bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Doesn't it smack you of "taxation without representation?"

No more so than if I went into NY and had to pay higher sales tax. I don't get a say. There's a pretty good argument for this merely from a macro POV, these employees drive JC roads and benefit from JC 1st responder services, etc without paying anything to this city. I've heard this argument defending NYC's tax. It makes a lot of sense for a city with a big non-resident commuter population, unlike many sprawling smaller cities in this country that include much of the nearby suburbs in their borders.

Sure you can argue their employers pay property tax or PILOTS, and they spend money here, but that's not nearly as much as if they lived here.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the city exempts nonresident city employees.

I dont think the sales tax analogy is an apt one: you can *choose* not to shop in NYC and instead take your money elsewhere. And, that's exactly the point: non JC residents lack that choice when it comes to their money and its "transfer" to the city's coffers.

The situation about over-aid of the local BOE is a tricky one, and I don't pretend for a second to have a solution. But, I do know this situation is untenable for much longer. In the eyes of other municipalities, we are getting a sweet deal by assuming a tiny portion of our local BOE, assessing a paltry 0.4% for our schools, and yet refusing to find ways to streamline operations, or cut back, but smugly accepting their money to enable the situation while claiming poverty. Clearly, this is now a hot button issue, and I very much doubt it will go away. The reval simply exposed what many had suspected, and now a day of reckoning may be upon us.

JPhurst wrote:

5) People who were fueling the fire and hoping this would be the mayor's downfall have their mouths agape at how well it worked out.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
perhaps the state should use a part of super high taxes on legal marijuana to reduce its unfunded pension liability.

No one can get elected on a platform of "funding pension liabilities"., At least not yet, not till someone actually gets a short check. It's just not sexy nor meaningful to low info voters, just like no one gets elected for vowing to "maintain the infrastructure". "Free goodies" and shiny new stuff is so much better.

Yvonne wrote:
Do you think the state or federal government will spend tens of millions to improve mass transit? Look how Christie killed the tunnel because it required matching funds. A real serious problem facing JC are the number of cars that travel into JC. They use local streets to get to their destinations.

Monroe wrote:
And NJ.com noted today that the top 3% earners pay an incredible 2/3 of NJ income taxes! Wanna take a guess where those people live? Not Newark, JC, Camden, or Paterson.

Monroe wrote:
And NJ.com noted today that the top 3% earners pay an incredible 2/3 of NJ income taxes! Wanna take a guess where those people live? Not Newark, JC, Camden, or Paterson.

Yvonne wrote:
I suggest you ask those downtown citizens if JC should be in the business of giving away 99 year leases for one dollar a year or 17 acres for ten dollars. Once the city ask those citizens and they say yes, then you have the right to criticize me.

Yvonne wrote:
I do not want to walk down memory lane, but Schundler was mayor during that time of the 6th Street Embankment. He was aware of the sale and did nothing about it. He wanted the property to go to a lawyer, who is also a developer. As mayor he had the right to take it but he did not. When Glen Cunningham ran for mayor he used that against Tom DeGise who was Schundler's council president. The argument that city hall did not know is not true. Our government allowed this property to slip out of its hands and a private person took it. Those are the facts, Pebble. By the way, I still remember Glenn Cunningham and his wife speaking before the Embankment activists when he ran for office.

hero69 wrote:
perhaps the na's will take a nimby approach, or maybe next. was there a lot of na resistance in other states/cities that allow municipal marijuana. i would think ideal locations would be along the commercial strips Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Time to for supporters to pack the NA meetings and demand they be allowed to be opened Downtown. The NIMBYs in those groups will relegate these shops to dangerous and obscure parts of the city if they can and will most likely use hyperbolic "think of the children arguments" to get the city to comply.