terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

ecoindie wrote:
@Terrence McDonald, what is the Councilwoman's response to not enforcing her own ordinance and passing the buck to businesses?

The councilwoman told business owners last week that she wants and has asked for more enforcement. She said it's the admin that has said on-duty officers are needed elsewhere.

EasyGibson wrote:
If you accept your minor amount of litter just because some collective of assholes somewhere else has a larger amount of litter, you will also end up with that amount of litter.

Best cure for litter, pick that shit up, man.

My older relatives used to boast that they had "the cleanesta street inna all of Broooook-a-leen."
Guy swept his block daily. Daily. That's like psychopathic levels of cleanliness in my eyes, but it's a solid reminder that if you want something done, do it. Others will be inspired, or at the very least, feel guilty enough that they won't throw their Starbucks cup in your bushes in front of you.

PDubs wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

chungang wrote:
As an investor in properties throughout the US, I would ALWAYS recommend you get a buyer's agent and here is why:

The Seller's Agent ONLY represents the Seller. If he/she deals directly with a buyer without an agent, he/she is now a DUAL AGENT and must disclose to the buyer he/she is a Dual Agent. What does it mean as a dual agent? This means that he/she cannot advise on negotiating ANYTHING for the buyer. Ultimately the sellers agent duty is only to the SELLER, but he/she must treat the buyer fairly and still disclose information REQUIRED BY LAW.

If you have a buyer's agent, you now have someone who can help negotiate for you. If they hear from other agents that the seller is distressed, is willing to take a lower price, or any other information that can affect the price, THEY CAN share it with you to help negotiate. Again, the seller's agent can only share information he/she is REQUIRED to disclose by law. Plus, a buyer's agent will know what a property SHOULD be priced at according to the market, not based on some arbitrary price that most sellers force agents to list at.

As far as commissions go, you have NO ABILITY to negotiate a lower commission from the sale of the home as a buyer. Actually, neither a sellers agent or a buyers agent can kick you back any money from a transaction because it would be a violation of Federal and State Law. The listing contract is between the seller and the seller's agent and can only be modified by mutual consent. Only if you hold a real estate license from any state can you ask for a referral fee. I hold one in another state for just that reason.

My recommendation is definitely GET A BUYERS AGENT. You DON'T have to sign an exclusive unless you're very comfortable with the agent and they're working really hard to find you the right place. Just remember that agents are only paid on commission, so all that time they spend taking you around to properties, doing research, etc. is UNPAID unless you contract through them.

A smart agent will ask as soon as possible if you are working with another agent. That way each of you don't waste each other's time.

thanks REALTOR. Guess who realtors - buying and selling - represent most often and have a loyalty to more so than anyone else? THEMSELVES. Guess what the goal of a realtor is - to sell homes. Not to sell the home of your dreams. Guess what happens when the deal closes and you are not happy with the home you bought? The realtor still gets to keep his or her commission.

A realtor is a glorified door opener and chauffeur. Can you name one type of information that as a home buyer - you don't have access to that realtors do?

Price comps - Available
Listings - Available
Neighborhood crime stats - Available
Restaurants in the area - Available
Building & home history - Available

Now if you want a person to pressure you to buy a home so they can make 3% as a buyer's agent then go right ahead. But getting all the info you need is readily available. PLUS, your realtor is not required to give you all the above info that I mentioned. You can ask and your realtor can pick and choose that info. AGAIN, a realtor's main goal is to sell homes and whether you like it or dislike it afterwards, the realtor still gets paid.


This is why being an informed buyer using the sellers agent works. I'll give a concrete example.

Home is listed for 100,000. Seller's agent gets 3% commission when split or full 6% if they represent the seller and buyer.

If they represent you (buyer) and sell the home at 95k, they get 5700. OR you can bring in a realtor and they sell at 100k and they get 3k.

The realtor selling the home earns more money convincing the homeowner to sell at 95k than at 100k. You (the buyer) benefits.

Simple math. Done.

]

I'm a realtor. I don't see why someone would go direct to the listing agent. Although dual agency is common, how can one person have the best interest of two parties in mind? It's inherently a conflict.

Your logic is flawed and many people assume that this is the way it works. A listing agent isn't going to "sell" a lower offer; although they're not supposed to, they may tell you where the offer needs to be in order to win the bid. At the end of the day, you're going to pay fair market for the property. What does happen sometimes is that the listing agent will take a lower percentage if they represent both parties. Thats almost always a 1% discount to the seller.

Working with a *good* buyers agent definitely has it's benefits. I work in a large office downtown and I have access to many listings before they hit the market. Since it's become such a sellers market, more and more deals are getting done off market. Additionally, most properties that hit the market have multiple offers within days; there are many ways to make an offer more attractive - it's not just purchase price that a seller is looking for (although that is obviously at the top of the list). A good agent will help you navigate that process.

It's not like YOU are paying the agent as a buyer, so why not take advantage of their dedication and market knowledge?

chungang wrote:
As an investor in properties throughout the US, I would ALWAYS recommend you get a buyer's agent and here is why:

The Seller's Agent ONLY represents the Seller. If he/she deals directly with a buyer without an agent, he/she is now a DUAL AGENT and must disclose to the buyer he/she is a Dual Agent. What does it mean as a dual agent? This means that he/she cannot advise on negotiating ANYTHING for the buyer. Ultimately the sellers agent duty is only to the SELLER, but he/she must treat the buyer fairly and still disclose information REQUIRED BY LAW.

If you have a buyer's agent, you now have someone who can help negotiate for you. If they hear from other agents that the seller is distressed, is willing to take a lower price, or any other information that can affect the price, THEY CAN share it with you to help negotiate. Again, the seller's agent can only share information he/she is REQUIRED to disclose by law. Plus, a buyer's agent will know what a property SHOULD be priced at according to the market, not based on some arbitrary price that most sellers force agents to list at.

As far as commissions go, you have NO ABILITY to negotiate a lower commission from the sale of the home as a buyer. Actually, neither a sellers agent or a buyers agent can kick you back any money from a transaction because it would be a violation of Federal and State Law. The listing contract is between the seller and the seller's agent and can only be modified by mutual consent. Only if you hold a real estate license from any state can you ask for a referral fee. I hold one in another state for just that reason.

My recommendation is definitely GET A BUYERS AGENT. You DON'T have to sign an exclusive unless you're very comfortable with the agent and they're working really hard to find you the right place. Just remember that agents are only paid on commission, so all that time they spend taking you around to properties, doing research, etc. is UNPAID unless you contract through them.

A smart agent will ask as soon as possible if you are working with another agent. That way each of you don't waste each other's time.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

RickSp wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Anyone who wants to label Trump as delusional must also label Mrs. Clinton as the same, no? After all, she claimed to be dodging bullets upon landing in Bosnia, when in fact she was greeted by a young woman who wrote her a poem. Chelsea was alongside her.

The standard fallback among conservatives when backed into a corner...."Well, what about Hillary?" I am surprised you didn't mention Benghazi.

Unlike the clown with the combover who keeps repeating the same bald-faced lie, Hillary admitted she was wrong. That is the difference between being an adult and being Donald Trump.

Incorrect. The mayor of NY, the chief of police of NY, and a zillion people noted some Muslims celebrating. Hillary's lie was 'splained' away after she was caught, and had exactly zero basis in fact. Rushing from the plane to the limo under sniper fire, versus strolling down the gangway, taking a poem called 'Peace' from a young girl with your own daughter alongside was a total fabrication.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Why stop at 15? Make is $100 per hour!

You can go to an extreme so why can't I go to the other extreme? If a minimum wage is so bad and a job killer, why not get rid of it and have employers be able to pay whatever they want to desperate workers?

For example, why shouldn't Apple, a multi billion dollar company, be able to pay workers $2 an hour here in America to make iphones if unemployed workers (maybe the homeless, injured, or even our children! (lazy children) are willing to accept it? We would have 100% employment!

Singapore does not have a minimum wage and their per capita income and living standards are on par with or better than America.

Not saying this is the way to go, but this extreme is actually practical and can be beneficial. Whereas the "progressive" extreme is pure lunacy.

MDM wrote:
Why stop at 15? Make is $100 per hour!

Yvonne wrote:
For years, Jersey City has been providing health services for the poor for uninsured children, adults and seniors. It also provides for the treatment of STDs. With our high population of immigrants in JC without health insurance, I am concerned about this. The city has always provide these services with some if not all state funding. What is the purpose of this? I still remember Fulop trying to give the EMS contract to Carepoint, so what is the purpose of closing down our services and giving out the contracts?
I suspect Fulop want to give contracts to his political friends that donate to his campaign.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

I bet the picture for prime downtown neighborhoods is very different.

Downtown Jersey City Foreclosures
35 results. I know two out of the 35

The Heights Jersey City Foreclosures
158 results.

Greenville Jersey City Foreclosures
269 results.


Journal Square Jersey City Foreclosures
51 results.

Bergen-Lafayette Jersey City Foreclosures
108 results.

There are shitty areas of DTJC too. Maybe those 35 are dumps. Or the homeowner lost their job.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH who cares. They are under water.

user1111 wrote:
Don't get butt hurt, they are under water and one of them post here regularly. No need for me to make shit up. Get over it.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
More than 240K N.J. mortgages said to be 'seriously underwater' What bubble?

I wonder if you have to further break down the statistics, by ward or neighborhood. For instance, in NYC there are lots of foreclosures in outlying, less gentrified areas like Flatbush but practically none in Manhattan. The average may not show the full picture

I know many of my fellow owners in our building in the Heights are either underwater or equity neutral, because the Heights is still stuck in the doldrums. I bet the picture for prime downtown neighborhoods is very different.

I have two personal friends downtown who are under water. Their condos are nit worth what they paid in 2006.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
JC and Hoboken will lose Abbott status when NJ comes up with something better. And that should be based more on student outcomes and not about who pays - 2 areas that have been spectacular failures of Abbott.

Reality: as long as 80% of black kids are born out of wedlock, to largely single mothers, student outcomes will never ever improve. A massive cultural shift is needed, yet people still refuse to acknowledge that this internal problem even exists.

So throw all the money you want at the problem, engineer all sorts of different funding schemes, unless the nuclear family model begins to rise in the black community, student outcomes will never change. And people can scratch their heads or blame outside forces all they want.

JCMan8 wrote

Oh, and don't forget that we must throw any notion of personal responsibility out the window. She should be able to drink as much as she wants without fear of consequences!

JCishome wrote:
Plus, using the phrase "seek help" is an automatic mark of a d*bag.

JCishome wrote:

I do love that her "usual" drink intake is 8-9 cocktails, and she says that like "oh yeah, isn't that true for everybody?"

On_The_3rd wrote:
I love the idea but there is no way in hell a bridge of that span would be built just for foot traffic. You can also bet your sweet ass that "toll" would be collected which would make the practicality of it, well, unpractical.

Again, love the idea but a more logical plan would be to open existing bridges/tunnels to pedestrian traffic.

http://my.transalt.org/site/Calendar? ... aign=2015ADVO-Harbor-Ring

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

jcwalkingman wrote:
Did you even look at the numbers? Why did you post something that completely disproves your point? LOL


Downtown Jersey City:
Murders per 100,000: 8
Rapes per 100,000: 14
Assault per 100,000: 344
Violent crime per 100,000: 644

Harrison:
Murders per 100,000: 0
Rapes per 100,000: 0
Assault per 100,000: 222 (35% lower than downtown Jersey City's rate)
Violent crime per 100,000: 451

You are TOO funny.


As for condos coming online next year, Oakman is aiming for Dec 2016, and 213-215 Bay should be complete by that time too. It sounds like Gulls Cove II will be complete by Spring 2017, and Provost Square phase II is looking like early 2018.

You work for fox news? Way to distort the facts. First of all, there is more than two times more people in dtjc than harrison....

JCW was talking about rates, not absolute numbers. Crime rates are a reasonably good way to compare the relative safety of two areas.

The differences between DTJC and Harrison aren't that big. However, it does appear that Harrison is slightly safer.

We should note that both are slightly safer than Manhattan.


Quote:

What you want to know, and I said it in my earlier post, is the percentage of chance you are likely to be a victim. In harrison it is higher..

The chance of being a victim of violent crime in Harrison is 1 in 222. In DTJC, it is 1 in 288.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. I'm not even sure how you came up with those numbers, unless you conflated a rate with absolute counts.

FYI, Journal Square has a higher crime rate than both of those areas, around 737 per 100k. For perspective, Camden is around 2,566 violent crimes per 100k.

You are slightly more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in DTJC than Harrison. Not much, just a little.

I don't think the difference is big enough to draw anyone to Harrison over DTJC. But people may currently prefer Harrison over Journal Square.

jcwalkingman wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

Safer? No
http://www.areavibes.com/harrison-nj/crime/

http://www.areavibes.com/jersey+city-nj/downtown/crime/

Look at the chances of being a victim of violent crime and property crime in both areas.

If space is what you are looking for, I hear you can get a lot of space in tulsa oklahoma..

I know a colleague who moved from Manhattan back to the south with his family. I should mention that he got laid off...

So yeah, I guess it does depend on circumstances..

Did you even look at the numbers? Why did you post something that completely disproves your point? LOL


Downtown Jersey City:
Murders per 100,000: 8
Rapes per 100,000: 14
Assault per 100,000: 344
Violent crime per 100,000: 644

Harrison:
Murders per 100,000: 0
Rapes per 100,000: 0
Assault per 100,000: 222 (35% lower than downtown Jersey City's rate)
Violent crime per 100,000: 451

You are TOO funny.


As for condos coming online next year, Oakman is aiming for Dec 2016, and 213-215 Bay should be complete by that time too. It sounds like Gulls Cove II will be complete by Spring 2017, and Provost Square phase II is looking like early 2018.