|
Re: Sheriff Sale? (foreclosure)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
I suppose it depends on state law and/or the type of lien. In my case 5 of the liens were federal income from IRS, so those will follow the person. 1 of the liens was for a restaurant the guy opened and was not for any improvements to the property itself (don't ask me why the guy didn't open his restaurant as an LLC...) So there were only 2 liens that were actually related to loans made to the property. Basically the court recorded lien holders except the senior debtor as defendants in the case. As a part of the court filings the lien holders admitted to being junior debtors and agreed that it would be considered settled upon the closed public auction, whereby if there were excess proceeds above the judgement amount they would receive a distribution. However, I spoke to both the court itself and an attorney about how it worked in South Carolina. Only in very rare circumstances can someone claim a lien after the sale occurs (which given the amount of public notices, public court proceedings, etc. is difficult to prove that you didn't have a chance to join the case.) In fact in my case, it appears that the "new" restaurant lien is perhaps what held things up from a year ago when the senior debtor tried to sell it at an online auction. However, unpaid utility and backed local property taxes were transferred with the property.
Posted on: 2018/3/13 14:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Sheriff Sale? (foreclosure)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
The entire metro-market I looked at is up 10% over last year, and I bought was in downtown which is much more of a sellers market than the rest of the area. I've lost out in bidding wars on two other properties down there over the last 9 months. But yes, I FULLY expected to be bidding against one of the lien holders and expected to go higher. It makes zero sense that the guy didn't file bankruptcy because he's still on the hook for many of these liens. And if he'd filed for bankruptcy the government would have gotten their money first. It was a very strange case. But my point was those strange cases can and do exist, but you have to do a lot of research.
Posted on: 2018/3/13 13:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Sheriff Sale? (foreclosure)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
law firm
Posted on: 2018/3/13 12:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Sheriff Sale? (foreclosure)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I have been watching every property that came on the market in a 2 mile by 1/2 mile area for 9 months. It was nerve wracking for SURE. The home was 1940s. Without pictures of the interior and thinking the house may need significant renovation and a relatively higher initial bid, it makes the risk too much for flippers (or that is at least my theory)
Posted on: 2018/3/13 12:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Sheriff Sale? (foreclosure)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
I purchased an investment property this way, a county foreclosure auction (though not Hudson County) and here was my experience:
1 - I had to bring 5% of cash in form of cashier's check and have the remaining cash within 20 days (charged daily interest at 6.25% APR). If you go then you should bring 5% of the max bid you are willing to make. I don't see how you could do this without having all cash because an appraiser wouldn't have access to the house and not sure what bank would make a loan in this case. 2 - The judgement amount and the opening bid are NOT related. The judgement amount only dictates how much $ the senior debtor receives before other lienholders are paid. The senior debtor may set the opening bid. In my case, the senior debtor set the opening bid at $130,000 LESS than the judgement amount. 3 - If a judge is worth his/her salt they will make sure all lienholders are included (excluding property tax and utilities.) In my case there were 2 home loans, 5 federal income tax liens and a small business loan with claims to the property (the small business loan was from a restaurant operated elsewhere, but opened by the homeowner.) The court records are all public. 4 - It is difficult to get a lot of information ahead of time (like the inside of the home), but not impossible. I looked at the court record and called the senior debtor's law firm to try to get more information, but they were not willing (or perhaps allowed to) give any information. Then I went to the tax records and got the owners name. I googled his name and couldn't find much of anything, but on page 3 of google found that he'd registered a trademark for a restaurant name in the same city as the house. I then googled the restaurant name and found a facebook page for the restaurant...which ultimately led me to pictures I could tie to the house. 5 - It is possible for the home to not be auctioned even after the judgement, so it is good to have an accurate understanding of the history by looking at real estate sites, tax history and court filings. In my case, I saw that they put the home up for sale in 2014 which failed and then for an online auction last year which fell through. I saw the guy switching to a living trust and then back to himself to try and get around the foreclosure. I also found the owners facebook page and saw that he said he had moved 2 months ago. All of that led me to believe that the auction would ultimately occur for the property. But again, I could see that this nonsense had been going on since 2014. 6 - I did a title search to understand and to compare it to the court records (which matched) 7 - I had a gut feeling that the minimum bid set by the senior debtor would be high enough that flippers and developers would not be interested unless they had done as much sleuthing as I had done (which I doubted.) There were lots of developers and flippers (people sitting on the floor because not enough seats) but they did not make a move on this property. LONG STORY SHORT: It was a lot of research, but well worth it because I got the home at 50-60% of market value based on comps. That said, I had been watching this market for 9 months. So if you understand the market and have cash and are willing to do a bunch of research on the property, it can pay off.
Posted on: 2018/3/13 1:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City mulls changes to pedestrian plaza to address rowdy bar-goers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Just to clarify a few things:
1. Always: My office has always asked and continues to ask for greater on-duty enforcement all over downtown, including specifically at this location. Last year with grant money we were able to give some dedicated coverage, but not always. 2. Last summer: We have been asked by police to put in a business curfew (I said no) 3. Last summer: We have been asked by neighborhood to revise the restaurant overlay to remove allowed density of licenses in in SID (I said no) 4. Last summer: The PM for the plaza suggested mandatory security guards on the plaza in each business (I said hold & let?s discuss first with businesses) 5. Last fall: We met with businesses last fall and highlighted the issues coming from multiple sources and asked for ideas to show a partnership given how bad the other options seemed. I threw out an idea ?maybe you could pool your money and share the cost of an off-duty officer - that would be cheaper than being compelled to hire a doorman?. Overall it seemed to be viewed relatively favorably as an alternative to #4 above. When the conversation moved to ?how? to break up costs (via SID vs. not via SID, all businesses vs. all businesses with liquor license vs. all business on plaza vs. all business with liquor license on plaza ? we adjourned the meeting and said this really was their job to figure out how they want to structure as it is voluntary, but that I would ask to continue to hold off on #4 if they could come up with a way to help resolve some of the issues caused by the benefits they have received over the years (ability to have high density of liquor licenses, ability to remain open later, ability to have a pedestrian plaza, and ability to serve on the pedestrian plaza). 6. This winter: No progress made 7. Last week: We met again, still no progress made. We re-hashed 1-5, again. I asked who supported a curfew, 0 people raised their hands. I asked who wanted to remove restaurant row, 0 people raised their hands. I asked who wanted to get rid of the plaza, 1 person raised her hand. I asked who wanted mandatory security guards on the plaza, about 1/3 raised their hands. I asked who wanted to do something with off-duty, about 1/2 raised their hands.) In short: - this is a voluntary action, can be taken or not. I merely suggested it as an idea that seemed a lot better than some of the others I had heard during a brainstorming conversation last fall. - this can be paid for however they want as it is voluntary (among all 200 businesses, among 32 liquor license holders who've benefited from the restaurant overlay zone or only amongst those on the plaza itself) - BIDs/SIDs/NIDs often fund supplemental safety services - I continue to hope to find ways to get on duty officers assigned IMO, it is in the business interest to show some concern and good faith action to solve issues their establishments are creating in the neighborhood they operate in, especially since the city has given them benefits in the form of the ability to have liquor license density, later night hours, the plaza itself and ability to extend the sidewalk cafe onto the plaza. If they don't that is their decision. They need to realize though I will not be inclined to run interference when people try to solve the issues via other means. I am HAPPY to hear other ideas that are actionable and realistic. So, if you have ideas feel free to email me (won't be getting into a back and forth with anonymous folks.)
Posted on: 2017/3/7 19:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City mulls changes to pedestrian plaza to address rowdy bar-goers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
No. East District has been often running at minimum staffing levels (which doesn't provide for consistent visible presence. With retirements and new officers coming out of academy, they go to South & West Districts
Posted on: 2017/3/7 19:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
The new language regarding 5 year abatements is as follows: "every application for a tax exemption subject to a tax agreement under Section 304-12B, must be filed and approved before proceeding with the project, that is, prior to construction commencing;" From what I can tell, that means: Improvements to single family homes, new construction of single dwelling, improvements to multiple dwelling, conversion to multiple dwelling, improvements to commercial and industrial structures --> resolution approval by city council and not subject to 12B New construction of commercial or industrial structures or multiple dwellings by tax agreement. --> is required to comply with 12B which should be subject to the new law (per above) But I am not a lawyer...check it out here: https://www2.municode.com/library/nj/j ... ordinances?nodeId=CH304TA Rolando proposed it so that people would be required to comply with PECA in order to get a tax abatement. PECA is essentially a good faith contract with the city to hire locally.
Posted on: 2016/6/22 21:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Residents Say Drivers Are Ignoring Stop Signs, Flying Through Jersey City Intersection
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Good point. Really as long as you could do some recognition of license plate number it is a nice little service the insurers would buy. They just run a service call prior to renewal or new issuance. And then just figure out the right incentive for the people taping. Someone should definitely do this. Good idea.
Posted on: 2016/6/20 3:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Residents Say Drivers Are Ignoring Stop Signs, Flying Through Jersey City Intersection
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yes, this! I have been brainstorming something similar: an app that solicits resident sourced video/image for parking that gives rewards of some type to residents who submit actionable stuff. Then the work from people like @jccrap on twitter who is already taking the pics could be utilized.
Posted on: 2016/6/19 23:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Residents Say Drivers Are Ignoring Stop Signs, Flying Through Jersey City Intersection
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
So I am the one who requested the stop sign at that location a few years ago because it was right by a park. I agree there is an enforcement issue (all over downtown) but there are also some traffic and engineering issues too (at least according to the T&E department who have two new employees and rattled off 10 things they want to change about i when I raised it to them Thursday.) That is why I mentioned both. While that location ia bad, we have a systemic issue with pedestrian safety downtown. I wrote a long letter to the public safety director, mayor chief of staff and business adminstrator requesting a task force to look at the problem holistically with a proactive plan versus reacting location by location. They agreed to add it as a special project on the mayors task force (which includes reps from police) and are kicking it off on Monday. The current state is, I believe, out of control.
Posted on: 2016/6/19 23:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
That is incorrect. Here is what was changed, you cannot apply for the abatement after the fact if your building is a certain size or contains commercial property. You have to file for it before you break ground. I cannot remember the original intention, it was legislation that Rolando put up. However, I think we should change it back because we've had people who have done good things (the EXACT things we want in terms of renovations) not being able to qualify for an abatement and have relatively small places (for example on Newark Avenue.)
Posted on: 2016/6/17 20:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yup. That's exactly why the NA were arguing that practically speaking it never happened and where the 31' came from in their original counter to plannings initial suggestion.
Posted on: 2016/6/15 2:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown R-1 zoning status update
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Hi peeps -
Brief update here. We've been wanting to rezone this area for a while as it would give right incentives for folks to upgrade homes and we could avoid one off variances. I may be off on the edges, but this is essentially the history and where we were. What is allowed today 2 family, 3 story, 44 ft height limit Original proposal 4 family, 4 story, 44 ft height limit Revised proposal 1 - based on NAs' ask* North of Newark: 4 family, 4 story, 44 ft height limit South of Newark: 3 family, 3 story, 31 ft height limit *argument made was that 44ft was very theoretical and not practical in terms of what people actually built given that 3 stories have been allowed for some time Where We Are Now I stopped the revised proposal 1 from going to planning board because I felt that a significant zoning change needed to have an official mailing to property owners, especially since the proposal was to take something away (height.) However, in the meantime we heard back from legal that there would be a legal risk in down zoning the height in this way without going through a master plan change. SOOOOO... The question we are now discussing on the city side is this: do we wait for master plan or do we do something temporary in the meantime. IF it makes sense to do something temporary it will not include any reduction in height but likely be one of these two options Increase # of units only (today at 2) Increase # of units (today at 2) and # of stories (today at 3) That said we are still trying to figure out if it makes sense to do anything or just wait until the master plan. MDM - what happened to remove the 5 year abatement? I am not aware of the abatement going away. Contact me on email so I can get more details. If this is something we can add back on, I will sponsor as it is a no brainer.
Posted on: 2016/6/14 23:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City website redesign on tap
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Here is why I asked for it. I wanted to get that link that was in the article out as broadly as possible so that we can get feedback from every day residents versus power user types. When I moved here to find out about Little league you had to ask someone. That type of thing is really not acceptable to me. And while the link will go in my newsletter later this month, again by definition those are people who are know who I am and who have interacted with me before, which already puts them into a category of more informed on Jersey City government. It was critical to do while the vendor's analysis work begins so that it is a source of input. Otherwise the entire user experience will be created based on us looking "in" instead of us looking "out" to the customers. I've seen tech projects time and time again not solicit user input and they are never as good as the ones where the user was at the center of the process. There will be lots of steps with users along the way to ensure we get it right. It isn't about press, it is about making sure we don't end up with a website that while pretty is just as useless as the one we have now.
Posted on: 2016/6/7 20:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What's with Paulus Hook Park?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
It is being rebuilt based on community input. The timeline to break ground is targeted for September. It will include all four corners.
Posted on: 2016/6/2 16:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The Village has Gone Crazy - R5 zoning but not in my backyard
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Last post on this topic until we have finished our letter and mailing (which I will happily post here too)
It is primarily in the Village and portions in Hamilton Park that are not in the historic district. To be clear I have nothing but gratitude for those (which include individuals, both NAs & committee people) who have tried to help find the right answers. That process revealed that we have some controversy. Given the breadth and controversial nature of zoning changes only the city has the resources to make sure it is fully discussed. As I said before it is my responsibility and accountability to make sure the dissemination happens, not the neighborhood association's. They are a volunteer organization. That is why I slowed this down even though our planning department has been working very diligently on this for two years. Ultimately, I think the process is working fine. Ideas were worked on and discussed and have evolved. The process revealed there wasn't full consensus so we broaden the conversation. As far as I am concerned the fact that all of this is happening prior to things going to planning board is very healthy.
Posted on: 2016/5/18 17:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: DEVELOPER TROLL goes crazy in our Village Neighborhood
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
All - I am the person who takes accountability for slowing down the process here. I have had so many people reach out to me purporting to represent the views of the residents. My office will be doing a mailing to those impacted by the proposed changes explaining the various options and asking for feedback. We also will host a community meeting at city hall. These changes will not be considered by planning board (and ultimately city council) until early fall as I want to ensure proper public notice of proposed changes and input into those changes.
Posted on: 2016/5/18 14:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The Village has Gone Crazy - R5 zoning but not in my backyard
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
All - I am the person who takes accountability for slowing down the process here. I have had so many people reach out to me purporting to represent the views of the residents. My office will be doing a mailing to those impacted by the proposed changes explaining the various options and asking for feedback. We also will host a community meeting at city hall. These changes will not be considered by planning board (and ultimately city council) until early fall as I want to ensure proper public notice of proposed changes and input into those changes.
Posted on: 2016/5/18 14:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown Roads...why so bad?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Hi there - a couple of things here: 1) last year's contract for road repaving was not fulfilled by the vendor (a matter for which we are in litigation) 2) my ordinance which passed last Winter forced stricter standards for patches and also full repaving in cases where the road was less than 10 years old. Mayor Fulop pushed strongly last summer to start enforcing that law and they are starting those repavings now that it is warm again. There were a few that have MUA work as well and so may take another year before they are repaved. But the many roads in downtown will be repaved last year or in the next two due to this legislation. 3) we had a few really tough winters. All of that said, I agree with you. It is highly frustrating that we are in the place we are in. It will take a few years before the ordinance has its' intended effect, but I do believe long term it will force coordination of utility work and proper restoration of our streets. Candice
Posted on: 2016/3/30 20:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bike Share Flap Pits JC vs. Hoboken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yup. All these things are conversations we are willing to have. Unfortunately we have a little bit of a whack a mole situation where this occurs repeatedly. We ask it to stop and it does for a time and then happens again. The bike share needs to have no fee zones so that it's bike share is profitable and that is understandable, but if they are going to encourage riders to have bikes in one place then we need a dedicated rack so it doesn't impede on public space like this picture. That's all. This will clarify the law and I am sure we will find a workable solution that expands bike shares! 
Posted on: 2016/3/29 1:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bike Share Flap Pits JC vs. Hoboken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
You are correct. 1) the bikes were taking up space on the public racks that we put for residents. If anyone believes that picture was "natural flow of bikes" early on a weekday morning and not placed there by the bike share...then I have a bridge to sell them :) 2) the complaints came from residents who have for years commuted to the path stop with their own bike and couldn't find space on the public racks because of the bikes placed by the competing bike share 3) Hoboken wanted 3 dedicated spots in Jersey City in exchange for 1 dedicated Citibike spot in Hoboken. Understandably, we would need a situation that was equitable (3 for 3) in order for that to be ok with the company with whom we were contracted. We offered that to Hoboken 3 citibike spots in Hoboken in exchange for 3 Hudson Bike share spots in Jersey City. They said no. That speaks for itself. If you ask me Hoboken made the bad decision in the first place by not choosing to connect to the bike share being used in NYC. Some Jersey City residents can cut their daily communting costs in basically half because of the connection to the Manhatten system. However, each city had their own priorities and values which is fine. What is not fine is for a private/for profit company to take up all the public bike rack space in Jersey City without an agreement with the city. It amounts to operating a business illegally, especially when the city has already contracted with someone else. Hopefully Hoboken will change their mind and decide to work with us. Because expanding the bike share program is what we should be doing, but we need to do it in a way that is fair to Jersey City residents and in a way that respects legal contracts we are in.
Posted on: 2016/3/28 22:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Parking Permit to 11:00 PM
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
1) there is nothing today after 3pm given the two hour grace window and the fact that it ends at 5pm. It's completely false to say I'm giving businesses something because in fact I am imposing an enforcement of three hours when there is zero enforcement if one parks after 3pm and leaves by 10am the next day. I'm not comfortable moving from zero rules to 2 hours in the evening. Having different rules in daytime vs evening time would be a complete disaster unless we totally redesigned the signs. Really wouldn't make sense for a pilot. 2) I am 100% listening to community. Hamilton park took a vote and by 3 to 1 supported this. It's only going in the zones where neighbors wanted to try the pilot and not touching the others. 3) So logically one should be against this if you find there is not good parking in the day time because expanding the window could exacerbate the daytime problem. However, if you feel the vast majority of parking issues are in the late afternoon and evening then you should support this. I'm doing this because I believe it will alleviate the issues at night by getting people in buildings to use their parking but without negatively impacting the existing restaurant business as they have no rules impacting them today.
Posted on: 2016/2/24 19:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Parking Permit to 11:00 PM
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Baby steps...but point taken. Will add to list of things we should consider piloting.
Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Totally agree and they very well might (I just personally don't know it.)
Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
To address a couple of points here:
1- if the address isn't covered in the zone definition it doesn't matter if the building has parking or not, it still isn't eligible for zone parking. So the answer on this isn't clear cut but depends on the building. 2 - the vast majority of buildings downtown that have parking availability are NOT filled up 3 - parking authority has list of all buildings with 30 or more units and if the address is included in zone parking they don't give out permits unless they demonstrate the parking is full. I get the complaints from those residents who think it isn't fair that they have to pay for parking and other residents don't.
Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Household car ownership in Jersey City is 62%. I've not seen numbers for downtown specifically but one could only imagine it's lower.
Posted on: 2016/2/24 3:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Parking Permit to 11:00 PM
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Couple of points: 1- Parking Division was on a hiring freeze until recently until merger with city was complete and everything "shook out" (for lack of a better word). They now have go ahead to hire. 2 - The Parking Division has signed on to this change and will handle enforcement. 3 - You are correct that for the police department this is not the top priority (nor can/should it be with the current east district staffing) 4 - There are a certain percentage of people who actually obey laws. I know it seems like a rarity often times in Jersey City where this is sometimes an unfortunate attitude of "do what you want...", but for some, even the posting of the sign will work. However when all is said and done, it does need enforcement, 100% The idea here is to close the loophole for those who live in buildings with parking but who drive to work. In today's world as long as they leave JC by 10 am and get back after 3pm they don't have to get a permit and can park in zone parking.
Posted on: 2016/2/24 1:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City hotel tax expanded to include Airbnb, other short-term rental services
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Just want to respond to a few things here.
1 - Prior to last night everyone doing this is technically operating outside the law. By expanding the definition of hotel, this is legitimizing what is already happening. 2 - AirBnB collects it the same way websites collect sales tax- directly from the consumer. On that note, now that websites collect sales tax...have we seen fewer and fewer people shop online? 3 - It doesn't make financial sense for the city to go after $20 here and $20 there. So, if someone is posting on Craigs List or rent to a family/friend they technically should be collecting and remitting the tax, but the reality is it wouldn't be worth enforcing. Where it IS worth enforcing is where we have network effect (i.e. hundreds of hotel rentals in one place.) AirBnB is a perfect example of this. We will spend time enforcing there and the method is simple, the network collects and remits the fee payed by the non Jersey City resident. 4 - I personally have never chosen one city over another in terms of where I was staying on vacation because of the hotel taxes which vary by municipality. I'm certainly annoyed when I get my bill and I see the tax, but it doesn't change my behavior. I am willing to bet (as evidenced by my sponsoring this legislation) that people make their decision to be in JC based on proximity to NYC, transportation options to NYC and relative lower cost. 5 - I reached out to Uber when I found out what was going on in Trenton (aka "safety" regulations.) When I met with Uber a couple of weeks ago, I expressed my concerns on the impact to Jersey City if the legislation goes through, because I feel like it will limit options for residents. They are VERY concerned about that legislation and during the course of our conversation they said they are open to having some type of fees and/or tax. It is the over-regulation they are concerned with. As an FYI - there are 15,000 (you read that right) trips on Uber that begin in Jersey City each week. There are 603 Uber drivers who live in Jersey City (the vast majority who use it for supplemental income.) Uber would not give me numbers on the average income of each of those people, but I did ask a driver and he told me it provided an extra $400-600 a week for him. That is real money. Uber has lowered the cost and increased the service for consumers and provided meaningful supplemental income opportunities for residents. And so we do need to make sure it is protected. I 100% agree. From my early conversations with them, they do not think fees will hurt their model, they think over regulation will.
Posted on: 2015/4/9 13:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Downtown Jersey City businesses take on local farmers market
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Sad face... you JCListers are too cynical! I wasn't trying to obfuscate - I just misunderstood/read to fast. So it is two things driving the fact that you are seeing fewer food trucks: 1) markets were part of the reasons you saw food trucks (they were legal there under markets) and they end in December and 2) food trucks were illegally parked there during non-market hours and they are probably being enforced due to business owners calling in complaints. That is why I say that the root of the problem here is that the legislation surrounding food trucks overall is no good and needs to be overhauled. Thriving brick and mortar is not mutually exclusive to food trucks. We should obviously be encouraging food innovation. Solutions for food trucks is something that is 100% being worked on.
Posted on: 2015/2/26 20:07
|
|||
|
||||