Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
27 user(s) are online (12 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 27

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Ralph_Abutts)




Re: Councilman Michael Yun - Dead from Coronavirus
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


I will remember Councilman Yun for his kindness and professionalism. He was truly a great public servant. It saddens me deeply to learn of his death. This is a big loss for Jersey City. Deepest condolences to his family.

Posted on: 4/7 15:45
Top


Re: Some Grubhub drivers are no-shows, N.J. restaurants say. ‘This might just put me out of business.’
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Incorrect. Labor is labor. It can be differentiated between skilled and non skilled. Grubhub delivery is the latter. Please explain how quality control applies to food delivery. You seriously can't.

However, the problem could be solved by paying Grubhub delivery staff more. Call it hazard pay. From an economic perspective, someone will be willing to work at a price/wage they think is worth the risk. A public policy perspective may differ.

Posted on: 3/31 14:13
Top


Re: Some Grubhub drivers are no-shows, N.J. restaurants say. ‘This might just put me out of business.’
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
When you rely on third parties and independent contractors, you are ceding quality control.


Really? Is that so? Like the iPhone (or other computing device) you used to type and post this message?

Posted on: 3/30 21:22
Top


Re: * FEAR MONGERING LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE MEDIA *
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


What do you think about the recent medal of "honor" recipient equating the corona virus with the common cold? Do you consider that a Rush of "excellence in broadcasting"?

Posted on: 3/4 0:06
Top


Re: Councilman's Wife Mugged
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


NJ pepper spray law..

i.Nothing in N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent any person who is 18 years of age or older and who has not been convicted of a felony, from possession for the purpose of personal self-defense of one pocket-sized device which contains and releases not more than three-quarters of an ounce of chemical substance not ordinarily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury, but rather, is intended to produce temporary physical discomfort or disability through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed in the air. Any person in possession of any device in violation of this subsection shall be deemed and adjudged to be a disorderly person, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100.00.

Posted on: 3/1 20:45
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Correct. I responded to the last message you posted. That is how message boards work.

And that is all I was responding to in a very long thread, with hundreds of messages over 4-5 year period. I don't recall all that you, I or anyone else has written since the beginning. That is unreasonable.

What you wrote, emphatically so, was incorrect. Flat out in correct. No explanation is needed. Res ipsa loquitor Move on already.

Posted on: 1/22 19:28
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


It would have been a lot easier if you admit what you originally wrote, that is PILOT owners would pay less on property taxes than the payment in lieu. That is what I responded to. It is on you to correct what you have written.

Instead of admitting such, your followup posts instead escalate matters with your pomposity and arrogance. Your assumptions about what I know or do not know are wrong.
You do not even know who you are responding to. I can assure you that I am most knowledgeable about the subject both personally as someone who owned a PILOT property and professionally.

With such, your postings do not really foster productive dialogue. To wit, my time is better spent with other activities.

Posted on: 1/22 12:21
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


You wrote:

"Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! "

"Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218"

The 1st paragraph is wrong. The second paragraph is correct. Take a deep breath. Do you understand the problem?

Now, back to the original thread title. If all PILOTS were to expire overnight, yes indeed there would be less (tax) revenue for the municipal government** and more for the school district. However, all other things remain equal, Jersey City would still remain an Abbott school district.

Collectively, there is not enough revenue among the municipality and the school district. The district has a big budget deficit. That redistribution of tax revenue would only go towards plugging the district deficit, while creating a deficit in the municipal budget (short term)

I'll let you do the math, i sure am not going to do so on my phone - but the MUNICIPAL property tax rate would increase dramatically on the 100% PILOT overnight expiry. That will create great economic harm to many JC residents. There is a very good reason why JC was designated as an Abbott district.

Also it would be counterproductive to NJS, despite all their school aid doled out to the district, the City does generate a lot of tax revenue for the State, much like NYC overwhelmingly does for NYS. How much that is above my pay grade, but I bet it is very significant. The folks in Trenton should realize that. That shock in residents and commercial property taxes would hurt the local economy. Leas economic activity means less revenue for the State.

Overtime, as PILOTs do expire and RE development activity drops off, then I could see JC losing its Abbott status. That is less shocking - fiscally, economically, and the thought itself.

Losing such status - it is not quite there, yet. **In part, with emphasis on "in part" due to what you meant to write originally - a big drop in revenue for the municipality.

Posted on: 1/22 0:02
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.


You still write a lot of nonsense.

Here is what you do. Go to the city's website, finance section. Click on a link for the "User Friendly Budget" in that budget, there is a sheet that lists all PILOTS - what they currently pay and what they would/will be paying if it is not an abatement. Compare the two lists. You will see that you are wrong.

It is really as simple as that. There is no mystery. It's a simple fact.

Alternatively you can simply look up the definition of "abatement". It will be time better spent than typing out ignorant comments.

Posted on: 1/21 12:24
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.

Posted on: 1/20 23:43
Top


Re: Neighbor illegaly paved over front yard for parking
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Construction and zoning departments. Stoo by in person. Their offices are adjacent to each other.

Posted on: 2019/7/12 10:35
Top


Re: HC’s 2019 budget means taxes are going up in most of the 12 towns
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


The county tax bill is a function of what they have budgeted to spend. The valuation is used to determine how to divide up that overall amount to tax.

Posted on: 2019/6/14 19:20
Top


Re: Commuter gondola plan gets off ground....
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


I hope the gondolas can handle the high wind gusts. Cycling over the bridge at times was a white knuckle affair.

Posted on: 2019/4/23 17:22
Top


Re: ‘Massive’ $120M budget shortfall is subject of special Jersey City BOE meeting
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

That's a dead-end link.

Posted on: 2019/4/2 15:28
Top


Re: ‘Massive’ $120M budget shortfall is subject of special Jersey City BOE meeting
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

It would be interesting to see some more stats about amount of admin, non-teaching staff numbers as a ratio to students, and as a ration to teachers, and average salaries. Surely this data could be cobbled together from some source. It would be interesting to compare across districts in NJ, and against districts in other states. I am pretty sure the results will be predictable, but having cold, hard numbers would be nice.


You can find that information here:
https://rc.doe.state.nj.us/
However, the NJS Dept of Ed stopped reporting school financials, post 2011.

You can still get school district financial stats, albeit from year 2011 and earlier at this link:
https://www.nj.gov/education/reportcard/index.html

Posted on: 2019/4/1 15:26
Top


Re: ‘Massive’ $120M budget shortfall is subject of special Jersey City BOE meeting
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


To increase the budget by more than 2% requires an affirmative public referendum.

Posted on: 2019/3/31 10:58
Top


Re: Springsteen’s son could land firefighter gig in Jersey City
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

caj11 wrote:
There used to be, and I think it's lame that the city didn't even enforce when the law was in effect and lame that they don't have such a requirement now.


It's not lame, because doing so would limit the talent pool of qualified candidates.

As for fire fighters, specifically, don't most live at the fire house when they are working/on duty.

Per state law, all municipal employees are required to live in NJS.

As for the JC Fire Dept, I do not know what their specific employment scoring criteria is. However, Jersey City is a civil service municipality. So you score more employment screening points for living in the city than don't. Likewise more points for living in Hudson county than not.






Posted on: 2019/3/28 16:44
Top


Re: Springsteen’s son could land firefighter gig in Jersey City
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Is his son a Jersey City resident? I'm sure they checked up on that and made sure that requirement in the city code for all city employees (with a few exceptions, firefighters are not among them) was being followed. >sarcascm<


411: there's no city residency requirement

Posted on: 2019/3/28 15:26
Top


Re: Springsteen’s son could land firefighter gig in Jersey City
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


You can't start a fire

You can't start a fire without a spark

This gun's for hire

Even if [he's] just dancing in the dark

Posted on: 2019/3/28 15:26
Top


Re: For six years, Jersey City schools chief was at center of conflict
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
[quote]
Monroe wrote:
Has anyone ever explained how the state was never able to reign in JCBOE spending yet thought it was OK to return them control? Was there no one willing to say "no, you can't pay your janitors that".


About 20 years ago, there was a scandal with JCPS janitors whereby they were clocking major overtime on the order of time sheet reporting of allegedly working 23 hours per day. If you search you might still find the hudson reporter and nj.com articles.

It occurred under the tenure of the superintendent that immediately preceeded Dr Lyles. He retired with an unused sick/vacation time payout that was huge (about a 1/2 million $, IIRC) and amounted to computing nearly never taking a sick day or vacation day. He did have to account for one taxpayer funded vacation, publicly, his "business trip" to London which occured during the same era as the janitor overtime scandal.

Posted on: 2019/3/9 13:28
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Sorry, but if parking spaces are in short supply, as you suggest, a $15 a year residential permit does not help. Make the permit $1,500/year and surely demand will not exceed supply.


Punish local car owners while developers are getting zoning variances allowing them to provide less onsite parking, forcing more people to park on the street? That's ass backwards.


Where did I mention granting variances is okay? Of course I did not. You can troll on elsewhere.

The bottom line is parking permits are under priced in Jersey City, even in parts of the city that developers are not granted variances.


Posted on: 2019/2/11 16:51
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Sorry, but if parking spaces are in short supply, as you suggest, a $15 a year residential permit does not help. Make the permit $1,500/year and surely demand will not exceed supply.

Posted on: 2019/2/10 23:12
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


1) Is public parking a problem?

Jersey City - Yes

Red Bank - No (per Monroe)


2) Annual cost of a resident parking permit

Jersey City - $15

Red Bank - $1,000


Posted on: 2019/2/9 12:16
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Car density, yes - permit fees, no. New Brunswick is another good example. If you actually spent time in your car at those locations, like I have, you would immediately agree. Or you can look at their municipal websites to see the chatter about parking issues and challenges.

The original point is JC's very low parking fees are not helpful with respect to parking or having to constantly navigate around double parked cars.


Other than Front or Broad Streets there is no parking issue in Red Bank; like many suburban towns people complain if they have to walk a half block to a store or restaurant. Comparing JC parking to Red Bank parking is absurd.



Uuuuhhh yeah...and why is that? Put your thinking cap on. Like I mentioned before, compare the costs of acquiring a residential permit. If Jersey City charged what Red Bank does, it would not have the parking issues it has today.

Free or nearly free parking isn't really free if you spend a lot of time looking for a space or are sitting in traffic, taboot. That is, if you consciously valie your time, like I do.

Posted on: 2019/2/8 23:23
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Car density, yes - permit fees, no. New Brunswick is another good example. If you actually spent time in your car at those locations, like I have, you would immediately agree. Or you can look at their municipal websites to see the chatter about parking issues and challenges.

The original point is JC's very low parking fees are not helpful with respect to parking or having to constantly navigate around double parked cars.

Posted on: 2019/2/8 13:08
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Definitely not true. Sorry.Take a look.

Posted on: 2019/2/8 0:40
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Parking permits are crazy low in Jersey City compared to other NJ municipalities. Check out Red Bank as an example.

Posted on: 2019/2/8 0:15
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


> The issue is not so much the SUVs themselves but the drivers.

Or perhaps it is just folks ability to critically reason...

Not that I want to be hit by another DRIVER, but if it happens, I prefer that it be from a DRIVER of a vehicle that weighs much less, like a passenger car, than a truck or another form of a truck known as a SUV (vehicle on a truck chassis).

> Newer SUVs are not prone to rollover due to them having a lower center of gravity than trucks had historically. Many SUVs are now just dressed up minivans built on car like platforms.


"Nonetheless, the high clearance of SUVs and trucks makes these vehicles more likely to tip over when hitting an obstruction on the road. NHTSA rollover testing aims to assess each vehicle for its propensity to flip while driving, and the latest vehicles showed some flaws in this department. Here are the 10 SUVs and trucks that presented the highest risk of tipping over on the road."

from 10 Trucks and SUVs With the Highest Risk of Tipping Over
March 3, 2018
https://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles ... isk-of-tipping-over.html/


Posted on: 2019/2/7 16:14
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yeah -about the topic of safety...It is not safe for the car that gets hit by the 4 ton truck, err um SUV, that incidentally is more prone to rolling over.

Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
I think that the safety of the occupants plays large in vehicle choice.
I always scoffed at SUVs in the past. However, looking at the number of accidents (mostly rear enders) occurring in increasing numbers I picked up a 2002 Mercury Mountaineer for a little over 3k and my wife and I have never been more comfortable or felt more safe amid the chaos on the roads daily.

Posted on: 2019/2/3 5:41
Top


Re: The SUV Phenomenon
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Freakonomics guy famously investigated and found child safety seats no better than regular seatbelts.


That's incorrect. The University of Chicago Economist aka "Freakonomics guy" research indicates that child safety seat use is more beneficial in minor crashes than without. For major crashes, there was no significant (statistically) benefit over doing without.

In addition to their safety benefit, they provide better ergonomics, comfort, and visibility for the child.


Posted on: 2019/1/31 19:24
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 7 »






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