Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
24 user(s) are online (15 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 24

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (o_crunk)




Re: End of AirBnB in Jersey City?
#1
Newbie
Newbie


Quote:

neverleft wrote:
.
Readers weigh in on Jersey City referendum on short-term rentals | Opinion

Today 4:00 PM (10/11/2019)

By Letters To The Editor | The Jersey Journal

Editor’s note: When Jersey City voters go to the polls Nov. 5, they’ll be asked a referendum question on whether the city should put into effect (VOTE YES) or overturn (VOTE NO) a new city law that puts restrictions on short-term rentals of properties such as Airbnb. The law, approved in June, allows homeowners who are on-site to share their home 365 days a year and calls for an annual 60-day cap for short-term rentals if the property owner is not on-site. It prohibits short-term rentals in buildings with more than four units and phases out existing short-term rental contracts in those buildings by Jan. 1, 2021. It also prohibits renters from serving as short-term rental hosts.

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2019/10/rea ... term-rentals-opinion.html


.


It's not clear to me how the first response (Sherry Geoghegan) is burdened by the new regulations passing. It's owner occupied, so not sure what the complaint is since they didn't lay out exactly how they would be adversely affected.

The second pro-AirBnB response from Barbara Camacho is the most compelling. However, I'm inclined to think that paying your taxes and water bills, in addition to registering your residence as an AirBnB *should* be a prerequisite. You're ultimately running a hotel business. But the arguments regarding the invasive nature of disclosing *who* those occupants are to the city are probably the most compelling argument against the new regs.

The third response which was anti-AirBnB was a total joke saying it doesn't go far enough. I don't believe they should be banned but there does need to be more regulation of this activity than what is currently on the books.

Generally, this is one of those issues where a good newspaper would better lay out in plain terms what is actually at stake here. Journalism has suffered the last several decades mostly because journalists have been hijacked by the "both sides" narrative and that has meant that each side gets their say and nobody who is a curious reader will leave with any better understanding of an issue. I realize these are just letters to the editor sort of thing but I've yet to read anything that lays this out plainly.

Posted on: 2019/10/14 14:23
Top


Re: End of AirBnB in Jersey City?
#2
Newbie
Newbie


It's pretty tough to find good rundowns on this issue. On the one hand, the mailers from the pro-AirBnB side are pure trash and not very convincing. On the other side, the anti-AirBnB side says they are responsible for rent increases, etc. Not very convincing.

I've used AirBnB quite a bit. They are sort of like a less specious Uber in a way. They are obviously undercutting the hotel business and, surprise, that's who's funding the Fulop side of this. On the other hand, some of these AirBnB places are going for rock bottom prices - not so much undercutting the market but totally changing the market entirely.

I'm not convinced they are responsible for rent increases. Rents have increased steadily long before these tech startups like Uber and AirBnB have changed entire markets.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that community matters and lean more toward a YIMBY than NIMBY. That said, the actual regulations seem sensible to me. I'm a little suspicious of this whole issue simply because the money involved on both sides of this campaign seems extreme for what's at stake.

My gut says to vote with Fulop on this one simply because these tech startups / giants need to pay their way and play by some rules as well. There's no way these new regs put them out of business. If you own your house and it's not beyond 4 units, nothing much changes from what I've read. If you have more than 4 units, well just rent it out like everyone else. Renters typically have sublet restrictions and these regs just write them into law sensibly, IMO.

If AirBnB is willing to spend this much money on this campaign, it's got to be hitting their wallets and I'm okay with that. Frankly, many of the places I've stayed at via AirBnB over the years were crazy cheap compared to market rates. I like a deal as much as the next person but it's almost like they're deliberately low to increase their market share over time, same as Uber. That can't last forever.

Posted on: 2019/10/11 0:04
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#3
Newbie
Newbie


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
This is an example where you can use numbers to prove any point, let me say one thing. Income from the 1970s have not gone up. Plus the one thing that has bother me is the fact many are saying downtown is not paying their fair share. The people I know are paying between $10,000 to $16,000 the majority is paying $14,000 before this revaluation. That is not cheap taxes.


I paid about $10K last year and I'm a new property owner in the Heights. I really don't have a problem with that even considering that property owners downtown that own property 4 to 6 times what I paid for mine are paying around $10K also (pre-reval). $10K/year is pretty cheap when you consider the surrounding towns and counties. I have family paying 2 to 3 times more in taxes on property worth half as much. So the idea that JC is "not cheap" taxes doesn't exactly ring true when you look at the surrounding areas. Of course, you get what you pay for and the services in JC are nowhere near what the surrounding areas are.

Is it all fair? Of course not.

But the example you cite of a city budget in 2017 being $500M more than 1970 is not just using any old numbers to "prove a point", it's using WRONG numbers to prove a point. You will notice that BLS stands for Bureau of Labor Statistics and yes *income* is part of their inflation calculation.

I take your above response as acknowledging that you are wrong by flat out changing the subject.

Posted on: 2018/2/25 20:20
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#4
Newbie
Newbie


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If I am wrong, then the county tax assessor who I call every year is also wrong. His office produces the numbers that I refer to. Amazing, even Mayor Fulop in one of his earlier tax letter to taxpayers said taxes did not go up due to higher ratable base, he was referring to the expired tax abatements from the 1990s. Once a tax abatement has expired it becomes a ratable and it stabilizes the tax base. It is the reason Hoboken with their million dollar homes did not have this upheaval because they rarely give out tax abatements. By the way, according to the Federal government inflation is low so to suggest $90 million is equivalent to $588 million is insane, it is the reason Social Security recipients have not received an increase in years.


The inlfation calculator that I used is directly from the US government's own BLS website here: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

You can also see what the exact detail of inflation statistics here (and if you toggle the range from 1970 to 2018, you can see the numbers more starkly):
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0

The suggestion that the budget increased $500M since 1970 in *real* terms is insane. $1 in 1970 had a lot more buying power than $1 does in 2018. Any argument that is not taking that into account is pure abfuscation.

I'm not talking about abatements or Hoboken. I'm talking about your budget number of $90M in 1970 vs what the equivalent budget number is today. Apples to apples. Not apples to oranges.

Posted on: 2018/2/25 20:03
Top


Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
#5
Newbie
Newbie


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I have said this numerous times the problem is two fold, cheap tax abatements which are not ratables and the budget. My first budget hearing I attended in the 1970s, the city spending was $90 million and it took 300 years to get to that point. Healy's last budget was $485 million and Fulop 2017 budget is $588 million. All taxes are based on spending at city hall but no one notices. You need a strong ratable base which means no tax abatements because they are not ratables but contracts and you need to cut the spending.


$90M in 1970 is approximately $590M in 2018 dollars adjusted for inflation. So really, the budget, adjusted for inflation is not really all that different from 1970 in *real* terms.

Posted on: 2018/2/25 17:57
Top



TopTop






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