Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
54 user(s) are online (43 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 53

tern, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Yvonne)




Re: Rich Boggiano JSQ/Ward C City Council
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

RichBoggiano wrote:

When The Jersey Journal first asked to talk to Hanussak about his candidacy, he said Fulop's campaign told him he could not be interviewed. This reporter mentioned that to Fulop, who said his campaign had no objections to the interview. Hanussak subsequently agreed to meet with The Jersey Journal.

Asked during that interview how voters could trust he would vote in their best interests if he needed Fulop's express permission to be interviewed by a reporter, Hanussak struggled to answer.

After a 10-second pause, he said, "How the heck do I answer that?" After another 10 seconds, he said, "It's a lot ... " before trailing off.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ber_stamp_reputation.html


This is hilarious! Pure gold!


So you are OK with Reka saying she did not file her state papers due to her skin color and the fact that her supporters would be harassed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFiG-q8Dqrk

Posted on: Today 7:46
Top


Re: Solomon has no resume
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


I don't know what zombies has to do with this, but I do know you fear James Solomon, Joshua. So his worth just shot up.

Posted on: Yesterday 17:48
Top


Re: Solomon has no resume
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


James Solomon and Jake Hudnut spoke about the revaluation in details compared to the other candidates. I believe, James Solomon, might be considered a serious threat for anyone to post this nonsense. Any teacher today must have a background check done, it is part of the routine. So what other Ward E council candidate had a background check?

Posted on: Yesterday 17:09
Top


Re: Rich Boggiano JSQ/Ward C City Council
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Not true Joshua, it came first before the caucus meeting and Councilman Rich Boggiano spoke against this. I was sitting in the caucus room when the discussion happened. Much later, the Medical Center personnel spoke up at public meetings.

Posted on: 10/19 16:28
Top


Rekha Nandwani - Ward C candidate
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


What an answer when asked about filing reports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFiG-q8Dqrk&feature=youtu.be

Posted on: 10/18 12:29
Top


Re: Top Fulop allies on tape trying to steer city bid, court depositions say
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


JERSEY CITY BID RIG TAPE NEWS — Hudson County Superior Court Judge Mary Costello has ordered Jersey City Mayor Fulop’s administration to turn over the recording of former Fulop chief of staff Muhammed Akil and former JCDO Chairman Shawn “Sully” Thomas allegedly discussing rigging a bid. I just got this order late last night, so I haven’t heard back from anyone about it. The plaintiff here is Daniel Wrieden, who’s suing the city for harassment and retaliation. He made a motion to compel the city to turn over the tape, which Costello granted.

Posted on: 10/17 18:31
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


What truth? Have you been reading what I wrote? The truth is lacking in the ordinance. Government, especially the Fulop Administration has the responsibility to be truthful and transparent. Councilman Fulop ran on transparency when he first announced his candidacy for mayor.

Posted on: 10/17 17:26
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


The truth bothers people here. I am sure if Healy did this when he was mayor (yes, I would comment here that it was wrong), there would be attacks about corruption. Now, it is just shoot the messager.

Posted on: 10/17 11:44
Top


Re: Top Fulop allies on tape trying to steer city bid, court depositions say
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


I suggest you watch the debate at the Loews, this question did come up.

Posted on: 10/16 13:21
Top


Loews Forum with Fulop and Matsikoudis
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home



Posted on: 10/16 10:16
Top


Ward F Forum
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home



Posted on: 10/15 17:25
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


I wonder if the people here defending the administration works for city hall. Either this administration is sloppy with its paper work for it is trying to hide information.

Posted on: 10/14 14:08
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


If you are going to quote me then quote me correctly, I claim the city did not have addresses either in the agenda or the ordinances. This is not an oversight at all. It follow the lead of the city not having an appraisal on the 16 acres of land transferred to Liberty Science Center. It appears this administration wants limited information given to the public.

Posted on: 10/14 9:27
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Why would I care? All councilmembers vote on this and all ordinances in some capacity effects the public pocketbook. Why do you want less transparency? Any action at Dixon will be duplicate all over JC in other redevelopment plans. This is one city, not six. Those boundaries by wards are artificial lines. My tax dollars also contribute to development infrastructure all over JC.

Posted on: 10/13 8:24
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


So Brewster, you are happy with a government hiding information. Could you explain why? For the record, Healy did not hide information in his ordinances and many are labeling Matiskoukis as the next Healy.

Posted on: 10/13 7:42
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


There are over 100 redevelopment sites in JC. Redevelopment zones allows development at a quicker pace, it limits the impact of regular public hearings. Originally, it was intended for land that no one wanted. But JC as we know is a hot market.

Posted on: 10/12 21:25
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


If you need to understand then I suggest you attend the caucus and council meetings. I do not put the agenda or the ordinances together, the council president does. Basically, in simple terms, the city is transferring property to a developer and no addresses were listed in the ordinance.

Posted on: 10/12 20:28
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


When the city creates handicapped parking, the address is in the ordinance, so why isn't the same done when property is transferred? In fact the addresses are listed on the agenda and in the body of the ordinance for handicapped parking but so some reason not on the transfer of land. This raises red flags. It reminds me of the city transferring 16 acres of land to the Liberty Science Center. No appraisal was done. When an appraisal was done after the transfer, the land value was $17 million. The JCRA used the land on Union Street and ignored the 71/2 acres that was sold for $35 million. The 71/2 acres is very close to the 16 acres of land while Union Street is not. I don't trust this city. That is why I asked where are the addresses.

Posted on: 10/12 19:10
Top


Re: Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


After I posted, I received the addresses from the lawyer.

Block 12608:

1.       Lot 1 – 88 Brunswick Street
2.       Lot 2 – 200 Wayne Street
3.       Lot 3 – 198 Wayne Street
4.       Lot 4 – 194 Wayne Street

Block 12707:

1.       Lot 3 – 140 Wayne Street/343 Varick Street

Block 12801:

1.       Lot 2 – 157 Wayne Street
2.       Lot 3 – 155 Wayne Street
3.       Lot 4 – 153 Wayne Street

This should have been part of the ordinance.

Posted on: 10/12 17:34
Top


Dixon Redevelopment Plan
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


At the council meeting, I spoke on city ordinance 17-136, adopting amendments to the Dixon Crucible Redevelopment Plan as a scattered site. I questioned the wisdom of doing this since, the city is transferring property to one developer. The addresses were not in the ordinances. The lawyer for the developer was there and spoke. She said I would receive the addresses the next day. I received one address,198 Wayne Street and was told to look up the other addresses on the city's website. The lot and block are not in the paragraph associated in the sheet for the public and are perhaps in the ordinances. So what I was promised was not deliver and the public does not know what property was transferred because it was not in the ordinance, I am guessing lots and blocks numbers are. The city council member voted on something without the exact addresses. This administration is giving away the city and shutting out the public.

Posted on: 10/12 16:34
Top


Re: Top Fulop allies on tape trying to steer city bid, court depositions say
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Could someone on tell me the difference between corruption that Councilman Fulop called out on the Healy Administration and corruption on the bidding process on the Fulop Administration? Fulop is not responsible for the individual actions of the people he hire but he is responsible for any coverup. A transparent government means allowing the tapes to be heard. What Fulop should have done is take leadership and exposed this problem immediately and fired people, not cover it up.

Posted on: 10/12 12:49
Top


Re: Top Fulop allies on tape trying to steer city bid, court depositions say
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


The request by Barbara Camacho before the city council.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8UlJ_Bm9Hk

Posted on: 10/12 8:32
Top


Re: Matsikoudis want to expand rent control?
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Perhaps Fulop's campaign, "Make Jersey City Yours" was too successful and New Yorkers are here driving up the prices.

Posted on: 10/10 9:42
Top


Re: At Large Council Forum
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


I am glad you pick up on that, here is Esther just speaking on this at the end.
https://youtu.be/zJntdFbqUKE

Posted on: 10/8 16:51
Top


Re: Matsikoudis want to expand rent control?
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


The rent control laws got revised in October 1985 by the late Councilman Buddy Brooks. He lived in St. John's apt and was having a dispute with the Bob Sachs, who managed the property. Basically, tax, water, and other increases were passed on the landlord but not to the tenant. The tenant was governed by the city's increases which ranged from 1% to 4%. Landlords could always appealed through hardships but instead many buildings became condos. I still remember some councilmen voting for this but was worry it would have an impact downt he road. Yes, they were correct. Rent controlled apartments today only pertained to 5 units. The change would be apartments less than five units. The real problem- the city eliminated rent control for new construction so LeFrak would build his towers. LeFrac asked for that ordinance, he did not ask for tax abatements as stated by many. I believe the elimination is for 99 years for new construction.

Posted on: 10/8 14:09
Top


At Large Council Forum
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home



Posted on: 10/7 20:28
Top


Re: New Equalized Valuations Out, JC at $28.4 billion
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop inherited the expiration of tax abatements during his first term which pushed up the ratable base and actually hid the spending he was doing.


I hate to admit, but I think there is some truth in this - we should have seen greater tax rate cuts with the expiring abatements but instead the tax rate has remained unchanged as spending has increased.

Most of the additional spending has been for hiring new police officers.


If you check the council agenda for the past 4 years, there was a new job title on nearly every agenda. In addition to cops the city were hiring people.

Posted on: 10/6 22:48
Top


Re: New Equalized Valuations Out, JC at $28.4 billion
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop inherited the expiration of tax abatements during his first term which pushed up the ratable base and actually hid the spending he was doing.


I hate to admit, but I think there is some truth in this - we should have seen greater tax rate cuts with the expiring abatements but instead the tax rate has remained unchanged as spending has increased.

Most of the additional spending has been for hiring new police officers.


Healy's last budge was $485 million, the budget adopted this year is $580 million, an increase of $95 million.

Posted on: 10/6 16:20
Top


Re: New Equalized Valuations Out, JC at $28.4 billion
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:

I am posting this here because I've seen so much speculation on what the new tax rate will be after the reval. (which doesn't actually change the tax rate).



Tax Bill = Assessed Value * Tax Rate

Since the Total Assessed Value of the City increased according to your report, then the Tax Rate willdecrease.

That is assuming total appropriations/spending, average tax bill, etc. remains the same or if you prefer fancy words, ceteris paribus.


This is correct.

My statement that JC's tax rate will drop assumes that the tax levy will stay the same or increase slightly. Since JC's tax levy won't increase by the 10% growth in EV, it's a very safe assumption to make.

Jersey City's official, aggregate assessed value also increased, from $6,075,860,248 to $6,214,706,588.

I assume that increase is from new unPILOTed development, the expiration of old PILOTs, and some additions & improvements here and there.

Knowing that the official, assessed value increased by $128 million and knowing that JC's "equalization ratio" is .2188 allows one to estimate that the new ratables increased by $634 million in Equalized Valuation and that the rest of JC's $2.7 increase in EV came from appreciation.

Yes, 99 Hudson will have a big impact. All of Hudson County is going to feel that.

I don't like Steve Fulop for other reasons, but he should get credit for not PILOTing 99 Hudson.


No, stateaidguy, the increase of the ratable base happened because many of the tax abatements from the 1990s have expired. The ratable base was between $5.4 to $5.7 during Healy's term. Fulop inherited the expiration of tax abatements during his first term which pushed up the ratable base and actually hid the spending he was doing.

Posted on: 10/6 15:20
Top


Re: New Equalized Valuations Out, JC at $28.4 billion
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


I had said this before, in the early 1980s, development was happening without abatements. Mayor Cucci was stuck with a $20 million bill from the state for the school system and he approached developers with the idea of an abatement if they prepay their taxes. The first 4 Newport buildings were up without an tax abatement, they received it later from Mayor Cucci, Dixon was built without a tax abatement and so was Society Hill. Dixon and Society Hills never received a belated tax abatement like Newport. These developments happened when interest rates were double digit.

Posted on: 10/6 11:00
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 137 »






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