Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
45 user(s) are online (27 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 44

richieveal, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (HeightsNative)




Re: Constant High Pitch Whine/Drone DTJC
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


The way your title describes it, I might have to assume it's Steve Fulop complaining about not getting credit for something he's tangentially connected to?

Posted on: 7/25 14:03
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Bodhi you're right and I apologize. I misread the quotes and attributed your comment to someone else and mistakenly called you a shill. You're far from it. The points I made still stand, but again, apologies on the vitriol.

Posted on: 7/22 22:57
Top


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


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.


“Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.”

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here’s what “Stateaidguy” said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.


Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.



Yes and the part YOU and Fulop's shills keep distracting from is that under the PILOT scenario, ZERO of it goes to the schools. This was the greatest scam going as long as the state agreed to keep picking up the bulk of the school budget.

But again, at an avg property tax rate of 2.4%, the state woke up, and is pulling back educational funding to JC, which it should have done long ago.

This long term abuse of abatements, coupled with the delayed reval, is a huge financial powder keg waiting to blow. Steve got lucky the state allowed him to impose a business tax. That's a bandaid to a hatchet wound.

Posted on: 7/22 14:29
Top


Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Unless the state plans to take over prosecuting everyone in JC there's not much they can do about it. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion over how they charge people.
this one reason why i'm frustrated with murphy. how the heck can he talk about legalizing recreational use of marijuana, yet put up obtsacles when fulop wants to decriminalize it


Because there is a process and it takes time. Cities can't just do what JC did

Posted on: 7/21 6:11
Top


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


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.

Posted on: 7/21 6:08
Top


Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

neverleft wrote:
.
New Jersey A.G. to Jersey City: no, you can't decriminalize pot
Updated 2:26 PM; Posted 1:39 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald tmcdonald@jjournal.com

The Jersey Journal

JERSEY CITY — Jersey City spent one day riding high on its new policy decriminalizing marijuana before state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal told the city's new chief prosecutor on Friday that the policy is void because it violates state criminal laws.

https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... nt_decriminalize_pot.html


Hahahahahaha, your boy got smacked!

Posted on: 7/20 15:59
Top


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


Quote:

bodhipooh 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...


THIS. That's an incredibly low rate, which will only embolden state legislators and other municipalities to lobby for reduced financial support for JC. It's just not possible to claim poverty and inability to support the local schools when you are levying what is likely the lowest property tax rate in the entire state.


And, last I checked, the avg rate in NJ is 2.4%. This party is surely over.

Posted on: 7/20 9:25
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Final rate is 1.488.


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

Posted on: 7/20 8:57
Top


Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh 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.


You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??


Bodhi, you know I am a fan, and it pains me to say this, but Yvonne's point is very valid. Yes, abatements add to the city's coffers, but at the expense of the schools. It works as long as the state never realizes they're overfunding the district and the state aid continues unchanged, or increases.

Right before our very eyes, we're seeing the house of cards situation unfold. The state now recognizes it sends way too much money to Jersey (those paying property taxes post reval will have one of the lowest property tax rates in the state), and are pulling the funding. If you had less abatements, the city would be better prepared to absorb the tax increase that will result from the state pulling the aid. Instead, they're going to levy a corporate tax. And when that option runs out, guess who pays? The rateable portion of the city. Fulop will stop at nothing to keep from raising municipal taxes to fund the schools, because he has a streak to protect, but that day WILL come. And it's going to be ugly.

Abataments definitely have their place. I'm not anti abatement. But, abatements in JC help any sitting mayor fund pet projects that win votes. When abused, you create a massive fiscal issue, just like the 30 year delayed tax reval.

Posted on: 7/10 9:01
Top


Re: 4th of July in JC @ Exchange Place - Featuring Snoop Dog
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
July 3rd: "This rapper guy is gonna get people shot! Oh, the humanity!"

July 5th: "He started late! Oh, the humanity!"

Gotta love JCL sometimes.


Why would anybody think a rap concert would start on time @ 8:30? I am sure the producers knew that... an hour late is being very accomodating to a rap audience on a hot night.

I saw Lavarro twitter live.. it wasn't a video of the longest soundcheck ever but it was pretty apparent he was late. Jersey City should be thankful he even showed up.


Because it's that difficult to comunicate with the crowd, and give updates?

Posted on: 7/5 15:10
Top


Re: What Will Be Closed in HC if the State Shuts Down
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Adonis wrote:
Funny how nobody is mentioning how this "deal" is going to screw the Jersey City school system. Thanks Murphy.


Correction: This deal is going to finally force JC to pay for it's own schools. Post after post from Steve (and his sycophants) bragging about JC's successes and growths, it's almost like he was daring the state to do this. Well, they did. And, now we will. Party's over.

Posted on: 7/2 20:39
Top


Re: These 28 N.J. towns are booming with families earning $200K or more
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


It doesn't help JC when these dopes and the mayor are bragging about it, all the while nailing their own financial coffin.

Posted on: 7/1 12:42
Top


Re: These 28 N.J. towns are booming with families earning $200K or more
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
N.J. Budget: 5 Things you Need to Know

5. School funding will be revamped.

Murphy said he will sign a bill to overhaul the state's school funding formula. Money will be shifted over seven years from districts considered overfunded under the school funding formula to underfunded districts.

No district will gain or lose more than $3.5 million next year.

More about funding overhaul

"...Jersey City, which stands to lose the most funding, is getting a special reprieve from the state. Under a separate bill, the city could levy a 1 percent payroll tax, with the school district as the sole recipient."


$3.5mm is just for the first year for JC. Then that number goes up exponentially over the next 6 years. So steve has one year of grace period to figure it out. Tax hikes on homeowners is inevitable.


Posted on: 7/1 10:31
Top


Re: These 28 N.J. towns are booming with families earning $200K or more
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Yes!! Thank you for posting, dude. This is helping some of us get the state legislature to reduce education state aid to places like JC and make JC pay for its own schools. Keep them coming!


Right I wrote the piece for nj.com. Still staking me after 2 years...how creepy of you.


So now I can't comment on articles posted just because they're from you? I didn't curse or call you names. Get a life buddy.

Either way, I do thank you for posting this. I'm always afraid I'm going to miss an article and not get the ammunition I need. I genuinely thank you.

Posted on: 7/1 10:26
Top


Re: These 28 N.J. towns are booming with families earning $200K or more
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yes!! Thank you for posting, dude. This is helping some of us get the state legislature to reduce education state aid to places like JC and make JC pay for its own schools. Keep them coming!

Posted on: 7/1 9:12
Top


Re: JC Council Proposes to Limit Public Speaking at Public Hearings
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


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.

Posted on: 6/25 15:09
Top


Re: Gothamist: The PATH Is A Packed, Slow-Motion Nightmare For NJ Commuters This Morning
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Toonces wrote:
The PATH seems to be getting worse and worse every day! Emails pointing to "delays" don't really help if they don't include a general estimate on how long the delays are lasting... This morning, my train from JSQ to the WTC was delayed by ~25 minutes - a ride that usually lasts 10-12 minutes was well over half an hour. Obviously they KNOW this, so it'd be nice to be warned ahead of time so we could at least try to plan to leave the house early and account for the extra time!


I am no PATH apologist, but the PA has been issuing alerts hourly (since early this morning) letting people know to expect delays because of ongoing testing of the PTC implementation/system.



Right, but MUST it be tested during rush hour? You have 20+ other hours in the day to do so.

Posted on: 6/13 11:52
Top


Re: Donald Trump Solidifies World Peace
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
Good *lord* you guys are thirsty for a win, aren't you.


I don't see that. Been many wins so far, one after another. I think the lefty's are dying of thirst for an L".

Look no further than Bill Maher, praying for a Recession, acknowledging it will hurt millions, just to get rid of Trump.

Trump derangement syndrome is indeed real. I didn't vote for the clown, but I do appreciate his ability to bring out the absolute worst in the mouth breathing, frothing progs.

Posted on: 6/12 12:55
Top


Re: Newark Avenue Pedestrian Plaza Expansion
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

ActionDan wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Time is everything in a fire. Years ago, the fire union, yes union, gave a talk about safety for their men. In that talk, the most important issue was time. After a fire starts burning, it is a matter of time before a fire explodes which is deadly for fire fighters. Removing barrier or a loss of time add to this problem.


I honestly don't understand why you post things like this.


I don't know why any of you reply. I'm serious, take the challenge. Resist all urges to rely to anything from Yvonne. Do it for a week. It would be hilarious.

Posted on: 6/6 16:33
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
I nominate myself to buy a round of drinks for Stateaidguy and Monroe, for bringing facts and rationality to the discussion.


I second that nomination, for stateaidguy anyway.


Ahhhhh come on. Reach across the aisle! Be a uniter!

Posted on: 6/5 10:46
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


I nominate myself to buy a round of drinks for Stateaidguy and Monroe, for bringing facts and rationality to the discussion.

Posted on: 6/5 10:22
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


LOL, what year was Abbott vs Burke? Oh yeah, 1985. Time to update that.

Posted on: 6/4 22:25
Top


Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
I guess those vaunted NJ suburban schools failed you. Again, the subject is Sweeney.

Go over to the Abbot thread and rub yourself blind.


Hahah someone is mad the rest of the state woke up to the raw deal they were getting, and is scared of the next round of tax hikes that are inevitable.

Posted on: 6/4 12:41
Top


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


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Brewster, I'm ok with the tax-but disturbed that JC would find a way to exempt JC residents from the tax.


Why? Something well north of 80k people commute to JC, that's what it was a decade ago, best data I could find. They spend at least 40 hrs a week here, why is it outrageous to suggest they contribute more than maybe buying lunch?

As for school aid, bullshit. You've made clear for years that you want state support to JC ended, not just cut back to SFRA levels. Your stuff is nothing more than classic right wing social darwinism orthodoxy: everyone look out for themselves, and justify failure with your armchair sociology.


State aid should be completely cut off in a city where 1/3 of the buildings contribute ZERO to schools because of abatements, while at the same time spending like crazy. . Period. End of story. Until the property tax rate in JC approaches average, you should not complain whatsoever if our benefactors (homeowners in the rest of state) resent JC for this.

Posted on: 6/3 23:47
Top


Re: This county is booming, but most Shore areas haven't recovered their mojo.
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Yay JC! Start paying a comparable property tax rate! Start paying for your own schools!! LOL.


How many cities you keep citing that have high tax rates are working with a 2018 valuation?


I know they don't have a 1988 valuation ;)

Posted on: 6/3 22:53
Top


Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


No, Monroe. Don't you know it's racist these days to even suggest personal responsibility as a course of action?? Tsk, tsk, this board is going to eat you alive for that one LMAO.

Jokes aside, Monroe nailed it with the point that no one is saying prevent JC from using the payroll tax. But again, with very little skin in the game, behavior won't change. The reval is the greatest thing to happen to JC for all the reasons Monroe listed. Will steve be able to fund his pet projects to keep the locals asleep, and still keep taxes flat now?

We all can't wait to see!

Posted on: 6/3 22:41
Top


Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep saying that state funds are somehow the suburbs money going to the city. The urban areas are where the jobs are located, and where business that generates sales tax is located. Sure there are some exceptions like the Short Hills Mall, and some income is generated from investments and the like, rather than jobs. But many of those suburbanites demanding their "fair share" commute into NYC, and pay their income tax to NY, not NJ. (The same is true, of course, for Jersey City residents that hop the PATH train in).

Whatever the issues with "fair share" of property taxes going to schools, Jersey City and other urban areas provide the lion's share of funding to the state.


Source for this completely made up tidbit?

I'm sure JC produces more revenue than most cities in NJ. It's highly unlikely they provide more revenue than the rest of the state. But nice try. Party's over, pal.

Posted on: 6/3 22:01
Top


Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Monroe, and non JC residents like him, quite frankly, have just as much skin in the game with JC as residents do.


No, they don't. Same as we don't let foreigners, even ones who live here, vote in our US elections. If a JC public employee chooses not to live in the city that employs them, they give up the right to vote in that city. They can choose to work elsewhere, same as all the people who complain about street noise and parking are told to move if they don't like it.

I hate the fact that we have Monmouth County resident cops who, when told of a crime, think and even occasionally say, "what do you expect, living in this shithole?" I had a friend who taught in the system say the other night that one of her colleagues was an deep racist who hated all the kids in the school. When your city employees are only interested in what they can extract from a city they don't live in, you don't give them a say in the budget.


Doesn't it smack you of "taxation without representation?" While I agree that non-residents can't (or, shouldn't) directly affect local politics, I do find it more than a little ironic to feign some indignation at non-residents for wanting to more say (or, visibility) into local spending when the city (and, its residents) are more than willing and happy to take the money of non-residents to help pay for local matters.

It reminds me of the proverbial free loader whose family will help finance his expenses, but who gets upset when someone questions his lifestyle and choices. Talk about chutzpah, really.


It's not proverbial; JC is one of the worst freeloader around. Period. Want outsiders to butt out? No problem, just relinquish the state of the almost $500mm they give a year for these failing schools, and you won't hear a peep from the outsiders. Until then, JC is the equivalent of living in moms basement.

Posted on: 6/3 20:57
Top


Re: Sweeney proposes slapping payroll tax on Jersey City businesses to fund schools
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Does this mean that if you're a resident of JC you would be untaxed on the 1%, while JC workers from other towns have to pay it?


Sounds like yes, unless JC decides to tax it's residents too. So...NYC does it, Newark does it, will the world end if we do it too rather than raise the rate 25%? Obviously this is a component of how NYC keeps it's residential property taxes so low.

I'd rather see school cost reformed, but that ain't going to happen, we're talking seriously entrenched interests. And BTW, a lot of those so interested city employees don't even live here, same as you don't.


Why the last, snarky remark? Monroe, and non JC residents like him, quite frankly, have just as much skin in the game with JC as residents do. I'd argue non JC residents have more interest given they fund the majority of JC's school budget. I'm sure they'd like to understand what they're paying for, and they probably don't want to pay it anymore. To exempt JC residents from this, given that it exists to fund JC expenses, is ludicrous.

Posted on: 6/3 18:40
Top


Re: This county is booming, but most Shore areas haven't recovered their mojo.
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yay JC! Start paying a comparable property tax rate! Start paying for your own schools!! LOL.

Posted on: 6/3 17:38
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 6 »






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