|
Re: The Pandemic's effect on the Jersey City and overall Urban Real Estate Market
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
The pros of JC real estate:
-Still, and will always be, a cheaper and viable alternative to NYC itself for people who want to maintain a city lifestyle w/o going full suburb. -For people who felt trapped in their apartment during the pandemic, there's plenty of places in JC with more space, more yards, etc. -There will likely be less room for pure speculation than we've seen recently. Less buying old stock, tearing it down and putting up a Bayonne Box. -Places like the Heights and parts of Bergen/Lafayette will likely see less depreciation since they didn't skyrocket all that much to begin with. The newer developments in those areas might be another story though. The cons: -The property tax bills are going to rise and services, which were poor to begin with, will become worse. -There might be a glut of inventory with so many developments still on going, which will possibly push prices further down. -You're already starting to see a lot more crime. I'd love to know what the year over year burglary rate was in JC. In my neighborhood everything is up for grabs - cars, storefronts and even houses. -I don't see a path to the school situation getting better. Generally, I'd expect JC to outperform NYC mostly because it doesn't have as far to fall as many parts of the NYC do.
Posted on: 2020/6/12 22:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: End of AirBnB in Jersey City?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: End of AirBnB in Jersey City?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
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
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Tax Rate is Insane!
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
$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
|
|||
|
||||