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

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Then who is buying up all of this real estate? I realize the real estate market in NYC and some areas of NNJ have cooled in part. But that's in part because the numbers had reached super, super stratospheric heights. Still, even with the dip, prices are high and people are still buying expensive real estate. In Asbury Park at least 20 units in the Ocean Club sold for anywhere from $1mm to $5mm. Properties in JC are still moving as are properties in the several million mark in NYC. It seems to me there's plenty of money floating around.

A lot (most?) of the high end real estate in NYC/Manhattan is being snapped up by foreigners who don't have to pay state taxes on income. As the real estate market in NYC has remained hot for so long, people have been pushed out into other areas, such as the ones you point out in your message. In many ways, Jersey City, and much of NJ, has benefitted from the overly-hot NYC real estate market, as people leave NY and relocate here.

The problem with foreigners snapping up real estate (which is also a problem locally in JC, btw) is that it can artificially inflate a local market but those buying properties don't contribute to state coffers much, if at all. They are not subject to state income taxes, and property taxes are super low in NYC.

biggoron wrote:

My presumption is that people are leaving the rural parts of the state for which jobs and the weather (for upstate NY) are much bigger factors then taxes. In the urban areas across the country (NYC, SF, etc) I see housing prices as more of a problem then taxes or other factors, but I doubt cities and towns will allow for sufficient density to meet demand.

Mao wrote:
What did Fr. Quinn say? In the paper I thought he said something like: "THis is painful for us, but that person is welcome here anytime.:

I don't know. Can't one say: that person unless he's criminally insane should be punished and held accountable. Then we can welcome him.

Yvonne wrote:
$ 16 Million for a vacant lot and the JC Bd of Ed is selling their 7 story, solid building, plus huge parking lots, next to a Light Rail Stop for a paltry $ 6 Million which the city bought 25 years ago for $ 9 Million. Let's see how this is explained.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

JCBORN wrote:
I heard the old funeral home on Brunswick St. is presenting new plans. 4 story mixed-use with 26 residential units and commercial space on the ground floor. There will be no parking. The hearing is next week.

Ho ho ho, this one is rich. The "Build Nothing, Nowhere, EVER" NIMBYs that run the VNA decided to sue the city for approviing this project that was originally going to provide because they didn't like one extra floor of units (that was going to be setback from the street anyway). The developer then decided to go the path of least resistance and build as-of-right, which to the horror of the parking NIMBYs in the neighborhood, included retail instead of parking.

So now half the neighborhood is up in arms at the self-appointed idiots that run the VNA because of this lack of parking. Hopefully this is the start of a NIMBY civil war in the VNA and they'll be too paralyzed to initiate their pointless lawsuits in the future.

psyop wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I'm also going to catch a lot of shit about this...

I don't care.

You know you are a DB and post anyway, do you need attention or something?

Congrats!

DanL wrote:
Does Upzoning Boost the Housing Supply and Lower Prices? Maybe Not. - https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/01/z ... nt-gentrification/581677/

Freemark reaches two startling conclusions that should at least temper our enthusiasm about the potential of zoning reform to solve the housing crisis—conclusions that, interestingly enough, he has said he did not set out to find. First, he finds no effect from zoning changes on housing supply—that is, on the construction of newly permitted units over five years. (As he acknowledges, the process of adding supply is arduous and may take longer than five years to register.) Caveats and all, this is an important finding that is very much at odds with the conventional wisdom.

Second, instead of falling prices, as the conventional wisdom predicts, the study finds the opposite. Housing prices rose on the parcels and in projects that were upzoned, notably those where building sizes increased.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Here's why we have an inventory, and thus affordability, crisis: developers cannot today build what's on the left, only what's on the right. 56 homes, vs perhaps 8. Building "affordable housing" is still rationing it while we keep supply low with zoning to protect incumbent owners and the precious street parking.

Bravo. A perfect illustration of why we have an affordability crisis. Not all that different than the situation in San Francisco, where zoning laws have prevented much needed large scale construction. The height restrictions encased in zoning laws have prevented much needed development. Jersey City will continue to get more exponentially expensive as more people flock here, and as more businesses open up or relocate here, while we continue to limit new construction. Even the much touted 34,000 units approved for construction will not satisfy current population growth trends. Current estimates are that JC has grown almost 10% since 2010. At this rate, we will need another 30,000 units by 2030 and those may not even be enough. It is way overdue that the city and its council take up the current zoning laws and make the necessary changes to enable JC to accommodate its projected growth.

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

jcguy05 wrote:
instead of whining here, use the LinkedIn link and send her a message directly. If enough people do it on similar topic like weekend service, things might actually get done.

With all due respect, another useless idea. I like my idea the best and it's the most probably to happen. What the public can do is show up at public meetings and support high-density intensification near the PATH stations like the Journal Squared towers. Adding thousands of new residents with high disposable incomes brings about a better passenger experience like Magnolia Plaza.

Eventually enough rich people will ride PATH into Manhattan and will complain about things like weekend service via Hoboken and general overcrowding. The Port Authority would be wise to take notice and make the positive changes or the politicians will take notice of unhappy constituents and order the Port Authority to act.

Yeah ok.. makes perfect sense that a bunch of overworked people will show up in a town hall meeting to complain about path than just send an online message directly to the path head.

Do you also believe in unicorns and Santa Claus.

jcguy05 wrote:
instead of whining here, use the LinkedIn link and send her a message directly. If enough people do it on similar topic like weekend service, things might actually get done.

newbie100 wrote:
I understand the reason for cynicism here and myself do not expect much change. However we should use the change in management to send our feedback directly to the new head.

Does anyone know email/phone numbers which will reach the new head (Clarelle DeGraffe) directly or at least through fewer layers of bureaucracy?

I was able to find her on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/clarelle-degraffe-9b155044/

bodhipooh wrote:
I long ago gave up on using the PATH on weekends, and I used to love doing so. But, the aggravation is too much (frequent delays, overcrowding, limited scheduled service) and the cost differential is minimal when you factor in PATH + Subway vs. Holland Tunnel (with EZ Pass) and using on street parking once in NYC. And, if there are two or more people in the car, you definitely end up saving money by driving into NYC versus the cost of r/t PATH and Subway fares.

Yvonne wrote:
https://hudsonreporter.com/2019/03/29/ ... s-at-jc-council-meetings/

bodhipooh wrote:
I think the answer is CLEARLY NO.

The combined increase will be about $260, so about $10 per bi-weekly paycheck. It doesn't sound like a lot, but NJ Taxes are like death by a thousand cuts.

The part I found interesting is that the total revenue from taxes exceeds, by quite a bit, the amounts being disbursed: in terms of FMLA, they collect 200 MM and disburse half that, while the disability insurance fund collects 566 MM, but pays out 405 MM. So, combined, the state is collecting ~260 MM above what it pays out. Where is that money going? Is it being "banked" (I know, laughable idea) or is it being spent on other things?

I also find it somewhat unfair that a higher income person will be taxed much more, but is then capped in how much they can collect. The payments are capped at 85% of a weekly salary equivalent to ~52K / year. The state sees it fit to cap the payments to that level for everyone, but is more than happy to collect taxes on all income without limits.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

Adonis wrote:
Spending $23,337 per student is outrageous, especially when you consider what they are getting.

That is about what it will cost me to send my kid to one of the Montessori schools here in Jersey City.

School costs is one of the reasons I lose tenants who have kids. As so as the kids grow out of pre-K, it's off to the suburbs or private school (most can't afford it). My one tenant headed out to somewhere near Dover for the exact same issue. His kid didn't hit the lottery for the charter so he ended up in the local public school. The kid was bored out of his mind because he is already doing fractions, divisions, etc. whilst the rest of the class is still learning adding & subtraction.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JC_Man wrote:
I think Murphy is taking care of your last point - the state is quickly becoming a sh!thole with never-ending high taxes and bowing to public unions - people ARE leaving the state in droves.

Uh... No, they really aren't. NJ's population has increased at pretty much the same rate since the 70s.

The research is pretty clear that people don't drop their jobs, families, kids' schools, professional networks and friends because taxes went up a few basis points.

Similarly, Kansas' population did not soar when the state slashed its taxes -- in fact, population growth slowed, possibly because Kansas' government already does almost nothing, and the tax cuts resulted in year after year of fiscal crisis followed by slashing what little spending remained.

Anyway.... People leave mostly because they are getting older and retire to warmer climates, typically Florida.