Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
50 user(s) are online (31 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 50

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Sutherland)




Re: Tell Trader Joe's to come to Jersey City!
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


I'd much rather have a Wegman's.

Posted on: 5/3 8:29
Top


Re: Gardeners in Jersey City, I have questions...
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


I do not plant tomatoes or other vegetables in my Jersey City back yard. IMHO there's too much underground fill for me to feel the vegetables would be safe to eat. Every year I find a bunch of new stuff that "crops" up, like marbles, toys, glass and other stuff.

I do however, plant perennials and some annuals and switch them up.

I used to use the Mothers day rule, but I have more recently started a little earlier.

However, if you go ahead with the tomatoes and are going to start with seeds, I second the suggestion of the poster who suggested you start the seeds in doors and then transplant them later. Also, I've observed some neighbors who've had container gardens for their veggies.

All the best and good luck!!

Posted on: 2/17 17:53
Top


Re: Fulop ties to Kushner?
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


That's ok, Dan. But you're nobody's Mayor.

Quote:

DanL wrote:

#notmymayor



Posted on: 1/29 13:00
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


This beautiful Fair Haven home, which just sold for $1.7 mm has real estate taxes of $13,000.00. I'm confident their public schools are better than JC, they have less crime than JC, probably not as many water main breaks, which seems to be a regular occurrence and fewer pot holes.

http://realestate.nj.com/realestate-n ... ng.html#incart_river_home

Of course I anticipate someone telling me to move to Fair Haven if I wanted lower real estate taxes. However, I do think it's a worthwhile metric.


Posted on: 1/26 10:18
Top


New Year's Eve Options
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Any recommendations for a fun venue for New Year's Eve. Preferably something with dancing.

Posted on: 12/27 22:06
Top


Re: Critics target Jersey City over outside law firm
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


DanL, I think you're probably 100% incorrect on that. Since the law firm's bills have been produced, that's as transparent as the city needs to be. The "criticism" lead by a very small group of or one former Healy minion(s), is merely a desperate effort of making a tempist in a teapot.

If I were running for Mayor, I would focus more on my history of advancing valuable initiatives for the benefit of the City, my skills that will enable me to do that and my strategy to continue doing that INSTEAD of squawking about non-existent drama.


Posted on: 12/27 9:20
Top


Re: Buy this beauty - and pray the reval never happens!
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


That is a really nice house. $3mm is a lot, and I'm not sure the market will bare it. But I'm not insisting on that point. I hope I'm wrong. Parking is a great amenity. Looking at these and other similar pictures of home renovations gives me house envy and makes me want to renovate my place. However, the cost of such renovations can be around the $500k mark, which seems like a lot of dough to me Even if you can assume me it brings up the value by 100% of the cost of the renovation, I still have to pay that loan back, because I certainly don't have the cash for that kind of renovation. But God Bless the people that do. I love looking at real estate porn.

Posted on: 12/8 16:13
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


It will be interesting to see how the "values" are set. Since the crash, the volatility of the local market has been significant. A brownstone today going for $1.5mm was going for $750 just 5 years ago. That same house sold for $490k only 5 years before that, but was selling for $1mm, 6 years ago. If we're in a bubble now, values could drop again. While facing interest rate increases, that could similarly impact values.

Posted on: 12/1 16:13
Top


Window Washer for brownstone
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Any recommendations are welcome.

Thank you.

Posted on: 2016/11/21 14:53
Top


Re: Leaf Collection Schedule
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Thank you very much!!

Posted on: 2016/11/13 18:52
Top


Leaf Collection Schedule
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Can anyone direct me to the leaf collection schedule?

Thank you.

Posted on: 2016/11/13 12:29
Top


Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Dolomiti,

The values of real estate has gone up significantly relatively recently. From 2000 through 2004 DTJC brownstone prices were somewhere between $250k to $550k. At the height around 2007 brownstones were somewhere in the $700k to $1mm range, of course depending on the typical variables. However, they slumped after the crash to $400k to $750, where they stayed for several years and then in the last two years definitely sky rocketed. However, no one ever imagined the values would have gone from the 2004 values to the current values. It could be surmised that the current values may be unsustainable and we are headed for another slump. The erratic movement of the market hardly supports the proposition that there have been huge tax breaks. Furthermore, the values of the homes, do not necessarily reflect the conditions of the neighborhood. Even at the height of the market in 2007, homeowners with children were not confident enough in the school system to stay and send their children to the local public schools. That's an integral component of assessing real estate values, not necessarily the prices the homes demand through a volatile market. [quote]
Dolomiti wrote:
[
Yeah... no. That's not how it works.

When and where those conditions are in effect, they are reflected in the value of the property, which is used as a basis for the property tax.

Property values have gone up, without this being reflected in the taxes collected. This has resulted in a de facto tax break.

There was no benefit 28 years ago, when the last reval was done. The benefit was minimal 15 years ago, when property taxes were rising. The benefit today is significant for many people today. And the people who have owned their homes for 28 years have gotten the maximum break possible in this situation.

So while I can sympathize with people because they have a low income, and yes it would suck to be driven out because your property taxes went up (even though they are deductible from federal taxes), the simple fact is that some people have gotten a huge break over the years.




Posted on: 2016/11/10 16:33
Top


Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


I disagree with you that anyone's been getting huge tax breaks. When people moved here 15 to 30 years ago, there was high crime, bad schools (which there still is), flooding issues, which there still are and a host of other issues making JC less desirable and not warranting higher real estate taxes. In the meanwhile we've been giving developers tax abatements. So it's pretty hard to tell a constituent that they've been under paying real estate taxes when we've been giving tax abatements to developer predicated on the notion that these are blighted areas. Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
I disagree with you. If people knew how much their new and increased real estate taxes are going to be, they would feel less inclined to take on an additional $200 to $400 in taxes. It's relative to how much MORE taxes people are able to pay.

Or, not.

If you're already paying $20,000 on real estate taxes, you're not even going to notice an additional $300.

Hopefully, though, people will notice more funds going into public parks.


Quote:
Also be mindful here are people who bought their homes 14 years ago and they never imagined their values would have gone up this month.

Sorry not sorry, but even as someone who has benefitted, and is looking at a nice whack in my own taxes, I have no sympathy for those individuals on this particular basis.

Some people have spent 10, 20, almost 30 years as the beneficiaries of lax property tax policies -- basically getting a huge break on their property taxes.

People deserve sympathy if their incomes are low. They don't deserve sympathy if they were totally unprepared for an inevitable increase in property taxes.

By the way, the reval is not exactly a state secret. At least some of the people who voted for #2 were fully aware that the reval was in the works.

Posted on: 2016/11/9 16:08
Top


Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


I disagree with you. If people knew how much their new and increased real estate taxes are going to be, they would feel less inclined to take on an additional $200 to $400 in taxes. It's relative to how much MORE taxes people are able to pay. Brownstones DTJC typically go for $1.5mm on average. Real estate taxes on those homes will go from approximately $13k to $22k a year. The additional $300 to $400 will be more of an issue at that point. I think the results would have been very different if the reval was already done before this was put before the constituency. Also be mindful here are people who bought their homes 14 years ago and they never imagined their values would have gone up this month. So while they have increased their equity, that's not the same as increasing their cash flow. Many of the people who moved here 14 years ago, moved here for a less expensive urban option. The exponential rise in real estate values was not anticipated by anyone. Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Yes. I can't believe people voted for the Historic Trust Fund, without knowing how much there property is going to be assessed and how much their real estate taxes are going to increase. I bet if the constituency knew how much their new real estate taxes are going to be they would not have voted for this.


I think this is a faulty interpretation: if you own a one million dollar brownstone, the $200 additional tax ($16.66 / month) should not be an imposition. Regardless, the DTJC constituency will be in shock when their new assessments are announced, but that is 1 year out.

Posted on: 2016/11/9 14:11
Top


Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yes. I can't believe people voted for the Historic Trust Fund, without knowing how much there property is going to be assessed and how much their real estate taxes are going to increase. I bet if the constituency knew how much their new real estate taxes are going to be they would not have voted for this.

Posted on: 2016/11/9 13:27
Top


Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yes, in fact I am. My concern is based upon sales over the last three years. Quote:

chainsawhand wrote:

Fortunately, 20 is a pretty easy number to work with. Are you really worried your house is going to be reassessed for a million more dollars?


Quote:


Sutherland wrote:
I voted NO for question No. 2:

Ballot Question No 2 asks constituents to commit to paying $20 for every $100,000 their home is ASSESSED at for GREEN & OPEN SPACE. VOTE NO.

For one this is IN ADVANCE of the reval, so you don't know what your home is worth.

Two, this comes AFTER we let all of these developers build big huge tall buildings.

Three, this comes AFTER years of giving developers ABATEMENTS.

So why should the constituency pay more NOW??? Let the developers pay it.

Posted on: 2016/11/9 10:58
Top


Re: Vote NO to Jersey City Question No. 2
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


I don't think it's a spite vote at all. I think the City made a choice and now they want me to pay for that choice. I don't think that's fair. I think the city should somehow retroactively recall all of the abatements instead.

Posted on: 2016/11/8 12:44
Top


Re: Vote NO to Jersey City Question No. 2
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


I like green space too. However, we just gave a host of variances and abatements to developers, and NOW we're expected to pay for the loss in green space?!?!?!?! That's blatantly offensive.

Posted on: 2016/11/8 12:26
Top


Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


I voted NO for question No. 2:

Ballot Question No 2 asks constituents to commit to paying $20 for every $100,000 their home is ASSESSED at for GREEN & OPEN SPACE. VOTE NO.

For one this is IN ADVANCE of the reval, so you don't know what your home is worth.

Two, this comes AFTER we let all of these developers build big huge tall buildings.

Three, this comes AFTER years of giving developers ABATEMENTS.

So why should the constituency pay more NOW??? Let the developers pay it.

Posted on: 2016/11/8 11:52
Top


Vote NO to Jersey City Question No. 2
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Ballot Question No 2 asks constituents to commit to paying $20 for every $100,000 their home is ASSESSED at for GREEN & OPEN SPACE. VOTE NO.

For one this is IN ADVANCE of the reval, so you don't know what your home is worth.

Two, this comes AFTER we let all of these developers build big huge tall buildings.

Three, this comes AFTER years of giving developers ABATEMENTS.

So why should the constituency pay more NOW??? Let the developers pay it.

Posted on: 2016/11/8 11:48
Top


Ballot 1 - Casino's in No. NJ
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


I'm voting NO. Please join me.

Posted on: 2016/11/7 12:39
Top


Re: 9th and Coles Tavern closing. Last day party is Friday 9/30
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


I went there once under the current ownership. I found one of the owners rather surly and unaccommodating. I never returned. But it seemed they had a loyal customer base. All the best to the new owners.

Posted on: 2016/9/27 17:00
Top


Re: Parking Issues Around Hamilton Park
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


That's actually a very interesting proposition. Personally, I would prefer not to drive at all. I worked in Manhattan for 22 years after college. If I didn't absolutely have to have a car I wouldn't. I lived in my brownstone for the first three years without a car. Then circumstances changed and I absolutely had to have a car. Then, since I had a car I started using it more. I hate nothing more than sitting in traffic or even driving to work on a daily basis. The lack of parking only exacerbates my sentiments and frustration with the entire issue. Quote:

elsquid wrote:
Any drivers arguing for more parking to reduce competition for it, wherever and however cleverly it's obtained, are only hurting themselves.

Sure, there are ways to increase parking space in Hamilton Park and in JC. But there's NO way to increase DRIVING space. The latter is finite. And the former feeds it.

So when you make more room for car storage, you get more cars in storage. Guess what happens when you try to drive? Those cars come out of their brandy new garages and get right in front of you, and you sit in traffic.

Posted on: 2016/9/22 14:05
Top


Re: Parking Issues Around Hamilton Park
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Again, I disagree with you with regard to the expectation of street parking. It's expected that most constituents would use the roads for both driving and parking. Without that entitlement commerce would come to a grinding halt as would other commerce clause provisions. My taxes go to the maintenance of the streets that is expected I would use for both parking and driving. It's further expected that I would park my car in a reasonable proximity to the home I own and on which I pay my real estate taxes. Therefore, it's a reasonable expectation that I would be parking there. Furthermore, to control parking the City of Jersey City, limits non-residence from parking to two hours, demonstrating the City's preference for residence parking over non-resident parking. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
[quote]


Also, I'd expect a CPA to understand that availability of street parking was not guaranteed as a result of paying property taxes, unless otherwise stated.

Posted on: 2016/9/22 13:27
Top


Re: Parking Issues Around Hamilton Park
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Bill, I most certainly do. In fact, I have a BS in Business Administration with a Major in Accounting, a CPA, a law degree and a license to practice in two states. I fully understand supply and demand. However, that doesn't mean that every municipality has to fulfill every demand. There are quality of life issues, capacity issues, and other issues. Municipalities are not businesses selling widgets. Quote:

bill wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
.


WOW, Sutherland I'm curious do you have any rudimentary education in economics? Specifically the supply and demand curve?

Posted on: 2016/9/22 13:01
Top


Re: Parking Issues Around Hamilton Park
#26
Home away from home
Home away from home


I pay real estate taxes, I don't have children to send to public school, should I get a refund? Quote:

Fomite wrote:
]
WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.
[/quote]

I pay real estate tax. I don't have a car to park. Do I get a refund?



[/quote]

Posted on: 2016/9/22 8:14
Top


Re: Parking Issues Around Hamilton Park
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


If the existing housing supply doesn't accommodate every new potential resident, that does not necessarily mean there has to be more development in JC. It could also mean that those potential new residents could look elsewhere to stake their claim. Newark, could be a great place to create new opportunities. The people who are most interested in more development are usually realtors and real estate sales associates.

Furthermore, my expectation of street parking is founded on the fact that I live in a neighborhood of homes that does not have off street parking, and street parking has always been the norm. To our bizarre argument that home owners who do not pay taxes should not be paying my free parking, then I could argue I should not be paying for school taxes because I don't have brats. It's ridiculous. Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:


MDU development is necessary because we're in a huge housing crunch right now. Unless you want us turning into San Francisco, the only solution is to build up than around.

There are also plenty of people living in downtown that don't own cars and don't need parking spaces that pay the same tax you do. Why should MY tax dollars pay for your stupid luxury of free street parking when we have tons of half empty garages throughout town you can utilize to make your life easier?

I suspect your answer will be "Wah wah wah, it was like this when I got here, I'm ENTITLED to it!"[/quote]

Posted on: 2016/9/22 8:07
Top


Re: Parking Issues Around Hamilton Park
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


mmm, I don't agree with you on that. I think paying real estate taxes guarantees me use of services and facilities that one should expect when one owns a home, including the ability to find parking on the street. Quote:

sullyx wrote:
That guarantees you a spot on YOUR property, not on the public streets.

Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
I do pay for parking. It's called real estate taxes. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

Posted on: 2016/9/21 13:32
Top


Re: Parking Issues Around Hamilton Park
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Staying static and becoming dense to the point of not having adequate parking are not the same thing. With regard to your comparison to Columbus and Marin, I think it can't go unnoticed that he housing stock there is very different. The Hamilton Park Neighborhood has always been mostly brownstones. The recent addition of multi unit housing was never part of the original fabric of the neighborhood. While, I am not totally opposed to some development, the development should be more appropriate to the area and should not depreciate the quality of life in the neighborhood. If we were to carry your argument further, it would stand to reason that you may support the idea that Hamilton Park should be converted into more multi unit buildings or a parking deck. Which I think would be a disaster Quote:

bill wrote:
So you just assumed a nice neighborhood close to Manhattan would stay static? If there was plenty of parking, by the second law of thermodynamics, that parking will be equalized with the rest of the city. Do you think people who live on Columbus & Marin have street parking?

Posted on: 2016/9/21 13:29
Top


Re: Parking Issues Around Hamilton Park
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


I don't know when you moved to the area, but I have to disagree with you. I bought my brownstone in 2000, so I was incorrect when I said 20 years, it was 16 years ago. The neighborhood was already very nice. There were just fewer families with bratty moms and their intolerable children. However, there was plenty of parking. The neighborhood starting changing slowly in the 80s when those new constituents starting making a real impact. However, when I moved here there was plenty of parking. The parking issue in the Hamilton Park area has changed detrimentally in the last 3 years. Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
[

Parking issues are concomitant in a successful city (measured primarily by real estate demand). That's factual. There are books and studies on it. The only reason that JC had abundant parking 15-20 years ago was because it was still recovering from what happened to it 30-40 years ago.

If you want a city with ample parking, I hear Detroit is lovely this time of year.

If you think that tight parking represents bad planning, that's merely you valuing your car above what others would consider more important measures of livability.

Posted on: 2016/9/21 12:29
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 12 »






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