Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
70 user(s) are online (24 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 69

tern, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Dolomiti)




Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

stc4blues wrote:
I still don't understand what's going on with this $78M. De we have:

1. Doners' giving $78M to a non-profit entity, which then
2. loans it to a for-profit entity (against the value of the land?),
3. which must then repay the loan to the non-profit entity. Hence,
4. The City's 50/50 split of the net doesn't kick in until that loan is repaid.

Is that what's going on?

That's not my understanding.

1. LSC fundraises and gets $78m from donors
2. LSC will invite investors for another $55m worth
3. LSC takes out loans for the rest of the project
4. Nothing has to be repaid to the donors
5. The city starts getting paid for the land, after the project makes $78m in profits; they are paid 50% of subsequent profits.
6. Once the land is paid off, the city's share drops to 20%.

Posted on: Today 11:24
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
@dolomiti, the Jersey Avenue is a done deal....

Show me the paperwork.

Better yet, show me the bridge.


Quote:
Here's Fulop on this

The city would share in revenue only after profits hit $78 million. That is the amount in donations from LSC's donor base that LSC expects to divert to SciTech Scity to get the project moving, according to Fulop.

Now why wouldn't the donors just give the 'donation' to the LSC new project? Why does it need to be paid back?

Holy ****.

The donors ARE giving their donations to the LSC for the project.

THE DONORS ARE NOT GETTING ANYTHING BACK.

Read it again. The phrase "PAID BACK" is never used in that paragraph, or in Fulop's post.

Nothing in there says the donors get repaid. The deal is structured so the City only starts getting paid back after the project has turned a profit of $78m. That number could have been $50m or $20m or $150m.

Again, I have no idea why they picked $78m, I'd say they should have selected a different number to avoid confusing people.

The more legitimate complaint is that it's going to take a long, long time for the city to be repaid. While I for one do not care, at least that complaint makes sense.

Posted on: Today 11:16
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
@dolomiti, if it's not a loan, why does whoever put up the $78 million get it paid back (ahead of the city, who is giving up a very valuable piece of land without which the project is impossible?)

How many times and ways do I have to say it?

THEY ARE NOT GETTING REPAID.

That's why it is called a donation. When I donate money to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I do not expect to get it back, it's not a loan, I am not going to get repaid.

Nothing in anything I've seen suggests that the donors will be paid back. Nothing. Nothing.


Quote:
As far as the costs of operating a school, if only the building is 'free' shouldn't JC project what the other costs are...

Good gravy. Does that really matter? Should we start closing existing schools because having more schools incurs some additional costs?

Yes, it will cost a bit more to add a school. But opening a new school does not add students to the district. We have to pay for their education one way or another. The hope is that the added costs for the school will be accompanied by improved outcomes for the students, which also enhances the reputation of JC.

Posted on: Today 11:08
Top


Re: U.S. Sen. Menendez - new federal investigation
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Now this should be interesting to watch... this was a political hit job from the previous admin "non- political" DOJ... now with all the NJ connections in the WH. What can we do to make this all go away?

Let's start watching how the senator starts voting? Starting with a Scotus vote?

Meh... I see no indication that the case has in any way affected his voting habits.

Posted on: 3/22 9:48
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Silly comment. First, the projected project will have access to Johnston Avenue and Phillips Street. Second, the extension of Jersey Avenue into LSP is planned. So yes, it's a direct comparison.

Yes, I was measuring the time to drive from Phllips to Grand; it's around 10 minutes.

I've heard talk of the extension. But it obviously does not currently exist; is not a done deal; and there is no ETA. And I see little indication that its planned existence is included in the property values in the surrounding neighborhood.

And again, if the city sells it to the highest bidder, what will be put there? 10 or 20 story condos? A casino? A big conference center? How much do you think those projects will push for big abatements?


Quote:
As far as the 'donation', since it's being paid back....

Incorrect. Yet again, there is NO repayment. They are donations.


Quote:
Since we know JC school aid is frozen from the state, and likely diminish because of School Adjustment Aid reforms, what will be the cost to JC taxpayers for this 'free school'?

Why gosh, let's think about this.

Let's say I give you a car. You then pout and proclaim "It's not free, because now I have to pay for the gas, insurance and maintenance!" Does that sound right to you?

The developers are building a public school from scratch, at no cost to the city or its taxpayers. I'd say that qualifies as "free."

Posted on: 3/21 11:56
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
How can the land be estimated at $20 when developers brought land one minute by car according to the google map for $35 million? That land is 7 1/2 acres.

It's not 1 minute by car. It's more like 10 minutes.

Unless they build a vehicular bridge over the Morris Canal, there is no direct route between the LSC lot and downtown.

We see this differential in lots for sale. E.g. there's a lot at 379 Communipaw, .25 acres for $200k. Another lot is at 423 Grand is .33 acres and... $4 million.

And those two lots are only a 3 minute drive apart.

Is it news to you that in real estate, location is critical?

Posted on: 3/20 10:24
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Sorry, Dolomiti, I mistyped-it is 78 million. And in this link, the exec dir of the JCRA says that

'the Science center is currently raising 78 million of the 280 million cost and THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID BACK FIRST FROM REVENUE GENERATED.'

I think you're failing to understand the structure.

The $78 million being raised now are donations. Not loans, no expectation of being paid back. If it's getting reimbursed, then it's not a donation. And yes, the term "donation" is used consistently in every article I've seen on this project.

After the project has turned $78m in profits, then the city starts getting 50% of the profits until the cost of the land is repaid. After that, the city gets 20% of profits.

I have no idea why they settled on the same number. My guess is that the initial $78m goes into an endowment.


Quote:
Do we know if they're borrowing against their endowment (if they have one), or will the city float bonds for this-who gives anyone 78 million with the expectation of getting it back without a plan, and that's before JC gets the land value back.

While I understand your confusion, and think they should probably have picked another number to start paying for the land at a different number to avoid exactly that confusion:

There is no repayment.

There is no borrowing.

There is no loan.

There are no bonds.

There is a plan.

Posted on: 3/20 9:59
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I respectfully disagree. They haven't put a value on the land.

It's estimated at $20 million. They just haven't had it formally appraised yet.


Quote:
They don't have a single projection of what, if any, profit will be realized.

Yes, probably because that doesn't matter much. Getting the school, plus a better project than a bunch of condos, is a decent deal -- even without getting direct revenue any time soon.

I mean, really. Would you feel better if the city told you it'd be repaid in 20 years? Would that give you the warm fuzzies?

You do understand that the goal is to help the project succeed, rather than treat it like a revenue generator?

Or, let's compare this to a similar project. NYC had around 14 acres of unused space on the south end of Roosevelt Island -- and I'm guessing that's worth more than $20 million. Instead of selling it to the highest bidder, they donated the land and $100 million to Cornell University for a $2 billion science and technology graduate school.

So instead of thinking of this as lost revenue, or being utterly mercenary about every public project, think of it more as a (hopefully) good project that benefits JC as a whole, far more than a one-time sale.


Quote:
Without the value (cost basis), and the payback plan (what is the expected revenue from the gift shop/other 'profit' generators?)

good grief

Again, the revenues will come almost entirely from rents on the commercial and residential parts of the project. Not from a non-existent gift shop.


Quote:
How long will it take to 'pay back' the borrowed $85 million, before JC gets a cent back from the 'profit' generators?

What are you talking about? What $85 million loan? Where did you get this from?

They're raising $78 million in donations -- not loans, not credit, not venture capital. Donations. There is no requirement for that to be paid back.


Quote:
I'll repeat what I've said-I'd give Steve props if he just came out and told us the truth-the $ don't make sense, but he wants to do it anyway. If all these donors are waiting to jump aboard, let them pay fair market price for the land.

I have no idea what he does and doesn't know, and of course there is more to this than a few paragraphs on a local web forum. However, there certainly is a plan, and we seem to know most of the critical elements. I see no indication that he's leaving a bunch of sneaky clauses out. Rather, I see what could be a good project that enhances the city, and in particular benefits our students.

Posted on: 3/18 16:21
Top


Re: Stop the give away of taxpayers' city owned land. Ordinance 17-023
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I don't disagree with any of your points, Dolomiti. I'll clarify my point: I don't believe Sci-Tech City, as originally planned, is economically feasible and thus will never be built or significantly scaled back from the fancy renderings we're seeing now.

I see no reason for such dire pessimism, especially since this is the kind of project that tends to draw big donations - and LSC has lots of corporate donors, and was able to raise $110 million just to renovate the existing building.

And I'm not sure what will happen if the project completely and utterly fails, but I doubt that LSC will be allowed to scrap the deal, and sell the land to a casino instead.


Quote:
The entire site is 16 acres. Three or four or those acres will need to be sold to traditional developments to maximize the highest and best use of the land in order to fund the other improvements, in my opinion.

That's nice, but your opinion seems to have no basis in fact, or in any description I've heard of the contracts.


Quote:
Please, someone, prove me wrong and demonstrate that Liberty Science Center has the financial capacity to carry out SciTech City as planned.

What proof would you accept?

Posted on: 3/18 15:41
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
While I appreciate Steve coming here and giving his 2 cents, it's clear that there isn't a plan, but there is a dream.

Sure sounds like a plan.

They have a master plan; programming; a purpose; a board of directors; a structure for repaying the city for the land. They have more than enough of a plan to fundraise.

Given that construction won't start until at least late 2018, and it won't open until around 2021, how much more of a plan do you expect to see at this point?

LSC also has numerous corporate donors. Johnson & Johnson, United Airlines, Bloomberg, Pfizer, PSE&G, Bank of America, BASF... the list goes on. While this certainly does not guarantee they will raise the funds they want, it doesn't make sense to assume it's doomed from the start.

Sorry, but your comments just sounds like just sour grapes.

Posted on: 3/18 15:29
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
What's the cost to relocate the Liberty Humane Society, including providing them a new home? Will they be given that land/building too?

It doesn't look like LHS has to move. You can see the LHS building is still extant in the preliminary rendering.

Resized Image



Posted on: 3/16 11:24
Top


Re: Wow - LSC's Updated Plans for SciTech Scity
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
JC hasn't paid for a school in recent years anyway-Abbott and the NJ taxpayers have been paying, so this isn't saving JC a penny-it's not been spending its own money anyway.

Was the state talking about building a science-oriented public school in JC any time soon? Yes? No?


Quote:
No risk?

Correct.

The city is not investing any funds directly into the program, gets more input on the use of the space, and gets a school. Even if the city never earns any additional revenues, it hasn't lost a dime.

Maybe you can make a case that there is an opportunity cost. However, pretty much any other use of the land would involve larger structures, and very likely something residents don't want (like a high-rise building and/or casino). I.e. selling the land to developers means a less desirable project and/or loss of control. So make sure you add that to your calculations.


Quote:
Well, giving away a valuable piece of land with no likely return (we haven't seen a single spreadsheet or study showing how long/if $78 million would be paid back, let alone whatever 'valuation' is placed on this land)

I find it odd that you view the land as incredibly valuable, but not valuable enough that commercial and rental properties on the land can possibly ever turn a profit. Hmmmmmm.

Posted on: 3/16 11:21
Top


Re: Stop the give away of taxpayers' city owned land. Ordinance 17-023
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
So LSC is 'raising' 78 million that will have to be repaid-that's a loan, right?

Apparently not.

The LSC wants to raise $78 million in donations for the project. The deal also makes $78 million the point at which the city starts getting its cut.


Quote:
Where is that money coming from?

Rents on commercial and residential space, as well as events in the conference center.


Quote:
So we don't know the value of the land, we don't know the revenue stream the LSC will tap to pay for the land, we don't know how long that will take (if ever)-sounds like Nancy Pelosi talking about Obamacare-you have to pass it to know what's in it!

sigh

I've already said (and understandably you might have missed) that I support getting an assessment sooner rather than later. That said, it's not much of a stretch to ballpark the value of the land -- as well as the value of the public school that will be built there.

Thus, from what I can tell, the deal is:
- City donates valuable land
- City gets back a public school, and cash after $78m is brought in
- A relatively low-height project, that isn't a casino or hotel right next to LSP, and provides something unique to the NYC area
- All of this at no financial risk to the city

It's really hard to see how this is a bad deal for JC.

Posted on: 3/16 10:26
Top


Re: NOAA Knew NYC Was Not Getting a Blizzard by Noon on Monday! Fake News?
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Mao wrote:

WEATHER SERVICE DECIDED LAST MINUTE NOT TO CUT SNOW FORECAST
BY SETH BORENSTEIN
AP SCIENCE WRITER

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Before the first snow fell, U.S. meteorologists realized there was a good chance the late-winter storm wasn't going to produce giant snow totals in big Northeast cities as predicted.

But they didn't change their forecasts because they said they didn't want to confuse the public.

Seems pretty straightforward.

And you're complaining about this... why exactly? Did you not actually read the article you copied?

P.S. learn to edit those kinds of posts, kthx

Posted on: 3/15 13:14
Top


Re: Stop the give away of taxpayers' city owned land. Ordinance 17-023
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

StevenFulop wrote:
This info was provided to the council and some advocates per their questions.

Thanks for sharing the info here, by the way. Very useful info about the project.

Posted on: 3/15 13:11
Top


Re: Stop the give away of taxpayers' city owned land. Ordinance 17-023
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:



Quote:
Now we're to believe that a $22 Million organization, which can't break even, can build a $230 Million++ SciTech Scity. The redeveloper is UNKNOWN...

LSC is in charge, and have appointed trustees. They are raising money already for the project. It's a bit early for too much more than a master plan.

Oddly enough, Fulop hated the 2008 loan, and is backing this plan. Go figure.

I also have to say, I vastly prefer to the previous plan, which was a 10 story hotel and conference center. Don't you?


Why not also include a hotel and conference center on a portion of the site if it makes the project and Sci-Tech City more economically feasible.

10 story hotel and huge conference center is not a good fit for the site in general.

That said, it sounds like the site will have a small conference center, and 50 units of temporary housing for visitors.

It's also a little difficult to have a big hotel and conference center occupying the same space as a project that combines commercial, residential and a school.

Posted on: 3/15 13:10
Top


Re: Stop the give away of taxpayers' city owned land. Ordinance 17-023
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
What is the current profit stream of the LSC?

It's a non-profit.


Quote:
What is the projected profit stream, how long will it take for the initial $78,000.000 loan to be repaid before JC can receive even a single penny towards the (untold) valuation of the land being given?

What loan? They are raising funds from investors.

As Fulop posted, the city is not taking any direct financial risk in connection with this project.


Quote:
Other than 'gift shop' revenue/profit, what other profit streams will be in place? If the property is valued at, say, 22 million-how long will it take for LSC to generate the 100 million it will owe the stakeholders and JC?

EdgeWorks: Office space for science and technology startups; includes a small conference space and theater; may offer some programs for the public

Scholars Village: 266 housing units. 154 are for graduate students in STEM programs. 50 units are short-term for visitors.

https://jerseydigs.com/liberty-science ... ech-scity-in-jersey-city/

I wouldn't expect it to be profitable any time soon. They're investors, they take their risks, that's how capitalism works. More or less.

Posted on: 3/15 13:07
Top


Re: Stop the give away of taxpayers' city owned land. Ordinance 17-023
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

mia wrote:
On March 22nd, ordinance 17-023 is up for a 2nd reading and a vote. This is a short 11minute video that you can watch on YouTube . The ordinance transfers 16 acres of very valuable city-owned land to the JC Redevelopment Agency for $1. Then the JCRA sells the land to the Liberty Science Center's redeveloper of their choice to build the $230 Million Tech Center.

Last I heard, LSC is going to pay for the land.

It'll be assessed before the sale.

If you set up something to advocate an earlier assessment, that sounds fine to me. Calling the whole thing off? Not so much.


Quote:
The City loaned the LSC $2.5 million in 2008 as they were strapped. Who knows if they ever paid it back!

They got a loan in 2008, when the entire US economy was in a tailspin. It was a bridge loan, due in 2010. It was a whopping 10% of their operating budget, and they asked for it because the state slashed its grant to the LSC. (Fulop opposed the loan, by the way.)

Oddly enough, they haven't asked for additional loans since then.

If you're trying to tar the LSC as fiscally irresponsible, you're going to have to do more than say "they took out a small loan 9 years ago!!!"


Quote:
Now we're to believe that a $22 Million organization, which can't break even, can build a $230 Million++ SciTech Scity. The redeveloper is UNKNOWN...

LSC is in charge, and have appointed trustees. They are raising money already for the project. It's a bit early for too much more than a master plan.

Oddly enough, Fulop hated the 2008 loan, and is backing this plan. Go figure.

I also have to say, I vastly prefer to the previous plan, which was a 10 story hotel and conference center. Don't you?

Posted on: 3/14 19:16
Top


Re: Jersey City mulls changes to pedestrian plaza to address rowdy bar-goers
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

mndpacer04 wrote:
I am glad I moved from Grove Pointe to Paulus Hook when they added the bars downstairs. I knew the QOL would drop with that addition.

How high up was your apartment?

Or was it more the noise etc when you were coming home?

Posted on: 3/13 12:33
Top


Re: Jersey City mulls changes to pedestrian plaza to address rowdy bar-goers
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

iGreg wrote:
It was much better before they closed it off, seems like almost a 3rd of the storefronts are empty on that street now.

Wow. Exaggerate much? Vacancy is pretty low on that stretch of Newark Ave. There's also a number of new businesses, not all of which are restaurants.


Quote:
Anyone else remember when it was a servicable road that actually allowed traffic to pass down past the PATH entrance.

Yes, that was like.... 2 years ago

The Pedestrian Plaza is still, on the whole, a big win -- and is not, ultimately, causing this problem. If there was no plaza, we'd still have a bunch of drunk & disorderly people milling about, yelling at the top of their lungs while stumbling towards their cars.

Posted on: 3/13 9:50
Top


Re: Jersey City mulls changes to pedestrian plaza to address rowdy bar-goers
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

nafco wrote:
how can a place like bourbon street exist or 6 street in austin, and JC cant sustain a 2 block stretch without chaos ensuing?

Those areas ARE chaotic. Bourbon Street, State Street in Philly, downtown Galway... they're a total mess on a Friday night.


Quote:
why cant we have nice things like a ped plaza without issue?

Because even if there wasn't an issue, someone would make an issue.

Anyway: Sadly, alcohol loosens inhibitions, and makes people rowdy. This is not some grand secret that no one understands, it's why people (including me) push back on bars in residential neighborhoods.


Quote:
i think this goes beyond just booze though maybe there is more police patrolling the other places in the world that open their streets to the public after drinking hours.

I don't recall a heavy police presence in the French Quarter or similar neighborhoods.

I think they're just accustomed to it, and put up with it.

Posted on: 3/10 16:47
Top


Re: Dogs need fences
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yeah, I dunno.

It really does seem like the dog owner's responsibility to take care of their dog, and part of that means proper containment. It shouldn't be up to everyone else to properly contain someone else's dog.

Further, if the neighbor's dog(s) destroyed his fence, it seems like it would be the neighbor's responsibility to fix it.

Sounds like it is the neighbor that is the problem.

I don't know the laws in most other cities. Obviously the law isn't going to change fast enough to address the situation, so the OP has no choice but to make a solid fence on his property.

But the OP may be right. Perhaps the law does have to change.

Posted on: 3/8 23:23
Top


Re: Jersey City mulls changes to pedestrian plaza to address rowdy bar-goers
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Any cost should be paid by the bars on the plaza -- not by other businesses along Newark Ave or in the SID.

Really they should just end this!

End what, exactly?

The pedestrian plaza didn't cause this behavior, it's the liquor licenses. Hoboken experiences the same thing, all over town, on the weekends.

Posted on: 3/6 16:34
Top


Re: Jersey City mulls changes to pedestrian plaza to address rowdy bar-goers
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

ecoindie wrote:
There should always be a cop by the Path Station. No exceptions. Any excuse, is unjustifiable.

...unless the PATH itself is patrolled by PAPD, and there is essentially no crime at the Grove Street Station most of the time.


Quote:
Also, it was Candice's idea for the pedestrian plaza. So, is she telling people... "hey I put this here... but you got to pay for security." Thank goodness, there is an election in November.

She was one of many people who implemented it -- in no small part because constituents asked for it, and enjoy it.

Those businesses also profit from it, so it is not that outrageous to ask them to chip in.

The alternative is to pay for it out of the city's budget. That can make sense (after all, that is what taxes are for), but it is also to a degree asking people from all over JC to pay more to protect one downtown block. I don't see how that is inherently more fair than asking the businesses that benefit from the pedestrian plaza to chip in a little extra.

Posted on: 3/6 16:23
Top


Re: Jersey City mulls changes to pedestrian plaza to address rowdy bar-goers
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

12345 wrote:
The corrupt OFF DUTY JCPD program that is under FBI Investigation, this is what councilperson Osborne is promoting, the $60.00 per hour OVER PRICED rent a cop?
http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=36712

Hire $15.00 per hour Security Guards without guns. That is what is really needed; anything more is a WASTE.

I think you're a bit confused.

The FBI investigation is not about the City's program. It's about a bunch of officers that ran their own (unauthorized) security service, and tried to use it to shake down some construction projects.

The problem with cheapo security guards is that they can't actually enforce laws. They also don't have the same training as a real officer. You get what you pay for.

Posted on: 3/6 16:17
Top


Re: Loew's Jersey: This golden movie palace from the 1920s still shines
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Shouldn't it actually show movies to be the best movie theater?

I mean, seriously. They have NO EVENTS scheduled for the rest of the year. Zero. None, nada, zippo.

They don't even have the resources to benefit from a nice article in nj.com.

Posted on: 3/2 17:11
Top


Re: One of those sightseeing planes crashed in Bayonne today.
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
This past Sunday, a sightseeing helicopter flew above my building with about 2 to 3 feet from the building's roof line. Why do politicians talk about safety after an accident but not before?

I also call shenanigans.

Minimum altitude in an area like this is 1000' above the tallest object in a 2000' radius.

If a helicopter was buzzing a residential neighborhood, even Newport: Aside from violating FAA regs, police would have been called by dozens of residents. Heck, these days it'd be caught on a half dozen cell phones. E.g.:
http://abc13.com/news/what-was-that-l ... per-over-houston/1728987/

Posted on: 2/28 18:55
Top


Re: 3 JC Shootings in 9 Hours
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JerseyCityNj wrote:
We haven't been given a total number of victims yet for 2016 but it is higher than the previous years on record. I stopped keeping track in the summer when we passed the 2013 total.

The statistics for 2013 to 2015 are in the compstat page under the precinct stats on the black bar next to where it says "Links".

Funny thing, they haven't posted the 2016 numbers yet -- and 2013-2015 is actually fairly low

2013 = 107 shootings, 17 fatal
2014 = 86 shootings, 18 fatal
2015 = 101 shootings, 17 fatal

We also know that the number of homicides actually fell from 2015 to 2016:

2013 = 20 homicides
2014 = 23
2015 = 32
2016 = 29

And again... 2 months is not enough time to declare there's a pattern. If you look at actual rates, you see period spikes (e.g. summer 2014) that drop off quickly (fall 2014), and several months with almost no shootings (9/13, 2/14, 12/14, 2/15).

Posted on: 2/23 19:28
Top


Re: One of those sightseeing planes crashed in Bayonne today.
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Just last week, Harrison Ford was involved in an incident that nearly became a fatal plane crash.

lol... Would you like some more straws to clutch at?

Ford was flying at an airport when he had a close call. Are you now saying that airports are an unsafe place for airplanes?

No one is buying what you're selling.

Posted on: 2/22 22:52
Top


Re: 4 injured in 3 separate Jersey City weekend shootings
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JerseyCityNj wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Let's wait at least 6 months before declaring some kind of trend, hmm?

Yes I am sure about that.

Jan 2013: Non-fatal Shootings 6 Fatal Shootings 1 = Victims 7
Feb 2013: Non-fatal Shootings 2 Fatal Shootings 1 = Victims 3

Jan 2014: Non-fatal Shootings 8 Fatal Shootings 1 = Victims 10
Feb 2014: Non-fatal Shootings 1 Fatal Shootings 0 = Victims 1

Jan 2015: Non-fatal Shootings 3 Fatal Shootings 0 = Victims 5
Feb 2015: Non-fatal Shootings 1 Fatal Shootings 0 = Victims 1

Now 2016 hasn't been updated to the statistics yet but 9 more victims then the available years to compare it to seems like more than usual or more than a slight increase no?

No.

Or to be more precise, it's not particularly meaningful.

For example, if you look at the report, you'll see that there was a relatively high number of shootings in January 2014, but overall 2014 had fewer shootings than 2013 or 2015.

Criminals do not have weekly or monthly quotas for shootings. It is more random in nature, so you can easily have a big clump in one month, and then two months with far less crime. Since we notice negative events far more than the lack of negative events, and since our perceptions of crime are way out of whack with the reality, we ought to resist the attempt to discover patterns when there just isn't enough data.

It's also not clear if there were fewer assaults with other weapons during the same period of time. And again, the number of homicides hasn't changed.

The reality is that we don't have enough data to claim that there is any sort of real trend.


Quote:
I don't know if you are aware but shootings have went up two years in a row....

When was that, exactly?

2013 = 107 shootings
2014 = 86
2015 = 101


Quote:
....I was just pointing out 20 victims being unusually high in less then two months during the coldest time of the year. If I included January to March this year has already passed the total for those three months in previous years.

In case you missed it, the past few winters were terrible -- cold temperatures and lots of snow.

And this year? One snowstorm that was cleared up quickly, and warm temperatures hitting 60 this past week. Given that winter weather tends to have a mild suppressive effect on crime, it's not a huge surprise that the numbers were up slightly.

More importantly is that again, this is nowhere near enough data to reliably detect any kind of trend, or draw any valid conclusions.

Posted on: 2/21 12:00
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 26 »






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