home


The amendment to the budget was today, I did not see anyone from JC list there only regular people who attend council meetings. The Friendly Budget was not available even though, State Senator Stack contacted the Department of Community Affairs which stated all towns should have the Friendly Budget. Stack responds to his constituents. I asked for the ratable base and tax rate, no answer, but Councilman Yun informed me that the ratable base is now $34 billion and the tax rate for the three budget is $1.42 or $14.20.

Posted on: 7/10 19:46
Top


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


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
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??


Can anyone refute this point?

The city would have a budget defect if all abated properties were taxed at the normal rate, rather than receiving the PILOT payments.

bodhipooh math looks correct. If not, please point out where it is flawed.

The county and school board would have access to the additional ratables and that should push down the tax rates for both (or allow them to spend more, the more likely outcome).




Posted on: 7/10 18:05
Top



TopTop
« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 ... 7704 »






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