Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
51 user(s) are online (33 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 2
Guests: 49

Mao, Clifton_Hanger, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (JCGuys)




Re: Blueberry picking around JC
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


I was going to post about the joys of picking chromium-filled blueberries within JC, but I'm happy to see this is for actual farms outside the city limits. Sounds fun!


Posted on: 7/26 9:36
Top


Re: Lottery open for affordable units in Jersey City apartment building
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


Well, I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea. Right now, a lot of people associate affordable housing with low income Section 8.

Rents are high for everyone right now. If affordable housing can mean someone making a decent income can benefit, that may be a way to generate a larger community buy-in when these developments are proposed.

I would love for the market to get away from luxury developments and build more housing for the middle class. Unfortunately, the way our current zoning works, it's costly to go through the approval process and limits supply to a point where only luxury units makes the most economic sense. For example, if Jersey City could ever get around from changing the R1 zoning to allow 3 or 4 unit buildings, those units will be much more affordable than the luxury stuff being built on the waterfront.




Posted on: 7/25 8:21
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


On the topic of Fulop, I'm kinda pissed off One Journal Square remains a vacant plot of land collecting weed and garbage.


Posted on: 7/22 13:30
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


How does the reval and the 1.488 rate change this?

The PILOT number would stay the same but the conventional tax number would go down, no?

At 1.488, the need for abatements is probably diminished. I'm okay if they go away, but don't expect any developer to voluntarily build affordable housing.


Posted on: 7/22 13:27
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


I don't disagree. The city gets more revenue from a tax abated property with PILOTs because it isn't shared with the schools. Personally, I want to see thschool board starved. It's too bloated and inefficient. A private school could do wonders if they got $29,000 per capita. Instead, Jersey City school kids are treated like pawns.

Posted on: 7/21 12:26
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


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?

Posted on: 7/20 23:10
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


I had a laugh when DanL was trying to justify the current funding!

The school tax rate will soar in the coming years, hitting the revaled downtown properties hardest but will hurt literally everyone.

Posted on: 7/20 15:27
Top


Re: Home Invasion Leaves Woman Tied Up, Robbed Inside Jersey City High-Rise Apartment Building (Monaco)
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


This is true, but I still don't understand how banks are mistrusted and anyone with large amounts of cash in their homes get robbed. How does one even legally obtain that much cash in the age of direct deposit. Something stinks!

Posted on: 7/20 11:52
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Growth or die.

Posted on: 7/20 10:00
Top


Re: Jersey City bolsters cop force with 28 recruits
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City bolsters cop force with 28 recruits

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



What's the current law enforcement force now. 1000? This is something Boggiano was advocating. As the population grows, this is still a reduction on the officer per capita ratio.

Posted on: 7/15 13:24
Top


Re: Developers Planning to Relocate St. Lucy's - Create Market Rate Housing
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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



Sounds like a horrible plan. There's several thousand new housing units planned or under construction in the area. If the diocese had any intention of saving the church, it wouldn't be too hard to transfer the development rights from the historic structure to an adjacent lot.

Posted on: 7/15 13:18
Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Sweet times for JC is officially over.

1.42% tax rate and rapidly growing ratable base to support schools.

Posted on: 7/15 13:11
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


And with that line of thinking, I'm thankful you're not on the school board (or in council office for that matter). No admission of a spending problem is concerning.

Posted on: 7/11 14:13
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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


*Sigh* Yvonne relaying words from Councilman Yun. But I oddly enough believe her this time. The 1.62% number was preliminary and did not factor in commercial properties at that time. It seemed way to high since most properties would be paying more while few would be paying less. The 1.42% is more in line of a zero sum. Some will pay more, some will pay less, some will stay the same.

Posted on: 7/11 12:06
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


Bingo! The problem is an administrative one. I kinda wish the State would take back full control of JC schools until costs are under control.

25% more per student than state average is ridiculous, especially when you consider the level of service being provided... It's not as if our schools are 25% better than the state average.

The one way to force the issue is for the state to stop sending a ridiculous amount of money to JCBOE at the expenses of other school needs in the rest of the state. That would force JC schools to get their budget in order.

Posted on: 7/11 12:02
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


How about at 1.42%?

Posted on: 7/10 22:20
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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...


1.42% and the plan went through. Good thing you're not a bookie.

Posted on: 7/10 22:19
Top


Re: Jersey City Council to introduce $587 million budget with zero tax increase
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


This is actually valuable information (really). Thank you Yvonne. Ratable base of $34 billion and 1.42% tax rate.

Posted on: 7/10 22:15
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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??


Can anyone refute this point?

The city would have a budget defect if all abated properties were taxed at the normal rate, rather than receiving the PILOT payments.

bodhipooh math looks correct. If not, please point out where it is flawed.

The county and school board would have access to the additional ratables and that should push down the tax rates for both (or allow them to spend more, the more likely outcome).




Posted on: 7/10 18:05
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


I believe this is true. There was that once case downtown where the developer asked the city to rescind the abatement it received because it would pay less under normal taxation.

Posted on: 7/10 18:00
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


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.

Posted on: 7/9 20:13
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


Bingo! I don't understand why the anti-development people don't understand that. Also, the more luxury the development, the more tax revenue it will bring in (be it PILOT payments or property taxes, it's still revenue to the city). The luxury tower at 99 Hudson alone will have over 700 condos with assessments averaging $750,000. That's over half a billion in new ratables and 6-7 million in new property taxes. They new money can be used to lower everyone's taxes or be used to fund additional city services.

Posted on: 7/9 18:25
Top


Re: 4th of July in JC @ Exchange Place - Featuring Snoop Dog
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Well, how was it?

Posted on: 7/6 17:58
Top


Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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


Resized Image

Posted on: 7/3 14:03
Top


Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City payroll tax waiting for gov's signature

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



And Amazon is considering Newark for HQ2? haha.

I'm pretty sure we're screwed either way. tax and spend.

Posted on: 6/30 5:39
Top


Re: Kushner in New Jersey unraveling
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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/



Why do I have the strange feeling Fulop will somehow lose both lawsuits.

Posted on: 6/30 5:36
Top


Re: Jersey City Council to introduce $587 million budget with zero tax increase
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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


lol

Posted on: 6/29 3:03
Top


Re: JC Council Proposes to Limit Public Speaking at Public Hearings
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


Keep speaking to 5 minutes max but encourage the submission of written comments and give them equal weight.

Not everyone is working 9 to 5 or is retired like Yvonne. Those with odd work hours are put at a disadvantage for public participation.

Posted on: 6/25 17:40
Top


Re: Article: Dense zoning is the solution to housing costs
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

val7101 wrote:

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


Exactly. Zoning makes it harder to produce new housing, especially bad zoning which will see the destruction of a 3+ flat replaced by a 2-unit Bayonne Box.

Something must change.

Posted on: 6/20 14:01
Top


Re: Jersey City has big plans for 100 acres on West Side along Hackensack River
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

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.


Are you listening, Fulop?

Posted on: 6/18 12:47
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 28 »






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