Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
55 user(s) are online (28 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 2
Guests: 53

Yvonne, psyop, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (LimpiarElSucio)




Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Let me correct my statement, I meant to say, it did not increase voter participation. I need to type as fast as I think.


you mean you need to type as quickly as you believe you think...

Posted on: 2015/11/12 11:55
Top


Re: NJ voters overwhelmingly oppose rise in gas tax
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


raise tolls. they impact everyone that uses infrastructure. Gas taxes hurt those that cannot afford to buy a brand new fuel efficient car.

Posted on: 2015/11/12 11:51
Top


Re: Gold Coast Broadband & Verizon Fios
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

tj08901 wrote:
It is not about synergy. It is about a decent service for the price a consumer is paying. Gold Coast's is undoubtedly the worst service I have experienced. The board need to looks at whether free cable access for common areas, free wiring of the building, etc., that LH currently has is worth maintaining the exclusive contract that it currently has with Gold Coast. Other building have FIOS, Comcast, etc. (multiple options), and are still able to get the services for either free or at a cost.

This is exclusivity and lack of competition/ options needs to be looked and I will make sure it is.


Additionally, someone mentioned that the developer of LH is the owner of Gold Coast Broadband. That is 100% correct.

The only group that may have the opportunity to change its contract would be 10 regent and the other privately owned apartments... however, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave up that right in their management agreement with Grand Street Property Management (which is owned by the developer of LH)

Posted on: 2015/11/9 14:51
Top


Re: Gold Coast Broadband & Verizon Fios
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

tj08901 wrote:
It is not about synergy. It is about a decent service for the price a consumer is paying. Gold Coast's is undoubtedly the worst service I have experienced. The board need to looks at whether free cable access for common areas, free wiring of the building, etc., that LH currently has is worth maintaining the exclusive contract that it currently has with Gold Coast. Other building have FIOS, Comcast, etc. (multiple options), and are still able to get the services for either free or at a cost.

This is exclusivity and lack of competition/ options needs to be looked and I will make sure it is.


It is perfectly legal.

It is also a contributing reason to why I moved out of Liberty Harbor a few years ago.

Posted on: 2015/11/9 14:43
Top


Re: City awarding contract on health services
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


I dont even understand what you are ranting about. Typically its at least clear what you are complaining about even if your argument is muddled and nonsensical... Is everything ok?

Posted on: 2015/11/6 15:22
Top


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
No, I did not remembered it wrong, I also bring up these things at budget hearings. I don't remember seeing you at budget hearings. Sometimes I am the only one to speak. Let me give you some background, before the 1988 reval, JC had a ratable base of $800 million after reval it was between $6 to 7 billion figure. I do not recall the exact figure. When Schundler was mayor, he was giving out a lot of abatements plus many people appealed during that time. The value of JC dropped to $5.1 billion. Those 1990s, 20 years tax abatements have largely expired so the ratable base is close to $6 billion. The higher the ratable base, the lower the rate rate. Fulop is benefiting from these expired tax abatements. When Healy was mayor, the ratable base was around $5.7 billion. Fulop's 30 year tax abatement will come back and haunt future mayors down the road.


yvonne, this might help...
Resized Image

Posted on: 2015/11/3 13:34
Top


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:

Is this why he was pushing for it back in 2010 after the legislature changed the law? We've got a pretty clairvoyant mayor... :)


C'mon - you are a smart guy. (Where are you from? ) Motivations can change - he was for it back then because it was something that could help neutralize the machine. Now it serves his purposes to support it for other reasons. One does not negate the other.

The whole argument about "long, crowded, confusing ballots" is kind of silly - most people file their own taxes and everyone used to navigate phone books just fine. I wouldn't put voting on a ballot that has more than a few races and multiple candidates in each on the same level. People will manage. They almost always do.


agree but I still stand by the assertion that the optics of running for governor and then for mayor if it doesnt work are not favorable.
whatever the motivation is, it doesnt bother me as it aligns with what i believe is best for the city (improving turnout). i'm not bothered by the fact that the grocer sells me "healthy" food for profit and not the fact that they care about my nutrition.

Posted on: 2015/10/27 15:56
Top


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I guess, you never voted in 1989 municipal election catdog, where 20 mayors ran for office. Not all had a full slate, if they did that would be 60 at large, plus about 12 for the ward candidates. We had another 20 mayors run in a special election that was also packed. That special election was in November. Most seniors that voted told me they wanted to vote for Lou Manzo, instead they voted for his brother, Allen Manzo who had the top ballot. They were confused. Lou Manzo got 6,000 votes, his brother who no one heard of got 4,000 votes, the winner was Bret Schundler who benefited from the confusion with 7,000 votes.


you dont think the confusion may have been caused by two candidates having the same surname?


Posted on: 2015/10/27 15:51
Top


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:

I'm also convinced that moving the election DOES NOT provide a fallback plan for our Mayor. Fulop would have to submit his petitions for the mayoral race prior to the gubernatorial primary, if that happened Sweeney and Murphy would have a field day and it could wreck Fulop's chances for the primary (while his gubernatorial run would hurt his chances in the mayoral).


No, sir. Petitions for November elections need to be filed 63 days before the election - which usually works out to the beginning of September or the very end of August. The gubernatorial primary is the first Tuesday of June. It 100% would be a fallback for Fulop and is the primary reason he is pushing for it.


Is this why he was pushing for it back in 2010 after the legislature changed the law? We've got a pretty clairvoyant mayor... :)

Posted on: 2015/10/26 18:24
Top


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
My personal opinion:

Pros:
1. Might reduce voter fatigue

2. Might save money (though $400,000 I believe was quoted, which isn't all that much imho)

Cons (in no particular order):
1. Lets Fulop run for Mayor again with only 3 months to jump in the campaign if he loses nod for governor, using JC as a fall back plan and usurping other candidates who would have already invested much more time and money in their own campaigns. I'm not ok with any mayor using JC as a fall back plan!

2. Extends Council and Mayoral terms by 6 more months.

3. Creates a jammed ballot, potentially confusing voters and leaving them more apt to only partially complete their ballots.

4. Creates voter fatigue during the months leading up to the elections ("campaign fatigue") with an even greater onslaught of simultaneous campaigning - national, state, and municipal which includes Mayor, full council, free holders, county exec, school board and committee persons.

5. May draw more people to the polls, but doesn't guarantee more voter participation given the jammed/long ballot. There's no requirement to check every box on a ballot for any voter. I can see most people voting for President, US Senate & HR Reps, Governor, maybe state assembly, Mayor, and maybe county exec. Fatigue will set in and people will likely start to wane/fall off on checking any boxes for Council persons (4 people), Freeholder, Committee Persons, School Board(!), and the public questions.

6. Creates run-off elections in December, where cold/bad weather will reduce voter turnout.

7. Cannot be changed back to May for 10 years if it passes - we're stuck if we don't like it in practice.


I think it's a terrible idea and will be voting NO for all of the above reasons. The cons far out-weigh the Pros here.


You missed a huge positive... greater participation reduces machine politics. The reason why Cunningham supports keeping elections in May is because she is dependent on low-turnout to win.

Regarding positive 1, it is proven by numerous studies that it will reduce voter fatigue.

As for your concerns, they are nearly all hypothetical without any research to back them up.

With regard to concern 4, you really want to have it both ways dont you...

As for concern 3, it seems you think pretty poorly of your neighbors in terms of their intelligence...

I'm also convinced that moving the election DOES NOT provide a fallback plan for our Mayor. Fulop would have to submit his petitions for the mayoral race prior to the gubernatorial primary, if that happened Sweeney and Murphy would have a field day and it could wreck Fulop's chances for the primary (while his gubernatorial run would hurt his chances in the mayoral).


Posted on: 2015/10/26 13:29
Top


Re: Fulop wants to change the election from May to November
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Thank God the judge said there must be runoffs, so voters are going to come out in December when there could be a snow storm to vote in a runoff? I doubt it.


Truth is, voters hardly go to the polls during the may election (which is why we should move it to november), but even fewer show up to the run-offs.

If anything actually adds confusion to the election process it is run-offs. I wish we got rid of them completely.

Posted on: 2015/10/26 13:22
Top


Re: Monty's Public House
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


hopefully the service is faster than it takes for them to open.

my understanding of the owner is that he has no background in restaurants/bars/hospitality, rather he has a really wealth father from a persian gulf country or something who is willing to put the money up so he can tell his friends that his son is an entrepreneur in america. if true, it makes perfect sense why it is taking so long for them to open... no experience + no pressure


Posted on: 2015/10/22 14:17
Top


Re: Referendum on moving JC elections is misleading, lawsuit says
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Here is my letter to the editor:
October 13, 2015
Dear Editor,
I think democracy happened today in Judge Barisco’s court concerning the referendum on moving the Jersey City’s elections. The reason for the lawsuit was the fear of no runoffs in the municipal elections. Judge Barisco stated that does not change, runoffs will continue in our elections. I also thank the Judge from removing language that was not necessary for the voting process.
I went to the Freeholders to ask about the change of election from the Jersey City and was told they received nothing so I gave them the resolution which eventually lead to the mock-up ballot.
I urge the public to vote no. We do not need a crowded ballot. I remember 20 people running for mayor. If each mayoral candidate had a full slate, then that is 60 candidates plus perhaps a dozen ward candidates. No one can predict the future so let’s not overwhelmed the ballot.
The judge request a payment of $2,500 to fix the ballot, sometimes it is worth spending money to keep democracy safe. My grandmother went to jail as a suffrage to give women the right to vote so this is a small price to pay.
I also want to thank Bill Matsidoudis for representing this matter in court.

Yvonne Balcer




of course none of them had a full slate. and it will never happen, especially with such low turnout in municipal elections as it is hard enough to find 2 candidates for ward council positions to run.

i hope the city bonds to pay for any re-printing costs required.

Posted on: 2015/10/15 12:42
Top


Re: CIVIC JC sues to stop City Hall redevelopment plan
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

CatDog wrote:
I can't believe they are trying to say that City Hall is blighted. Seriously? It's a beautiful building and in pretty good condition. The article says they're not planning to tear it down, just to get money from the developer to renovate it. But that's some shady business dealing. "Hey, City Hall could use some renovation, know what I mean? Maybe I'll let you build stuff on those properties there if you fix it up, nudge nudge wink wink?"



are you serious? walk around the building and check out the 120 year old foundation... the staircases are pulling apart (which is probably why half the doors are closed) and there are visible cracks in the foundation. the building hasnt been touched in nearly 35 years since there were cosmetic renovations following the fire. the building is in pretty good shape considering its age and the lack of upkeep but is in poor condition on an absolute basis.

Posted on: 2015/10/13 17:15
Top


Re: Letter: Hamilton Park music events too loud for nearby residents
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


darn kids with their music at reasonable hours!

Posted on: 2015/9/29 16:22
Top


Re: Carrino Provisions
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


my girlfriend tried to set up a small work event (10-12 people) at carino's... they asked for $150 per head (not including drinks) and then said there would also be a $25 per person entrance fee.

entrance. fee.

wtf is an entrance fee?

Posted on: 2015/9/28 9:51
Top


Re: Permit Parking in Zone 2
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jmiz wrote:

Quote:

Yvonne wrote: Your advice do not make sense in Zone 2 which is larger than Hoboken.

What doesn't make sense? Taking a taxi? Using a metered spot so you can park as long as you'd like as long as you feed the meter? Not using a doctor in Zone 2 if it's "ANTI-FAMILY" (which is the funniest thing I've heard all day, thanks for that one). The only thing that doesn't make sense is you. 

Quote:

People use street parking if their garage door is out or they must take care of family business. It is no wonder people here do not use their real names, their statements would be an embarrassment to family and friends.

Why should the city accomodate a parking garage door problem on PRIVATE PROPERTY? Who gives a shit if your garage door is not working. Take it up with whatever board operates your property. Instead, you bitch that Zone 2 is not accomodating of your private property issue. Go do what every other person in the city does: find a non-zoned spot, find a private lot, or god-forbid, you keep your car in the garage for the day and use public transit or a taxi.

If Yvonne's life is inconvenienced for one day, she's at the City Hall the next day crying about how unfair the city is. Tough shit, grow up already. Not physically, either -- mentally. 



+100

Posted on: 2015/9/21 13:54
Top


Re: Steuben St parking
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
... Before the merger of the Parking Authority to the JC Police Department, everyone who is a resident of JC received a parking permit.


This is incorrect and you know it.

Posted on: 2015/9/20 20:12
Top


Re: Steuben St parking
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

heights wrote:
Wow a rock and a hard place. So if you can't get a zone permit, no reserved permits, and the whole area is reserved/zoned and you do not fall into either category I guess you're out in the cold. NOT FAIR !


Blame the Yvonne balcer's of jersey city who don't want people that live in high rises to be allowed to park on the street.

Posted on: 2015/9/20 20:08
Top


Re: Vacant Buildings
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Pebble wrote:
...I do not believe her claim that the majority of homes on the list were "the nicest home with a car in front". She's lied before and given her anti-Fulop bias (hence her complaints now instead of years ago when Healy was mayor and the program existed), I have no reason to trust anything she says on this topic.


and dont believe her again...
link to the list of vacant properties - http://cityofjerseycity.com/vacantbuildings/

checking the first half dozen or so properties that she claimed are on the vacant property list in her youtube video against the list that city maintains shows that she is spreading false information to the home owners and causing them concern for no reason and prodding them to waste their time.

Posted on: 2015/9/15 13:51
Top


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


its amazing how secaucus 1. used pilots and state tax rebates, and 2. is located next to the turnpike, rt 3, and rt 495

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
It is amazing how Secaucus and other town in North Hudson did development without 30 years tax abatements. By comparison Secaucus has a low tax rate. With all this development our taxes increased from $30.52 to nearly $75.00 after reval. If abatements were great, our taxes should have not increased. In 1988, after reval, you paid $3,000 to JC if assessed at $100,00, now you are paying $7,500. JC did not have the buildings in 1988 as it does now. Tax abatements was sold as a way to stabilize our taxes. The reversed has happened. These abatements were contracts, not added to the ratable base and our taxes rose.

Posted on: 2015/8/11 13:53
Top


Re: Buying "Hold" Properties in JC Ghetto
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


not everyone has a car.

Posted on: 2015/8/7 12:00
Top


Re: Jersey City tax breaks 'crony capitalism'
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Jack Ciattarelli should know something about crony capitalism, he sits on the committee that oversees regulated professionals and practically all of his campaign's funds are contributed from PACs/Associations representing regulated professional (ex. realtors, engineers, psychologists, etc)...

Posted on: 2015/8/3 11:20
Top


Re: Civic JC - The Cost of Jersey City Abatements: The $80 Million Question
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


if you look at two properties (same zoning/use-type, same part of town) that you estimate should have fairly similar tax bills (assuming there are no PILOTs/abatements) - 1 from the 1990s/2000s and 1 from 2013/2014 - what is the relative difference in the PILOT payments the two properties pay? Does the more recently developed/abated property have a better/worse deal than the older property?

Posted on: 2015/7/27 14:46
Top


Re: New Liberty Prime District downtown
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


you've never seen signs like that on other roads (especially the highway)???

the reason why the sign is branded is written on the sign... as Yvonne said, they pay the landscaping cost for the median so you dont have to via taxes.

if you want to get rid of them, im sure when renewal time comes around you could pay to sponsor the landscaping and tell the city you don't want a sign thanking you.

Posted on: 2015/7/15 10:10
Top


Re: New Luxury Apartments Downtown - Suggestions
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

SRhia wrote:
A friend of mine is looking for apartments and is considering Liberty Harbor. I'm wondering if you can provide some feedback? Sorry, I know a bit off topic.

Also, has anyone checked out the rentals at Charles & co? I heard that it's almost 50% rented?


Liberty Harbor review

experience. 3 years renting.

location. decent but you get what you pay for.

amenities. horrible - extremely overcrowded and poorly maintained pool, very outdated gym without freeweights aside from a couple dumbbells.

heating/cooling. extremely expensive as the buildings are made with extremely cheap insulation. average monthly cost in the winter was about $200-350/mo to keep my 650 sq ft apartment at around 65F.

Parking. $125/mo. Good luck parking on a weekend (despite the fact that you pay for a permit) as parking "opens" to beer garden customers on weekends.

Security. My parked car was hit/clipped by drunk drivers leaving zeppelin hall twice. on one occasion a JCMC security guard saw the accident happen, ran over to stop the driver from leaving the scene, she then proceeded to run over the security guard in order to flee the scene. thankfully he got the license plate number on his phone camera because liberty harbor has no security cameras aside from those in the lobbies.

Litter. Walking around vomit, and preventing your dog from going near it, is a roughly once a month hassle.

Noise. My unit wasn't bad as I wasnt in, or facing, 9 regent (beer garden building).

Rent renewal and security deposits. JCNB/Grand Street Property Management is notorious for raising rent in the double digits (10-20%) after 1-2 years regardless of market rates in the area. They will nickle and dime you for your security deposit ($10 per picture pin/nail holes in the drywall). $300 for light scratches in the polyeurethane coat on the flooring near the doorway. Every former neighbor that I know had 25%-100% of their deposit withheld. I've had two apartments with the management company (owned by the developer/owner of liberty harbor) and it was the same story in both cases. In one case (non-liberty harbor), they withheld $6470 of my $6500 deposit, claiming damage that they couldnt show proof of and stating issues were beyond normal wear and tear... I was in the apartment for over 6 years (well beyond the useful life of almost everything in the apartment).

Fixing stuff. They are prompt and responsive. They don't necessarily do a good, or legal, job though. I discovered mold in the bathroom closet a few weeks following a leak from pipes in the ceiling. The solution... paint over it.

Staff. the head cleaning lady is possibly the most obnoxious staff member I've ever had the pleasure of interacting with. some residents, those with kids, tend to like her though as she seems to love children. if you don't have kids, its another story. she is not liked by the rest of the staff as she is essentially the management's gestapo agent. The door people are generally nice and friendly, but there is extremely high turnover.

Posted on: 2015/7/15 10:08
Top


Re: JC councilman charged with drunken driving after three-car collision
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Id love to see Chico leave the council. I think he is a disgrace. That said, there is clearly a different relationship between 2 council--members (one of whom has been indicted for corruption) and a mayor and a council-member (who hasn't been indicted for fraud/theft - yet). If/once Chico is indicted then I think it is completely reasonable to expect Fulop (and the rest of the council) to call for his resignation and to call any inaction hypocrisy. until there is an indictment, not demanding a resignation is reasonable... sadly.

Posted on: 2015/6/25 15:49
Top


Re: Jersey City developer seeking 30-year tax abatement in Journal Square
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year


When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.


Developers take the risks and receive the rewards. This should not involve taxpayers subsidizing them. When they sell their property, usually 2 or 3 years later, the public does not receive the benefit because the abatement is transferred. Besides, who is bailing out the 2,300 people in lien for 2013? The answer is no one.


Developers build properties for their own benefit, not the benefit of a community. When development is isolated to one part of a city, only one part of the city benefits from development. The other part(s) get little to nothing and you have the tale of two cities continue to widen. Since government cannot force developers where to build it is limited to enticing them... Pilots reduce some varieties of risk so that the opportunity cost of developing in riskier markets is reduced, and the "love can be spread."


Markets are constantly changing, week to week, month to month, year to year, and certainly decade to decade. You cannot possibly believe that just because 1 developer (out of thousands) decided to build something 20 years ago that it means all, or even any, developers would be able to justify development in the same area today. Its just not rational to hold that belief.


There is nothing in the city charter saying regular taxpayers should subsidize development. In fact, when the law was originally passed, it targeted property no one wanted. These abatements went to downtown where developers were paying $5 and $10 million for the plot in the 1990s. Journal Square is prime property, the fact Kennedy Lofts got a 12 abatement when the market was soft shows 30 years are not necessary.




1) the success of kennedy lofts is yet to be seen, 2) buying land/property during a soft market (From the government) that will be ready during an upswing (2014) reduces risk (buy low), and 3) no 2 developments are the same. you don't even live in a world that is just black or white with no shades of gray, you view things through monochrome lenses and speak from a standpoint as if you know what you are talking about when you lack experience and education on the topics.

i know, i know... "abatements are bad, subsidization, taxes, yada yada yada"

why do we even try?

Posted on: 2015/5/28 15:57
Top


Re: Jersey City developer seeking 30-year tax abatement in Journal Square
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year


When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.


Developers take the risks and receive the rewards. This should not involve taxpayers subsidizing them. When they sell their property, usually 2 or 3 years later, the public does not receive the benefit because the abatement is transferred. Besides, who is bailing out the 2,300 people in lien for 2013? The answer is no one.


Developers build properties for their own benefit, not the benefit of a community. When development is isolated to one part of a city, only one part of the city benefits from development. The other part(s) get little to nothing and you have the tale of two cities continue to widen. Since government cannot force developers where to build it is limited to enticing them... Pilots reduce some varieties of risk so that the opportunity cost of developing in riskier markets is reduced, and the "love can be spread."


Markets are constantly changing, week to week, month to month, year to year, and certainly decade to decade. You cannot possibly believe that just because 1 developer (out of thousands) decided to build something 20 years ago that it means all, or even any, developers would be able to justify development in the same area today. Its just not rational to hold that belief.

Posted on: 2015/5/28 12:57
Top


Re: Jersey City developer seeking 30-year tax abatement in Journal Square
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


then go become a developer. since you can do things cheaper than they can you can competitively cut them out and rake it in.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, i guess if it falls within the jsq redevelopment area nd that area qualifies for 30 year abatements, i can't really object BUT perhaps the city should start scaling back abatements in jsq to 10 year


When the economy was soft, Kennedy Lofts, asked for a 15 year abatement, Healy gave them 12 years. Kennedy Lofts is the old Welfare building in Journal Square. The economy is great today and now we are granting them 30 years, 18 more years than under Healy. I don't buy this. Journal Square is prime property.

Posted on: 2015/5/27 13:56
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 9 »






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