Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
50 user(s) are online (39 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 49

Yvonne, more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (bodhipooh)




Lincoln Tunnel Approach Lanes 2-year Closure... impact on JC?
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


I only just learned today that two lanes on the bridge that leads from the Turnpike to the Lincoln Tunnel are being closed for renovations, with an estimated completion two years from now. This immediately got me wondering how this could potentially affect traffic in and around JC. And, of course, does anyone really believe this will be completed in two years?

Hard to believe that this is happening right after the Pulaski was finally re-opened. Or, perhaps it is precisely this renovation what spurred the rushed re-opening of the Pulaski??


Posted on: 8/17 17:27
Top


Re: JC Street Sweep and Parking Petition!
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
I absolutely oppose this idea. We have a parking problem because of the significant increase in density. The City did not mandate developers to provide adequate parking. The increase in density necessitates more cleaning services. Reducing the amount of street cleaning will result in the City being filthy. Our taxes have just been increased. We should be getting at least the same amount of services, not less services. The City should come up with a better solution to the parking problem. I would propose that constituents with utility vehicles or larger SUVs should have to pay a larger annual fee for annual parking permits, Columbus Ave. should have residential permit parking for constituents instead of private entities and the City should reopen the pedestrian plaza between Erie and Barrow.


Wow... in other words, let's rollback all the initiatives that promote safer streets, and urban walkability.

For starters, there was no such thing as a tax increase. The city, post reval, is collecting the same amount of taxes as before. If you saw an increase in your tax bill, that only means you had been underpaying in the past. Consider yourself lucky.

Also, it seems illogical to want lower taxes (or to bemoan higher taxes, if that was true) but to be in opposition of curtailing city services. You can't have both.

The pedestrian plazas are a success. I truly hope the city administration and council have the fortitude to keep them in place despiste the vocal opposition of some old timers that want to be able to drive and park wherever they go.

The idea that there isn't enough parking at some development is simply provably false: virtually every parking deck in DTJC offers heavily discounted parking that entices MORE commuters to drive here because they are never full. If you feel that there are residents in high rises that have cars despite their buildings having a parking deck, call the PA and report those vehicles. After all, residents of buildings with parking decks are not entitled to on-street parking permits.

Posted on: 8/15 9:28
Top


Re: JC Street Sweep and Parking Petition!
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


This would be great. In any case, the sweepers do a piss poor job, so cutting back the frequency to just once per side of the street would likely lead to the same result.


Posted on: 8/14 21:45
Top


Re: Jersey City seeks to boost pay of department directors
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
some positions would be hard to find a talented person to be able to discharge the duties and responsibilities without providing a competitive salary


Possibly, but I doubt it. My observation has been that the Metro area is so saturated in well educated talent in every field that the difference between the top and middle is mostly the opportunities they've had. It's easy to see this in the arts, but it extends to many other fields.


I can only speak to my experience. As part of my work, I am often asked to advise clients on their hiring of a new CIO or Director of IT. The very few that have tried to find someone for less than 150K have never been successful in their hires. They all flame out or turn out to be overwhelmed by the job. It is simply not possible in this region to find someone to fill that kind of position for that kind of money. When Jersey City had listed the Director of IT position, it was offering a laughably low salary. I think the city's web presence has improved tremendously since Fulop took over, but the bar was SO LOW, that anything would have been great. The truth is that the IT solutions in place at the moment are terrible, starting with those that are user-facing. None of the city-related websites I have seen perform as you would expect from "the best midsize city" in the US. Not even close.

In any case, all I am trying to say is that i am sure the truth lies somewhere in between: surely some positions could be discharged by just about anyone, while others do require some actual skills and talent.

Posted on: 8/14 17:54
Top


Re: Jersey City seeks to boost pay of department directors
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City seeks to boost pay of department directors

JERSEY CITY — The city is proposing annual raises of $10,660 to $28,835 for nine department directors, citing a need to boost pay to keep top officials from fleeing city government for higher paying jobs.

The planned pay raises would be the first for the nine positions in more than a decade. The business administrator, clerk and corporation counsel would see their pay rise from $139,340 to $150,000. The directors of economic development, health, human resources, public works and recreation, plus the tax assessor, would get a pay boost from $121,165 to $150,000.

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



Let em flee, this "losing talent" crap is the biggest lie. There's plenty of competent people out there who would love those already well paying jobs. I know people with Ivy degrees who'd be thrilled to make $140k in the public sector with great benefits.


I think that it is a bit over simplistic to make blanket statements either way: without a doubt, some positions would be hard to find a talented person to be able to discharge the duties and responsibilities without providing a competitive salary, but some others are so basic, that any educated person could hold the job.

Posted on: 8/14 15:40
Top


Re: I've seen pre-construction sales but this is ridiculous! 323 7th St
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
What is propping it up are the very low interest rates due to Federal Reserve intervention, lots of foreign money coming into the USA, and Boomer generation investment capital.

The Fed is now trying to unwind its balance sheet and the Boomers are retiring (though many are staying in the work force beyond age 67). When the Boomers retire, a lot of investment money is going to dry up as it is converted into safe stuff like T-bills. A lot of real estate will hit the market as Boomers need to cash out and move to smaller (cheaper) homes / condos. Gen X is too small and Gen Y has waaay too much debt to absorb it all.

As for the foreign money... some of what is coming in doesn't care about positive returns. It is "money getting out of Dodge". If the investors only loses half of it, it is better than losing all of it back in his/her home country. Real estate is where a good chunk of that money is going.


Without a doubt, the foreign money influx is a huge part of what is keeping the runup in valuation still going. As shown in another thread here in JCLIST, it seems like some/most people don't understand (or can not fully grasp) the fear (or, mistrust) of banks in other countries and why real estate investing here, even if there is a drop in values at times, is still a preferable result over keeping money back home.

Heck, no need to look very far: over the past 10 years, the Mexican peso has lost half its value against the US dollar. For people in Mexico who have money, most usually keep it overseas, which has recently come under scrutiny by their federal government and they are now trying to seize overseas accounts of some citizens, or taxing them heavily. Any peso invested in real estate in the US 10 years would be worth almost 4 times what it would be worth today. The same is true of a bunch of Asian currencies. Really, it is hard to fault any of those people for wanting to avail themselves of the economic safety of the US.

Posted on: 8/14 15:37
Top


Re: I've seen pre-construction sales but this is ridiculous! 323 7th St
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Given the current DTJC market, I feel that a GRM of 100 is a little too conservative. Most of the new luxury developments in DTJC that provide a good reference point (say, developments in which condos and rentals are built by the same developer, in the same area, such as Oakman/ArtHouse or Provost Square) have GRMs of 200 - 300. Of course, that's a deep-pocketed developer, so probably not a very apt comparison.

The big question is does a property cashflow, or is it a speculation play. A bank would not lend on any of these if they were commercial and being appraised via their Cap Rate rather than comps.

FWIW, let me correct your GRM calc, it's usually done as price/(monthly rent x12), so something selling for 100x rent has a GRM of 8.3. The worst GRM I ever bought was a 10.7 3-family in 2004.

What I'd also like to know about this property is how are they getting 4 floors in an R-1 zone? Did they get a variance?


Agreed that it is all about cash flow, and perhaps the relationship one may have with a lender. Deep pocketed developers can probably afford the risk or borrowing a little easier. As for GRM, I have always been curious about that, and I know it is a metric you reference often. In the past, I have seen some real estate people use it on a yearly rent basis (as you indicated) and others as a per month rent basis. MY experience has been that most commercial investors use the yearly rent basis, while some (most?) residential small investors use the monthly basis. In the end, it's all the same, just a matter of knowing which is being referenced/used. If you don't mind my asking: where would you normally draw the line?

Posted on: 8/14 15:31
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Katyn monument won, victory for the people.
https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... u.html#incart_river_index


You do understand that nothing has really changed, right? The council could still decide to move forward with this by putting it up for a referendum. I hope they do.

Posted on: 8/14 10:48
Top


Re: I've seen pre-construction sales but this is ridiculous! 323 7th St
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

brewster wrote:

Another is the GRM of these properties, the rent/purchase ratio. This place would have to rent for $18k a month to make sense as a rental, so who in their truly right mind wants to own it?


Given the current DTJC market, I feel that a GRM of 100 is a little too conservative. Most of the new luxury developments in DTJC that provide a good reference point (say, developments in which condos and rentals are built by the same developer, in the same area, such as Oakman/ArtHouse or Provost Square) have GRMs of 200 - 300. Of course, that's a deep-pocketed developer, so probably not a very apt comparison.

But, I do agree with your overall assessment. But, then again, I thought we would have seen a correction by now, so what do I know? Obviously there is enough money (or, exuberance?) in the market to keep propping up this house of cards.

Posted on: 8/14 7:54
Top


Re: I've seen pre-construction sales but this is ridiculous! 323 7th St
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCman24 wrote:

Looking at zillow, there are a lot of buildings in the $1m range in the neighborhood that haven't moved despite being listed for months. I just don't see a market for a $1.8m mini-mansion around here.


If you keep looking in Zillow, you will see that (so far in 2018) there have been 33 properties sold at 1.5+ MM. At the same point last year, there had been 27 sales meeting the same criteria. The total number of sales in 2017 was 81, with the bulk of sales (34) happening in the last three months of the year. I do think there is a sizable market for these very expensive properties.

Posted on: 8/14 7:43
Top


Re: Hatfield and McCoy's on Astor Place!
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


I am not at all privy to the intimate details of this situation, but here is the part that surprised me most: as I am reading the article, none of it came across as hard to believe. I can 100% see some of old timer feeling slighted over an "interloper" wanting to take a more active role in the local NA, and I can see this escalating to the point of being silly/ridiculous.

The truth is that there are a lot of tensions at the local NAs between old timers and recent arrivals. Most of the stuff plays out in the form of whispering and gossiping behind people's back and subtle, passive aggressive actions. A true shame, really.

Posted on: 8/8 9:18
Top


Re: Dixon Leasing Cheating JC out of Taxes with the help of Rebecca Sysmes
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Has anyone put together a definitive list of dixon properties and their pre / post reassessments ?

I would think a FOIA would take care of that.


You don't need to submit a FOIA request to get this information. Property tax information is open to the public at large, and you can look it up yourself via the property tax portal.

You can start by looking at their website, grab the addresses of their real estate listings at the moment and then look up those properties. Afterwards, you can search the tax property records for additional properties they may own by using the ownership information for the listings you just searched.

Not sure what it is that people expect to find... but, I very much doubt that the appraisal company would take the colossal (and, dumb) risk of purposefully appraising the Dixon properties way below market when said information is easily searchable and available to the public at large.

Posted on: 8/7 9:22
Top


Re: its official: entire heights must buy resident parking permit
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jklm wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

But, if indeed this is a problem in your neck of the woods, here is some good news for you: residents of developments which have parking (even if the parking is not free) are not eligible for on-street parking. So, once the rules go into effect, all those residents of high rises with parking decks/lots will have to figure a place to park, or risk getting ticketed. At $100/ticket, paying for monthly parking will be a relative bargain.


I can't wait for them to zone "Soho West". Those buildings all have parking but few seem to use it, making the streets a parking lot, complete with cars stopping in middle of Coles and people walking in the middle of the street. I think what makes it worse than any normal parked up street is the lots without sidewalks, The city should make the owners build sidewalks now that there's a ton of pedestrians, before someone gets hurt. I"ve now seen a woman pushing her double stroller in the street several times, presumably to and from poor overused HP.


The Powerhouse District is just now getting sidewalks, once the developers built them. It's been next to impossible to get the city to plan ahead and get safe pathways established while asking new residents to live in a transitional area in "luxury" apartments. We might have one sidewalk per block but access to the elevated platform/sidewalks is sketchy.



Very true. Thankfully, the developers of the new towers going up have done a great job putting in place really wide sidewalks. I look forward to completion of the second phase of Provost Square project. They have been opening the sidewalks little by little, and also resurfaced one of their streets already, and the results have been very good.

Posted on: 7/27 15:57
Top


Re: its official: entire heights must buy resident parking permit
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

MDM wrote:
In my part of the Heights, street parking became scarce after two developments were completed. Both have indoor parking, but it seems the tenants prefer parking on the street.

Parking fees too expensive?


Is that a rhetorical question? Who chooses to pay ~200/month when you could have same/similar for ~0/month??

But, if indeed this is a problem in your neck of the woods, here is some good news for you: residents of developments which have parking (even if the parking is not free) are not eligible for on-street parking. So, once the rules go into effect, all those residents of high rises with parking decks/lots will have to figure a place to park, or risk getting ticketed. At $100/ticket, paying for monthly parking will be a relative bargain.

Posted on: 7/27 10:12
Top


Re: JC Public Schools is short $70 million
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home



"I'm mad as hell that Trenton has balanced the budget on the backs of Jersey City's teachers and students," he [Rolando Lavarro] said...

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

That must be the very definition of chutzpah.

Posted on: 7/25 9:45
Top


Re: Lottery open for affordable units in Jersey City apartment building
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
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.



But, that's the point! You are combining two separate issues/matters. Changing the affordable housing definition and requirements to make luxury apartments affordable to more people is no different than implementing market controls. If we go down that road, what is to stop the city council to expand requirements to include more units and/or more people. Where does it end?

Affordable housing, as we know it today, has a very specific goal and definition. Some will find fault with it, but it is a noble one. I am not sure it has worked/succeeded as envisioned, but that is a different matter.

Posted on: 7/25 9:42
Top


Re: Boonton Reservoir
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

psyop wrote:
Fulop tweeted this morning:

@StevenFulop: We’re working on an amazing plan w/the @OpenSpaceInst to open #JerseyCity ‘s Boonton Reservoir in Morris County to the public. It’s a great JC asset that will serve conservationists, school children + surrounding community. It’ll be safer + accessible. Moving 4ward in September https://twitter.com/StevenFulop/status/1022089777267527680/photo/1


YES. Another loss for Yvonne and her NIMBY army.

Posted on: 7/25 9:38
Top


Re: Lottery open for affordable units in Jersey City apartment building
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


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.

Posted on: 7/24 22:06
Top


Re: Lottery open for affordable units in Jersey City apartment building
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
"The 485 Marin rents are 19 to 33 percent higher than the "good faith estimate" of rents submitted to the council in 2015 when the project's 20-year tax break was approved. Then, the rents were estimated to range from $990 and $1,643.

Spokeswomen for the city and for KRE Group declined to comment on the change."


I don't understand this part:
"Kevin Walsh, executive director of advocacy group Fair Share Housing Center, said restricting the 485 Marin affordable units to people who make no more than 80 percent of the county's AMI excludes too many residents of Jersey City"

So, if a maximum of 80% of median salary excludes too many people, what should it be? 100%? Wouldn't that be a subversion of the principle/idea of affordable housing for those who would otherwise be relegated to living in economically depressed areas??

Posted on: 7/24 19:10
Top


Re: Okay, so who here thinks the Katyn monument needs to go?
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
How do you know they were incorrect, nicky? You want a third world mentality where the same people who are for the removal of the monument are also working for the people who wants this removal.


So, are you saying that both Bill Clinton and Dennis Rodman signed your petition? And, are you also claiming they both live in JC? Because both of those must be true in order for the signatures to be considered valid.

Posted on: 7/24 9:32
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

llee wrote:
In other words, tax reval is actually a relief on the tax burden of recent dtjc owners of tax-abated buildings, as opposed to how the media sometimes depicts it.

Based on that ratable base should increase well before abatement expires as more and more owners choose to opt out.



Well, I wouldn't make THAT assumption. I doubt many people will do the math and then the legwork to terminate their abatement contract in favor of regular taxes. Like I said earlier, I think the power of inertia is such that most people will remain in their abatements, even if regular taxes are lower. Most people automatically assume they are saving money by being in an abatement contract.

But, if I am wrong and your assumption is correct, then the city will be facing a deficit in revenue. That could be an interesting development given the expected drop in state funding of our local BOE, even despite the potential revenue from the business tax.

Posted on: 7/22 22:08
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

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

Yeah, that's mostly the Kushner family's fault.

After buying the property, the Kushners got it on the EB-5 program. This allows foreign investors to get fast-tracked for a green card. The Kushners got caught using this as a selling point for Chinese investors to the project, which in turn started a federal investigation.

The project stalled, an anchor tenant (WeWork) pulled out, the Kushners couldn't get it funded. It was only a few months ago that the city declared the project in default.

It might make sense to start the clock on the Fulop blame now, but yeah, most of the failure is because the Kushners got busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors.


Wow... that's some incredibly selective retelling of history. That lot has been sitting empty, and used as political booty, since the previous decade. The project has changed hands at least twice over the past 10 years. Every time an election cycle rolled around, Healy and his cronies would announce some new project, make a huge splash outside the site, and garner votes by making empty promises. As far back as 2009, we were promised imminent construction with a completion within 3 years. Obviously, that didn't happen, so in 2013 more empty promises were made, but Fulop managed to eke out a victory. Then the Kushners took over in 2015.

That last paragraph is also disingenuous: they [the Kushners] weren't "busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors". What triggered the investigation was the mentioning (and, use) of Jared's name and connections to the White House. The use of conferences in overseas markets to drum up investments and funding for hot real estate markets in several US cities is very, very common. It is how so much of Miami has been built up over the years. How do you think all those rich Mexicans, Brazilians, and other Latin American families manage to get visas to live in Miami year-round? The US immigration code/law allows for foreigners to get permanent residence in exchange for investments of at least half a million dollars. Some satisfy the requirement by opening businesses and hiring the requisite number of time employees (I think it is a minimum of 10, but I can't remember right now) and others do this by putting up half a million dollars towards real estate. There is nothing illegal about advertising this to a foreigner. It is 100% legal.

Posted on: 7/22 15:43
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

llee wrote:
Quote:

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.



In fact, a lot of realtors are advising their clients to opt out of tax abatement in dtjc properties. PILOT tax = rate x SALE price and that rate is generally in the 1.6-1.9 range, whereas in the opt-out scenario, it would be 1.488 x assessed value. Wouldn't it be a no-brainer to opt out of abatement unless home owner feels that tax rate will eventually exceed their PILOT rate?


BINGO! Any smart, savvy person should do the math on their tax situation and take the appropriate actions. Sadly, lots of people will continue to to pay PILOTs that exceed regular taxation because... well, inertia. I am sure lots of people on PILOTs on recent sales are likely paying a rate that is higher than 1.488. For example: all those condos in CanCo Lofts are definitely paying a higher rate via PILOTs than 1.488. In fact, I don't know of any new building paying less than 1.488 in PILOTs, except for The Oakman, which got a sweetheart deal of a 0.9% rate in a 20-year abatement program. Most of the buildings in the PADNA area are now paying well over 1.488% in PILOTs. But, I also doubt that they are paying enough attention to do the math and make the moves to switch to the lower tax rate.

Posted on: 7/22 15:27
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
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.


Dude, you are attacking the messenger. My only aim is to present facts, devoid of feelings or emotions. I was an early supporter of the reval and it pretty much played out the way I expected, except for the final rate, which I initially fully expected to end up being close to 2%, and later on 1.8%. I am quite surprised it ended up at 1.488%.

In any case, I am neither in favor, or against, abatements. I think abatements can be used smartly to spur development, but they are likely not necessary in DTJC, or even JSQ nowadays.

Of course, I also recognize that the city is "pulling a scam" on the state and county residents by abusing abatements and leaving it to them to subsidize our school budget. I even noted as much when I stated "they [JC] collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state". Facts are facts. My stating them does not make me a shill. In fact, I am far from that, as I have been quite vocal about my disapproval of the many delays of the reval. If you were to go through my posting history on the topic of taxes, the reval, and other such things, you will find a consistent position.

Posted on: 7/22 15:21
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


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.


Posted on: 7/22 13:24
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Abatements artificially keep our taxes high because they are not added to the ratable base. Using the 2017 formula, the residents had a tax rate of $78 per thousand. If tax abatement were ratables, then the rate would probably be around $55 per thousand. That is the reason why other towns do not grant tax abatements.


You must love to believe your own nonsense. You *know* that those properties are paying to the city just as much money (and, in some cases, much more money) in PILOTs than if they paid regular taxes. PLEASE, stop your lies by omission.

If those abatements were to go away, the city would need to raise the same amount of revenue they currently do, so the taxes would have to go up to make up the difference between what those properties pay to the city now, and what the city would get through the regular property taxes.

Posted on: 7/21 17:17
Top


Re: Home Invasion Leaves Woman Tied Up, Robbed Inside Jersey City High-Rise Apartment Building (Monaco)
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

jsh278 wrote:
was it the same apartment? were four women living together?


Not at all a rare occurrence. Lots of apartments in Newport seem to get shared by twice the amount of people you would expect. They share rooms and sometimes even turn their living rooms into partitioned rooms, that way they can afford to live in a place much nicer than any of them would be able to afford independently.


Posted on: 7/20 11:40
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


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.

Posted on: 7/20 11:36
Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


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.

Posted on: 7/20 9:01
Top


Re: Home Invasion Leaves Woman Tied Up, Robbed Inside Jersey City High-Rise Apartment Building (Monaco)
#30
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.


While part of me is as skeptical as some of the other posters, I know that what you say is also very true. I had a grandfather who was so mistrustful of banks (I think he was partly senile, tbh) that he kept a ton of cash under the mattress. Literally kept well over 10K in $100 denomination. Some people come from different backgrounds at complete odds with our more modern way of thinking. Even my mother likes to keep a lot of cash on hand "just in case". Hard to tell without more details about the situation and victim.

Posted on: 7/19 17:44
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 116 »






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