TheNewGuy wrote:
Tried doing a search to see what information I could get on this topic, but I mostly just found complaints/suggestions regarding the aesthetics of the "bayonne box."

I was hoping to get people's experiences (good and bad) with the 2 family homes that seem to be ubiquitous in the heights. Seems like there's very little single family home inventory and the little inventory there seem to need a buyer that have the time/patience/resources for significant improvements (for what I'm looking for).

But, given they're all over the place, I guess the 2 family is really quite the norm and many people deal with them.

Specifically, I was wondering:

(1) tandem parking - how much of a pain is it sharing a tandem spot with a second family? Most of what I've seen have a driveway and a garage, but "deeded" parking. Seems to me that having a tandem spot severely limits the convenience of having a parking spot (but I guess better than the alternative if street parking is as scarce as I've read).

(2) 2 unit HoA. I may just be a pessimist, but do people generally have no issues having a 50/50 stake in the condo association? Does anything get done if, god forbid, theres a dispute? Or, worse yet, if the 2nd family and you are antagonistic?

(3) if the second family ends up leaving or renting - is it tough to get a lender if you want to sell (owner/occupant ratio)?

TIA

Yvonne wrote:
Mexico and China are producing fentanyl which is the most powerful of all the opioids. So what does the county do? It breaks its agreement with ICE and immigrants can go back into the community where some continue to peddle this drug. http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/27/chi ... in-nightmare-super-drugs/

135jc wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
What amazes me is that in a number of these suburban towns homeowners are living pretty nice lives in individual homes and payimg taxes in the same amount in some cases as people in JC who are crammed into condos and living with some horrible quality of life situations. For what?-proximity to NYC? It's outrageous.
Doesn't make sense.

That's not entirely accurate. The new estimated rate in JC is 1.62%, which is one of the lowest in the state. The rest of the state pays between 2.5-3% (I forget the exact average number, but it's well above 2%, so don't quote me)

Even post reval, JC is getting quite a deal on the backs of the rest of the state.

Why do people continually point to tax rates as a measuring stick? Obviously an area with high property values will have a lower tax rate. An area with a high tax rate will lower property values. See how that works? You are also citing a tax rate while property values are at an all time high in Jc. The other cities you compare the rate to have also not just had a reval meaning their tax rate will be inflated since it would not be based on it's current market value. The point is taxes in JC are no great bargain.

brewster wrote:
So, a quick pass at the numbers JC school costs shows we simply pay staff more than almost anyone, #98 of 103 peer districts. One must assume from years of caving in on contract negotiations. How does a union making more than almost anyone else in the whole country keep pleading poverty?

But almost as interesting is what comes as the last priority, extracurriculars, at 8|103. Surely someone has studies connections between extracurriculars and education outcomes?? Students more engaged in participation in any school activity surely engage more in the classroom.

DanL wrote:

Yes, over-aided, but under-funded.

For those interested, good outside perspectives are -

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/

and

https://civicparent.org/

DanL wrote:
He is NOT Councilman Solomon.

And this hoopla seems pretty orchestrated, but to what end? Does the mayor wish to distract from bad news, does he want to ride to the rescue and save the day? I guess we'll see.

The corporate council is appointed and reports to the mayor, serving at his/her pleasure. He would not go in a different direction publicly.

I do feel bad for both the performer and bar to be placed under pressure and the spotlight. Hopefully, they will eventually benefit from the publicity.


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Hey JCVoter, you're that Solomon guy right? Please do something about it now that you have the power.

JCvoter wrote:
No.
If I supported Solomon it was because I was against the naked attempt by monied interests to install a councilperson in Ward E.
If I had the undue power to influence Solomon I would not exercise it and would be the first to protest if I thought he was unduly influenced.

He's your councilman, you call him. Our power is equal.

My main point here is that this letter was written in haste and delivered at leisure. It had nothing to do with obscenity and everything to do with damaging FM amid a fragile transition.
How has Lillian managed to escape censure thus far? Why now?

RichMauro wrote:
I was only trying to make a point about quality of life issues when it comes to comparisons. Those who have a vested interest in JC as landlords or investors most probably could care less about traffic, filth, corruption etc. What about those who choose to raise families in JC? Are they getting a fair return on the taxes or rents they pay?

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
What amazes me is that in a number of these suburban towns homeowners are living pretty nice lives in individual homes and payimg taxes in the same amount in some cases as people in JC who are crammed into condos and living with some horrible quality of life situations. For what?-proximity to NYC? It's outrageous.
Doesn't make sense.

That's not entirely accurate. The new estimated rate in JC is 1.62%, which is one of the lowest in the state. The rest of the state pays between 2.5-3% (I forget the exact average number, but it's well above 2%, so don't quote me)

Even post reval, JC is getting quite a deal on the backs of the rest of the state.

Yvonne wrote:
The explanation is quite simple, those towns had more property online and those properties were not tax abated. Non-tax abated properties are added to the tax rolls as ratables not contracts. As those towns ratables increase and you will see a tax deduction. The increased ratables affect all budgets not just the municipality.

For #JerseyCity -I’m signing an exec order 2day stopping JC granting demolition permits on 1-4 family homes unless engineering reports say eminent collapse. Bottom line: we’re losing many of our great/old homes +being replaced w/the architectural marvel known as “The Bayonne Box”

MDM wrote:
The one thing about these appraised values:

If I bought either of these two buildings at the appraised price, I would be cash flow negative. No way the rents would cover, even at lower interest rates.

Something tells me at some point in the future, we will see the mother of price deflation when it comes to real estate.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?

Haven't you been paying attention? Yvonne is arithmetically impaired.

Just when you thought Yvonne couldn't get any kookier... This reminds me of the time someone tried to argue with me that 25% was not the same as dividing by four. Some people just don't understand numbers.

Yvonne wrote:
The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Jersey City budget preview released.

https://hudsoncountyview.com/jersey-ci ... t-with-zero-tax-increase/

No tax rate changes and the total budget is $587 million, $2 million less this year than the 2017 budget.

It's a little odd that the ratable base and PILOT payments have increased this year, the budget has dropped by $2 million, but the tax rate stays the same...

It literally doesn't add up.

Not that odd. Direct real estate taxation only accounts for about 60% of the municipal budget. The other sources of revenue may be lower (state aid, permit fees, other taxes) which could explain a lower budget. A 2 MM drop is not even 0.4%, so that's essentially a rounding error in practical terms.