bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I think he misspoke or didn’t understand the question.

I considered that too, but I actually think he fully meant what was quoted. Supposedly, locally, the median income for a family of 4 is 94K. No way they could afford a 6K/mo rent but, then again, I fundamentally disagree that just because someone wants to live somewhere, they are entitled to do so.

I think people like Mr. Walsh actually do a disservice to the affordable housing concept by trying to expand its availability to what many would consider to be upper middle class residents.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Yvonne, do you acknowledge the existence of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payments?

If so, do you acknowledge that most tax abated properties still send PILOT payments to the city?

Yes but they send ZERO TO THE SCHOOLS. That's the whole point to the argument against PILOTS to the extent JC uses them.

It allows steve to keep funding his PR happy pet projects and assumes state aid doesn't change. Clearly that's not the case going forward.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Final rate is 1.488.

Oh man; once the rest of the state gets a whiff of that rate...

Hoboken was 1.592 last year, and no one made a stink about their Abbott. At least you can see the Abbott money in their schools, they have far more extracurriculars and enrichment.

Of course no one made a stink about their Abbott: Hoboken pays for 80% of their school operating budget! It's not about Abbott status. Even when you look at total revenue for the Hoboken school district, the revenue from all state sources, including grants, amounts to ~34% (24.5MM out of 72MM). That's a far cry from the current situation in JC, where the city pays for about 17% of the local school budget. That's really the issue that I think (would assume) other municipalities will use to lobby for reduced assistance.

MDM wrote:
Where is the victim from?

I have found it pretty common for non Americans (excluding Western Europeans) to mistrust banks and keep everything in cash.

It took a while to convince a Turkish woman I knew to put the $50k she had in cash into an actual bank account.

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City bolsters cop force with 28 recruits

By Adrienne Romero - The Jersey Journal

With their right hands in the air and "Jersey City Police" stitched on their sleeves, more than two dozen police recruits were welcomed to the Jersey City police department.

The 28 recruits were sworn in Wednesday morning during a ceremony at City Hall after six months of academy training.

https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... rown_photo_posted_on.html

jerseymom wrote:
(Excerpt from Rev. Santora Column - NJ.com)

"Hannah Peterson, spokeswoman for Jersey City, confirmed what the Archdiocese of Newark has told me: The city will orchestrate the designation of a developer to buy the property and put market-rate housing inside the church's shell while also relocating the shelter and providing an undetermined number of transitional housing units.

"The overall plan for this area is to keep the St. Lucy's shelter in the vicinity of its current location and rehab the church for a residential project that would subsidize a state-of-the-art shelter, as well as new affordable/transitional housing in that area," Peterson said."

Full Story

jerseymom wrote:
See if your school district is officially gaining or losing state funding
Posted July 15, 2018 at 11:00 AM | Updated July 15, 2018 at 11:03 AM

(Answer - JC will lose $3.5 million for the 2018-19 school year.)

K-Lo2 wrote:
What is the source of that rate?

Monroe wrote:
JC schools spend 25% more per student than the state average so calling them ‘starved for cash’ is misleading g, especially since JC funds such a tiny amount of the cost.

MDM wrote:
At 1.62% I am looking at a significant cut in my taxes, even after adjusting my appraised value up significantly. For me this will be a savings of $10k to $15k a year (multiple properties).

That will cover most of my son's tuition, once he is old enough to attend school.

mfadam wrote:
I'd say the odds of Trump's tax plan going thru are about as good as the odds of DTJC property taxes staying at 1% of FMV...

Yvonne wrote:
The amendment to the budget was today, I did not see anyone from JC list there only regular people who attend council meetings. The Friendly Budget was not available even though, State Senator Stack contacted the Department of Community Affairs which stated all towns should have the Friendly Budget. Stack responds to his constituents. I asked for the ratable base and tax rate, no answer, but Councilman Yun informed me that the ratable base is now $34 billion and the tax rate for the three budget is $1.42 or $14.20.

bodhipooh wrote:
For anyone who wishes to see actual data, and not the lies pushed by Yvonne, refer to the actual JC budget documents, or take a look here: https://public.tableau.com/profile/jer ... 11-2016/2016TotalRevenues.

You will see that PILOTs account for a full 35% (a little higher, actually) of the taxation revenue (~128MM out of 350MM).

In order to replace that much revenue, you would need to have 16 BILLION worth of real estate property, paying the new rate of 1.62%. Remember that the city only gets to keep about half of that rate (with 25% going to the county and 25% going to the schools) which is why 16 BLLION would only generate 128 MM in taxes. Explain to me how we are going to replace 128 MM worth of revenue by adding a paltry 3 Billion dollars worth of real estate??

135jc wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

No abatement for 99 Hudson. And I agree with you that there really should only be 5 year abatement going forward for downtown. Other areas of the city still need a little help, but not 30 years.

This argument against abatements is forgetting one major point. The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Does every crevice of the city have to be built up as soon as possible as much as possible?

I used to live on Monmouth on the other side of Old Colony Mall. I still take my kids to P.S. 3. I go shopping at Ranch 99 and have the occasional craving for Popeyes or a donut from Dunkin Donuts. A while back I used the auto body shop to fix a banged up car for a few hundred bucks that the insurance company insisted was totalled. Point being that I've been around there and still have occasion to go there.

Sure you could spruce up those few blocks and build some townhouses or apartments, but is the city really hurting because they haven't done so yet? If the current landowners are really squatting or speculating that's one thing, but if it's just a question of waiting a couple of years, or maybe building a little smaller, then why give a developer the power of eminent domain at the expense of current owners, residents, and business owners?

In light of the recent tax increases in Downtown due to the reval and pending school tax increases, it's in DTJC's best interest to build as dense as it can, wherever it can. Many homeless people live in that area in the abandoned housing and that area does not feel safe at night.

GrovePath wrote:
Now that this is happening - what will happen to Downtown JC, or JC as a whole, as far as property taxes?

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City payroll tax waiting for gov's signature

By Terrence T. McDonald - The Jersey Journal

The proposed Jersey City payroll tax awaits Gov. Phil Murphy's signature, but it's unclear whether it will become law.

The plan, which would allow for a maximum 1 percent tax on a Jersey City business' total payroll, was dreamed up as a way to offset potential cuts in state aid to the city's public school district. Those cuts are part of a school funding formula bill proposed by Democratic state Sen. President Stephen Sweeney and also awaiting Murphy's pen.

https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... y_payroll_tax_waitin.html

Stringer wrote:

Kushner Cos. threatens to sue Fulop for defamation, mayor refuses to apologize

By John Heinis/Hudson County View

“I got another letter from the Kushner family today threatening to sue me AGAIN. They demand an apology for me saying the truth + they even drafted a tweet for me to send out. It’s not going to happen. I’ll revise my tweet slightly when THEY apologize publicly,” Fulop tweeted late this morning.

“I’m not going to apologize for saying the truth. Whether it’s inaccurately reporting ownership in properties, or misrepresenting $ partners, or outright saying in China that $ in Jersey City properties means lots to the family, i think the public can judge 4 themselves[.]”

https://hudsoncountyview.com/kushner-c ... yor-refuses-to-apologize/

Yvonne wrote:
Ralph, I was not confuse...

HeightsNative wrote:
Having been to enough council meetings, I can say Yvonne is ruining it for everyone else. I applaud her tenacity and involvement, but that's it. There's never any structure to her arguments, and at times rambles on ad infinitem to the point that we forget what the topic is. It's things like this that turn average people off.

Let me be clear; I am 100% against limiting public comment. But, when it gets out of hand, and clearly serves to inflate anyone's personal ego, I'd say cut them off.

But capping everyone to 5 minutes is harsh, particularly if there's a complex topic and the speaker is actually engaging the council in dialogue. Maybe have it flexible where they can extend upon request? Knowing Lavarro, he'll deny every single one. Maybe make extensions like motions, where you 1 need council member to quickly motion to extend the speaker's time with someone seconding it? Just spitballing here.

val7101 wrote:

Hmmm because all of those other things are easier to produce?

MDM wrote:
Repeating the point Brewster has made repeatedly: Change the zoning so that 6+ unit buildings that are being torn down are not replaced with a 2 family and you will pretty much take care of the lack of affordable housing issue.