Yvonne wrote: Quote:

hero69 wrote: Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Third Circuit Deals Blow to Jersey City Ordinance Requiring PLAs on Privately Funded Projects in Exchange for Tax Abatements

9/27/2016 - by  Aaron Carter, -Patrick McGovern -| Genova Burns LLC

Jersey City?s Municipal Code offers real estate developers generous tax exemptions that are designed to spur the City?s economic growth, but the tax incentives have strings attached. Specifically, to receive a tax exemption, even on a privately funded project, the developer must agree to use the City-approved project labor agreement (?PLA?), which is a pre-hire agreement that favors unionized contractors and subcontractors. On September 12, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated claims against Jersey City that its tax exemption ordinance mandating PLAs is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now the case returns to the District Court for a determination whether Jersey City?s PLA requirement is unlawful. The Court was careful to explain that its ruling has nothing to do with public construction projects, and is limited to the City?s attempted regulation of privately funded projects. Associated Builders and Contractors v. City of Jersey City, No. 15-3166 (3^rd Cir. Sept. 12, 2016).

Read more:  http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/thir ... low-to-jersey-city-45804/

good. maybe fulop will cut back on abatements.

Are you kidding? The Fulop Administration just gave another 25 year tax abatement in Journal Square. Healy last tax abatement in Journal Square was 12 years.

hero69 wrote: Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Third Circuit Deals Blow to Jersey City Ordinance Requiring PLAs on Privately Funded Projects in Exchange for Tax Abatements

9/27/2016 - by  Aaron Carter, -Patrick McGovern -| Genova Burns LLC

Jersey City?s Municipal Code offers real estate developers generous tax exemptions that are designed to spur the City?s economic growth, but the tax incentives have strings attached. Specifically, to receive a tax exemption, even on a privately funded project, the developer must agree to use the City-approved project labor agreement (?PLA?), which is a pre-hire agreement that favors unionized contractors and subcontractors. On September 12, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated claims against Jersey City that its tax exemption ordinance mandating PLAs is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now the case returns to the District Court for a determination whether Jersey City?s PLA requirement is unlawful. The Court was careful to explain that its ruling has nothing to do with public construction projects, and is limited to the City?s attempted regulation of privately funded projects. Associated Builders and Contractors v. City of Jersey City, No. 15-3166 (3^rd Cir. Sept. 12, 2016).

Read more:  http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/thir ... low-to-jersey-city-45804/

good. maybe fulop will cut back on abatements.

Stringer wrote:

Third Circuit Deals Blow to Jersey City Ordinance Requiring PLAs on Privately Funded Projects in Exchange for Tax Abatements

9/27/2016 - by  Aaron Carter, -Patrick McGovern -| Genova Burns LLC

Jersey City’s Municipal Code offers real estate developers generous tax exemptions that are designed to spur the City’s economic growth, but the tax incentives have strings attached. Specifically, to receive a tax exemption, even on a privately funded project, the developer must agree to use the City-approved project labor agreement (“PLA”), which is a pre-hire agreement that favors unionized contractors and subcontractors. On September 12, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated claims against Jersey City that its tax exemption ordinance mandating PLAs is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now the case returns to the District Court for a determination whether Jersey City’s PLA requirement is unlawful. The Court was careful to explain that its ruling has nothing to do with public construction projects, and is limited to the City’s attempted regulation of privately funded projects. Associated Builders and Contractors v. City of Jersey City, No. 15-3166 (3^rd Cir. Sept. 12, 2016).

Read more:  http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/thir ... low-to-jersey-city-45804/