Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
58 user(s) are online (31 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 58

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (bodhipooh)




Re: tax reval result on a Google Map
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

hero69 wrote:
we really need to get bergen-lafayette, west bergen and greenville gentriyfing more. sad to see these parts of jersey city are not benefiting from jersey city's success and growing popularity


I have to ask: have you ever actually stepped foot in BL? Because if you have done so recently, you should have noticed all the young professionals living in the area, the nice cars parked on some streets, along with new developments, some of them of substantial size.

Posted on: 3/20 7:32
Top


Re: more heights property reval data came out
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

majiazaishi wrote:
More heights property reval data came out. Apparently our mayor's property tax also went up, by 78%.

http://www.jiemengjourney.com/jersey-city-tax-reval/


It is a very sobering visualization of the reval data and results. Anyone who continues to deny that DTJC benefitted from years (or, decades) of under-assessments on the backs of less privileged people would be hard pressed to (logically) hold that view after looking at this map.

Posted on: 3/19 19:28
Top


Re: Tour Helicopter Crashes Into East River Killing 5 Passengers
#93
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

mfadam wrote:
the problem with federal control of airspace is the FAA. They are the poster child for regulatory capture. They are a total lapdog for the aviation industry.


Spoken like someone not at all familiar with all the regulatory requirements imposed by the FAA on civil aviation. Aircrafts that do commercial flights (such as tours) are required to undergo inspection every 100 hours. These inspections are strict.

As for the different requirements of Part 91 vs 135, there are good reasons for having different standards. Some might say the FAA shows uncharacteristic common sense for a federal agency.

Posted on: 3/16 16:18
Top


Re: Tour Helicopter Crashes Into East River Killing 5 Passengers
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

mfadam wrote:
Great bunch of guys. By all means these are the type of people we want flying over our homes, roads and schools.


Makes you wonder who else has air rights above JC and the Hudson River thoroughfare.


I can answer that: literally anyone and everyone. The air above the ground falls under the purview of the federal government, specifically the FAA. And, any person holding a valid pilot license can fly the Hudson River corridor, or any other area in accordance to regulations or ATC instructions. It is a rare sight nowadays, but small aircrafts are sometimes cleared to fly right over NYC. I was one such lucky person: I was once cleared by ATC to fly directly over Central Park from the Hudson to the East River.

Posted on: 3/16 8:50
Top


Re: Teacher Protests Disturbing Neighborhood
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

neverleft wrote:
.
Jersey City's 4,000-member teachers union strikes for first time since 1998
Updated 8:10 AM; Posted 7:06 AM


By Patrick Villanova The Jersey Journal

For the first time in 20 years, Jersey City's public school teachers have gone on strike.

The work stoppage, which will see some 3,100 teachers walk off the job today, comes after months of failed negotiations between the Jersey City Education Authority -- the union representing the teachers and other school employees -- and the Jersey City Board of Education.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... o.html#incart_2box_hudson

** **

I hope it doesn’t last as long as this one did. It was fun having off as a kid but 23 days was a little too long.

March 4, 1970 Asbury Park Press: “Jersey City Teachers' Strike Ends JERSEY CITY - Negotiators for Jersey City teachers and the Board of Education reached a tentative agreement early today on a two-year contract to end the 23-day-old strike. School Board officials declared today a "holiday" after the agreement was reached at 2:15 a.m. One spokesman said the move was to avoid the day's being listed as "closed due to strike." The teachers' union, the Jersey City Education Association, was scheduled to have a membership meeting in its Bergen Avenue headquarters today to ratify the agreement. Union leaders said they would recommend that the contract be approved. There was no immediate word on what the new contract includes. However, Dan Rosser, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, said it has "a wide range of improvements in the educational program as well as changes in the terms and conditions of teacher employment." The teachers had asked for pay raises up to $4,400.

Their starting salary is now $7,000. The strike, which began Feb. 9, lasted the same number of days as the Newark teachers walkout, which ended one week ago. First negotiations to end the dispute did not start until Thursday night. The School Board obtained a court injunction against the strike during its first week. So far, 22 teachers have been arrested and charged with violating the court order. Before the strike, Mayor Thomas J. Whelan had announced he would close the schools next September if the state did not pay for the city's educational costs. He subsequently filed suit against the state, demanding that it fulfill its "constitutional obligations." Some 1,650 teachers, 39,000 students and 34 schools were affected by the walkout.”



Interesting numbers in the articles: JC public school student population is 25% smaller today than in 1970 (29K vs 39K) but there are almost twice as many teachers as back then (3,100 vs. 1,650). I know that mandated teacher to student ratios have improved and are legally set and mandated, but it seems like a huge difference. Can anyone explain the numbers a bit more?

Posted on: 3/16 8:44
Top


Re: New Jersey Prepares To Raise Taxes On "Almost Everything" As It Nears Financial Disaster
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
What extra money? With the SALT limitation at $10k, the extra take home is wiped out and then some.


You assume that every taxpayer owns a home or lives in a state with out of control fiscal "challenges" and liabilities like NJ.


325M people in the US

20M in NY
9M in NJ
3.5M in CT
40M in CA
-------
72M (about 22% of the population living in high tax states)

from NJ.com today, about 60% of people own homes in NJ. Assuming that's the same in the other 3 states, then 13% of the US population owns a home in a high tax state. That's over 1 in 8 people nationwide...not an insignificant # by any means.


A little too broad. CA has a significantly lower homeownership rate (55%) and, more importantly, you are assuming that all homeownership is the same, but that is simply not the case: how many of those homes are worth enough to be impacted by the cap? What is the income of these homeowners? Would actually be impacted by the cap in SALT? Senior citizens make up a large percentage of homeowners nationally, and their tax returns may not be impacted by the SALT cap as much. Among those younger than 35, homeownership is MUCH LOWER than other age groups, but they are also at prime earning age, so the impact of a SALT cap may not be as pronounced for them, since the majority was not deducting homeownership related expenses.

Posted on: 3/15 14:54
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.


LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?


Haven't you been paying attention? Yvonne is arithmetically impaired.


Just when you thought Yvonne couldn't get any kookier... This reminds me of the time someone tried to argue with me that 25% was not the same as dividing by four. Some people just don't understand numbers.


And she was a (math) teacher? Scary thought. I put this on par with the guy that wanted double decker PATH trains (with really LOW wheels or something for the tunnel clearance haha).




That guy *still* will not accept that it is not possible to cram a double decker into the PATH tubes. He keeps arguing that it could be done. At one point, he tried to argue they could make the levels in each train very short and people would just have to hunch over... ha ha ha!

Posted on: 3/14 14:35
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.


LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?


Haven't you been paying attention? Yvonne is arithmetically impaired.


Just when you thought Yvonne couldn't get any kookier... This reminds me of the time someone tried to argue with me that 25% was not the same as dividing by four. Some people just don't understand numbers.

Posted on: 3/14 13:06
Top


Re: Deputy Attorney General Baker to replace Farrell as Jersey City corporation counsel
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
it's cute how they did "an aggressive and deliberate search for an experienced and dedicated candidate" yet hired someone from Hudson County. Not that it's impossible, but sure seems unlikely that the exact right person for the job was right here in your own backyard all along.


THANK YOU. I was going to make (essentially) the same comment. I hate to sound SO JADED, but this is so common around here... remember when they did a national search for a new superintendent and the best candidate happened to be from right here??? This is the kind of thing that makes even the most forgiving, uncynical person to do a double take.

Posted on: 3/13 16:20
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Jersey City budget preview released.

https://hudsoncountyview.com/jersey-ci ... t-with-zero-tax-increase/

No tax rate changes and the total budget is $587 million, $2 million less this year than the 2017 budget.

It's a little odd that the ratable base and PILOT payments have increased this year, the budget has dropped by $2 million, but the tax rate stays the same...

It literally doesn't add up.


Not that odd. Direct real estate taxation only accounts for about 60% of the municipal budget. The other sources of revenue may be lower (state aid, permit fees, other taxes) which could explain a lower budget. A 2 MM drop is not even 0.4%, so that's essentially a rounding error in practical terms.

Posted on: 3/13 15:52
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

srs7191 wrote:
Just to add to the abatement numbers.

We're on an abatement, roughly 10k per year.

Land, pre-reval, was negligible, about $300 per year. Now it's estimated to be about $2k.

So, all in all, going from 10.3k to about 12k.

If we had no abatement, the property tax would be around $14k. It expires in a few years.

So, all things equal, in a few years our property tax will go up roughly $2k.

If the recent numbers in this thread are true, that means when the abatement expires, the city will go from collecting ~$11.4k per year, to $7k per year from us.

This building has around 100 units in it. Meaning when the abatement expires, the city will lose (approx., at 2018 numbers) $450k per year.


Now, extrapolate your example by the many buildings that will see abatements expire over the next few years and decade, and you start to see a huge looming budget hole. And, the only way the city will be able to plug that hole is by getting more people to move here, or by raising taxes. All those people picketing in front of city hall, demanding that abatements be done away with have no idea what they are asking for, and what will happen if their misplaced demands were suddenly manifested.

Posted on: 3/13 13:17
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Fair point, Bodhi. And your estimate is a fair compromise with the state.


It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Trenton is not known for being swift, so any changes to school funding could take a long time, and the topic itself is fraught with so much politics that it will be a small miracle to see any meaningful changes. As such, JC may dodge a bullet for a while. Hard to tell how hard other municipalities will react to our "low" rate. Logic would tell you that they would be up in arms immediately but, as the expression goes, politics makes for strange bedfellows.

The promised second reval could prove tricky, or even treacherous, for Fulop if school funding changes are forced, as the JC homeowners will end up with even higher taxes, and people have a hard time understanding the finer points and will likely not be very forgiving if the overall levies go up, even if the city administration is not at fault. Also, expiring abatements over the next few years may push up tax levies if those properties are paying higher PILOTs today than regular taxes.

Posted on: 3/13 10:38
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
But that doesn't fit the narrative spread by Yvonne and others that the city loses money with tax abatements. In this case, the city is getting A LOT more than they would if there was no abatement. Not just in total taxes, but since the city doesn't have to split with PILOT payments with Hudson County and the School Board.

What's the breakdown anyway? Most of the property taxes goes to the school board, right?


My understanding is that when it comes to regular property taxes in JC, the breakdown is about 50% city, 25% school, 25% county. Not sure if those numbers are 100% accurate.

As for abatements, 95% city, 5% county.


As yes, the reality of taxation in JC is SOOOOO different from what most people think, partly based on ignorance, and part on the lies and myths spread by people like Yvonne.

The city would lose a TON of money if the abatements were magically done away with overnight. They would have to raise taxes tremendously to make up the shortfall. At about ~128 MM/year, PILOTs account for about 36% of tax revenue. That means those abated properties are collectively paying ~135 MM/year. To collect the same amount of money (128 MM) the city would need to collect almost 260 MM, and that would be spread across all homeowners. Talk about tax hit. People should be wary of wanting to do away with all abatements.


Now imagine JC had to pay for its own schools! That would be a roughly $500mm hit to non abated properties. Heaven forbid that gives JC a property tax rate closer to the rest of the state!

That's the whole crux here; granting of abatements relies entirely on the fact that this state funding never goes away. That's a massive risk the mayor and council are taking (previous and current. And probably future). But, like with the reval, that will be someone elses problem down the road.


It's not a massive risk. It's a calculates risk. By law, the state (and, indirectly, other municipalities) are required to fund the JC school district. The Abbott decisions have been upheld, and even expanded, on many occasions. So, what you will see is rumblings in Trenton from other municipalities, and we will likely see an increase in what JC is expected to shoulder, but it will never be 500 MM. At most, they will ask (force?) us to double our funding, making us responsible for about 33% of our budget. That move would push our current 1.62% rate to about 2%.

Posted on: 3/13 8:21
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
But that doesn't fit the narrative spread by Yvonne and others that the city loses money with tax abatements. In this case, the city is getting A LOT more than they would if there was no abatement. Not just in total taxes, but since the city doesn't have to split with PILOT payments with Hudson County and the School Board.

What's the breakdown anyway? Most of the property taxes goes to the school board, right?


My understanding is that when it comes to regular property taxes in JC, the breakdown is about 50% city, 25% school, 25% county. Not sure if those numbers are 100% accurate.

As for abatements, 95% city, 5% county.


As yes, the reality of taxation in JC is SOOOOO different from what most people think, partly based on ignorance, and part on the lies and myths spread by people like Yvonne.

The city would lose a TON of money if the abatements were magically done away with overnight. They would have to raise taxes tremendously to make up the shortfall. At about ~128 MM/year, PILOTs account for about 36% of tax revenue. That means those abated properties are collectively paying ~135 MM/year. To collect the same amount of money (128 MM) the city would need to collect almost 260 MM, and that would be spread across all homeowners. Talk about tax hit. People should be wary of wanting to do away with all abatements.

Posted on: 3/12 15:55
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
This is a fascinating case! A tax abated property paying 55% more than if it had received no tax abatement and paid normal property taxes.

The city will collect thousands less when the tax abatement is dropped AND it will have to share those revenues with JCBOE and the County.



Not at all surprising. In fact, for a while I have been speculating this would become a reality for many homeowners who have purchased abated properties in recent times: their abated taxes are higher than traditional taxes now that the reval came out with such a relatively low property tax rate.

All those Canco Loft units were "abated" at ~1.67%, so they could now go off their abatement contracts and save a bit of money, and the city will have to come up with additional income streams to make up the large shortfall. The same is likely true of many, many other property owners. The real question is: how many homeowners are savvy enough to look at their abatement contracts and do the math to determine which is better for them: abatement or regular taxes. If enough people decide to go off abatement, the city will see a huge drop in income and that promised reval for next year may actually yield a higher rate. That definitely would spell trouble for the mayor, and those DTJC homeowners wishing/hoping for relief after a second reval.


Posted on: 3/12 12:41
Top


Re: Tour Helicopter Crashes Into East River Killing 5 Passengers
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
There are two things that make those helicopter frightening, first they fly low over JC. As an example, you can see them mid-way around the 10th story of St. Johns apt, they are very noisy. The second concern, if they were to crash in JC, they fly over at different points where the oil trains run in JC. Some chemicals in those oil trains are explosive. An accident in Canada with oil trains actually wipe out and entire town. It is one thing to have helicopters for emergency use or even for news but it is another thing to have helicopters over a populated area for tourism.


As usual, you never disappoint with your alarmist agenda and fake claims. No helicopter is flying over JC at 100 feet above ground.

Posted on: 3/12 12:24
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It’s unreal.

I’m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It’s really something else.


I've got no dog in this fight, as I'm a renter. but I do feel for my long-time neighbors who planned on retiring here, and will now probably have to sell. good for them for getting squillions on a home they bought for very little, decades ago. but it's a big bummer to have to uproot yourself in your golden years, just because you are now sitting on a hot property.

likewise, if my landlord has to double my rent, he'll lose a known tenant who's been trouble-free for years. instead he'll have to deal with someone new, who might make extra demands in line with market-rate rent, yet he'll have no extra $$ in the bank in exchange for that headache.

yes, of course he can sell. but he too was planning on retiring here, so please refer to paragraph one of my post.


A couple of thoughts:
- the hypothetical owner of your post would have many more options than just “will have to sell”. Among them: reverse mortgage, HE loan, HE LOC, etc.

- no renter would see his rent double because his landlord's taxes have doubled. That’s sheer misunderstanding of the numbers involved. Take the extreme example of a homeowner going from 20K to 40K. If that landlord had a single tenant, and he wanted to pass on the entirety of the tax increase onto the tenant, that means charging an additional $1,666/month. That’s only a doubling if the tenant is only paying 1,666/mo today, which seems unlikely for that kind of property. That would be an easy one to fight in housing court.

Posted on: 3/10 0:31
Top


Re: Come to City Hall this upcoming Wednesday to promote electric vehicle charging in JC #EVinJC
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
I was super-bummed to see that Zipcar removed their electronic fleet from First Street. the row of chargers is still there. might as well encourage more EV use.


Zipcar was replaced with Maven; same concept (membership car sharing) owned/sponsored by GM. All vehicles are EVs.

Posted on: 3/10 0:14
Top


Re: 'Porch pirate' charged with snatching bait package, throws fit at court appearance
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:


I don't know the answer, but certainly believe there should be an escalating punishment for career criminals as they get caught in their acts, but there should always be room for judicial discretion in sentencing.


Something has to be done or out of frustration, people go the vigilante route. I remember a case way back in the early '90s in NYC. This one criminal would break into every car in the neighborhood, smashing windows, and taking whatever he could.

It was endless 'catch and release'. He would just go back to smashing up car windows. At one point, the police just stopped showing up.

One victim had enough and dispatched Mr. Car Window Smasher into the 'great beyond'. He of course was arrested and charged with murder. I think if I was on that jury, I would be tempted to let the guy go.

In Germany, where regular police enforcement fails, the vigilante patrols are starting to coalesce.





Agreed that "catch and release" is not a valid solution. It is, sadly, the SOP around here.

Surprised that the guy you referenced even got sent away. Another 80s case (the famous Bernhard Goetz incident) saw a jury acquit him of all charges except illegal possession of a firearm, and he shot 4 muggers in the subway, and turned himself in after a few days. People in the NYC of the 70s and 80s were really fed up. It is no surprise that Death Wish resonated so strongly with people at the time.

Posted on: 3/8 10:37
Top


Re: 'Porch pirate' charged with snatching bait package, throws fit at court appearance
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:


Aren't you frustrated with the system? I had a ground floor rental robbed twice, and then a guy from next door was caught across the street breaking and entering. He had 8 previous burglary convictions, and was out again in a few months.


This was the motivation for the '3 time loser' type laws. Three felonies and the judge has the option of putting you away for a very, very long time. You can only remove anti-social elements from society.. reforming them is impossible.

However, prison are overcrowded and judges are loathe to fill them up even more. A (now retired) sherriff's deputy told me how he would piss off the judge by digging through the law books, charging perps under statutes that couldn't be plead down easily to a misdemeanor. So at least, the perps would be pulled off the street for a few days, sitting in county jail.

Dealing with the perpetual criminal has been the bane of the civilized world for ages. In the past, the French and English established penal colonies. Singapore today has them beaten with a cane so hard their asses fall off.


This is a tricky one: on paper, it is easy to agree with the idea of "three strikes" laws. After all, those laws are targeted at proven career criminals, right? But, the problem with the concept is the lack of room for common sense, or judicial discretion. Some state legislatures have sought to control and dictate how punishment is meted out, and perhaps it is better to leave that to the judicial branch of government.

I remember when California first enacted its "three strikes" law, some homeless man got put away for a LONG time for stealing a pizza slice. Now, I do not condone theft, stealing, burglaries, or any crime. Certainly, no one will ever confuse me for being a liberal, or soft on crime, but common sense tells me that this is a troublesome outcome for the situation: putting a homeless man in jail for a long time because he stole a pizza slice seems like a gross misapplication of the law. But, the judge didn't have a choice: it was a third strike, so off to jail it was.

I don't know the answer, but certainly believe there should be an escalating punishment for career criminals as they get caught in their acts, but there should always be room for judicial discretion in sentencing.

Posted on: 3/8 9:22
Top


Re: Come to City Hall this upcoming Wednesday to promote electric vehicle charging in JC #EVinJC
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


Surprise... I live directly across from the chargers on 1st St, and I am 100% OK with the city adopting and fostering EV-friendly policies. As I indicated, the EV chargers take up the same amount of space as a regular parking meter, so this is not some major land grab.

So, unlike you, who likes to opine on things that do not impact your life, or of which you know nothing, I actually live with these chargers and their implications (one of them being less street parking available) and I am 100% OK with that. I want this city to be less chaotic, less noisy, healthier, and less polluted. Why would anyone not want that?

Also, if you have a right to criticize anything and everything under the guise of "concerned citizen", that would extend to everyone, so shove it: I will continue to call you out and criticize you for your dumb ideas, misguided opinions, and lack of knowledge on just about everything you say, or state.

Posted on: 3/7 9:18
Top


Re: Come to City Hall this upcoming Wednesday to promote electric vehicle charging in JC #EVinJC
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I don't think this is deflection, I think this city is not in the position of give away land for 99 year lease for a dollar a year or to transfer 17 acres of land for ten dollars when the citizens are looking at $20K to $40K in new taxes. First take care of the citizens before you try the world stage. This is nothing put posturing so Fulop can be noticed outside JC. The only reason he delayed the reval was in order to do his 70 plus tax abatements and he did not want backlashed from the citizens.


"I don't think this is deflection" then you proceed to bring up two totally unrelated topics: SciCity and abatements.


You keep claiming the city is giving away 99 year lease for a dollar for EV charging stations. First, what land is being leased? And, the chargers already in place, along 1st St, do not represent any amount of significant space: the chargers take up as much as space as an old fashioned parking meter! So, what exactly about these chargers has you going so crazy??

Posted on: 3/6 16:44
Top


Re: PSEG rate increase doubled since december?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

chanpion13 wrote:
good morning! received my power bill this month and noticed it was double what i normally pay (consistent for over a year). asked my neighbors and they all say their latest bill is double.

billable dec rate 0.09
billable feb rate 0.188

i didn't see any news of a hike, was anyone else effected?

cheers.


My provider is PSE&G and the rate is ~.12. You are most likely on a third party provider contract and just got switched to their inflated rates after their initial/bait rate, or term.

Posted on: 3/5 10:40
Top


Re: Come to City Hall this upcoming Wednesday to promote electric vehicle charging in JC #EVinJC
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Here is the problem with you Brewster, you act very snooty and you are nothing but a bully. The point of this thread was to explain Fulop is wrong to give a 99 year lease for one dollar a year. Technology will change and that is foolish. Fifty years ago, no one thought you would have a computer that you can put in your pocket, I am referring to a cell phone, so Fulop as usual is giving away the city. Get off your high horse and stop pretending you know everything because you don't.


By your logic, there shouldn't be ANY government support for ANY technology, as it will always evolve and change. You are deluded, and a fool.


Every time you hit bottom, you just start digging.

Posted on: 3/5 8:30
Top


Re: Come to City Hall this upcoming Wednesday to promote electric vehicle charging in JC #EVinJC
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
When I was in 7th grade, during math class there was a problem on how far a car would go plotting the distance to another town. Right in the middle of the problem, my math teacher said "I want you to know I had a neighbor who figured out how to use water to power cars." He then said this formula was sold to the oil companies. His comments were totally out of character, in every aspect he was by the book teacher who took his job seriously. So don't tell there are not other ways to power cars. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, if this guy figures out a way to separate those elements, then there are other ways to fuel a car.


Sometimes you come across as truly unhinged.

First of all, no one (not one person!) has claimed that electricity is the only alternative to powering cars. The claim made by AMo (which was clearly stated and argued, and happens to be completely valid, in my opinion) is that EVs are as deserving of government support as ICE vehicles, which enjoy an incredible amount of government subsidies, sometimes in ways that most people don’t even realize.

As for alternatives to oil, there are many promising alternatives, but proven alternatives are few, and electrical is here now. The benefits of EVs are many, including environmental and health ones. It should surprise NO ONE that you would oppose something new: you have amply demonstrated in the past that you are against any progress that doesn’t fit your narrow views.

Posted on: 3/5 8:27
Top


Re: tax reval result on a Google Map
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
This reval firm looks like they fucked up. SF homes are undervalued and condos are overvalued.

They're grossly underestimating the value of land.


I've been saying the land thing is going to explode. You can't have land >60% of value and then have it inconsistently valued. I believe they left it off the spreadsheet deliberately for this reason.


The proposed second reval could be a way to save face if the land value thing turns into a disaster. I still think a second reval a year from now could play out bad for DTJC. Unless, of course, they predetermine the end result. Not a crazy thought given our sordid history in JC.

Posted on: 2/28 13:00
Top


Re: Permits for demolitions
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
I don't think he was saying the map was the falsehood you keep peddling; more likely it was your assertion that more redevelopment leads to higher taxes. I mean, he pretty much said exactly that.


THANK YOU. I don't know why I bother trying to reason with her. It is a futile endeavor. She simply refuses to listen. Sad.


Posted on: 2/28 11:48
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Strawhat wrote:
I love seeing the people on NextDoor who call it a "Middle Class Gentrification".
Natives like myself have been speaking of the gentrification of Jersey City for a decade now. Many poor Jersey City families have had to move out because they could not afford it anymore. Most were POC but poor is poor and knows no racial boundaries. My family was originally from DT, and now most don't even live in JC anymore. Anytime I raised these concerns online or in a group setting, I was always told variations of "oh well, the city is more safe now and theres more places to eat so the gentrification was a good thing". Twitter (usually on Fulops tweets), NextDoor, Reddit it was always the same story. Now that the bill has come for those who benefited, we're seeing protests and media coverage. People in this thread and other places have been making the argument that "Old lady Sally has lived here her whole life, why should she have to sell her house". I made similar arguments for years. But in my case "Old Lady Sally" was "My Puerto Rican Aunt", and my argument fell on deaf ears.

Because of this, I'm finding it very hard to feel sympathy for the DT owners. The NIMBYS of DT have demanded so much from their politicians. Bike lanes, revamped parks, additional policing, festival after festival, road work. It has always seemed like a major portion of the city's expenditures have been centered Downtown. And the rest of the city has footed the bill. Not anymore.


I think it is simplistic, and not at all helpful, to try and cast this situation as a matter of race, or to pit competing narratives of a "puerto rican aunt" versus "old lady Sally". Sticking to the facts is simple enough, and tells anyone willing to listen the plain truth: the reval is a matter of fairness. Poorer areas of JC have subsidized DTJC by paying higher effective rates for well over a decade, when the law stipulates that every homeowner should pay the same effective rate.

Also, it is disingenuous to try and cast gentrification as a whites-only "attack" on a "native" population. Cities continually evolve, and surely anyone would agree that the JC newcomers are not a monolith mass of white people. To claim that is silly, and a distraction to this conversation. Heck, if anything, you could claim that a large amount of the JC newcomers of the past decade are non-white: Indians, Chinese, blacks, hispanics, etc. Anyone claiming otherwise is blind to obvious facts.


I generally agree with your sentiment, but must highlight the irony that you've already made it a point several times in this thread to say "the liberals" this and "the liberals" that. It adds nothing of value to the conversation.


True, and I pointed out that myself in my previous post.

But the facts clearly borne out that DTJC is an overwhelmingly liberal, Democratic-voting population. And, more often than not, you are much more likely to come across that type of person advocating for more services. So, there is a certain irony in witnessing the complete about-face from so many DTJC homeowners now clamoring for fiscal restraint, smaller government, and lower taxes.

Posted on: 2/27 17:43
Top


Re: Permits for demolitions
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I went to the caucus yesterday and one of the topics discussed was permits for demolitions. I saw the map given to the council people and apparently, most of the permits are in the heights area of JC. So it is redevelopment today and high taxes tomorrow.


Another falsehood from the resident disinformation professional. Those who oppose additional development are literally campaigning for higher taxes. More people means more taxpayers, and that in turn could help lower taxes for everyone.

Posted on: 2/27 17:39
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Strawhat wrote:
I love seeing the people on NextDoor who call it a "Middle Class Gentrification".
Natives like myself have been speaking of the gentrification of Jersey City for a decade now. Many poor Jersey City families have had to move out because they could not afford it anymore. Most were POC but poor is poor and knows no racial boundaries. My family was originally from DT, and now most don't even live in JC anymore. Anytime I raised these concerns online or in a group setting, I was always told variations of "oh well, the city is more safe now and theres more places to eat so the gentrification was a good thing". Twitter (usually on Fulops tweets), NextDoor, Reddit it was always the same story. Now that the bill has come for those who benefited, we're seeing protests and media coverage. People in this thread and other places have been making the argument that "Old lady Sally has lived here her whole life, why should she have to sell her house". I made similar arguments for years. But in my case "Old Lady Sally" was "My Puerto Rican Aunt", and my argument fell on deaf ears.

Because of this, I'm finding it very hard to feel sympathy for the DT owners. The NIMBYS of DT have demanded so much from their politicians. Bike lanes, revamped parks, additional policing, festival after festival, road work. It has always seemed like a major portion of the city's expenditures have been centered Downtown. And the rest of the city has footed the bill. Not anymore.


I think it is simplistic, and not at all helpful, to try and cast this situation as a matter of race, or to pit competing narratives of a "puerto rican aunt" versus "old lady Sally". Sticking to the facts is simple enough, and tells anyone willing to listen the plain truth: the reval is a matter of fairness. Poorer areas of JC have subsidized DTJC by paying higher effective rates for well over a decade, when the law stipulates that every homeowner should pay the same effective rate.

Also, it is disingenuous to try and cast gentrification as a whites-only "attack" on a "native" population. Cities continually evolve, and surely anyone would agree that the JC newcomers are not a monolith mass of white people. To claim that is silly, and a distraction to this conversation. Heck, if anything, you could claim that a large amount of the JC newcomers of the past decade are non-white: Indians, Chinese, blacks, hispanics, etc. Anyone claiming otherwise is blind to obvious facts.

Posted on: 2/27 12:13
Top



TopTop
« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 ... 114 »






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