the council was going to vote in favor of the abatement one way or another

getting something out of the deal...

I don't get it.

Fulop is mad that the city wanted the developer to give something up for the tax break? Does he propose simply throwing more free money at the developer so they can sell their units faster?

I for one am glad that Gaughan was able to get that donation. It may not help me directly...

If you are looking for the crooked use of payoffs, the place to find them is in the small to mid-sized government contract vendors. Most work performed by the municipality is performed by 3rd party contractors. Those contractors donate to campaigns and help out with manpower on election day. Politicians squabble over which of their supporters will get municipal and county work contracts - paid with your dollars, not necessarily to the real lowest bidder. They squabble just like they do over which of their relatives and ward heelers ('young people who worked so hard on their campaign') will get cushy no-show government jobs.

Coalco 'shake down' gets the job done
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Two weeks ago, developers of the old American Can factory on Dey Street in Jersey City came to the City Council, hat in hand, asking for a better tax abatement deal than the one they signed two years ago to help spur condo sales at the renovated building.

Council members were open to giving the project - in the shadow of the Pulaski Skyway and next to the roadway leading to the Holland Tunnel - a better tax break.

But in return for the help, Heights Councilman Bill Gaughan asked the developer, New York-based Coalco, to donate $150,000 to help run a recently started construction apprentice program in the city.

In the midst of a back and forth at a council caucus, Downtown Councilman Steve Fulop branded Gaughan's suggestion a "shake down."

"That's a bad word to use," Gaughan exploded, as he wagged his finger at Fulop. "Don't use 'shake down.' I resent his comment."

Whatever you want to call it, it worked.

On Monday night, Coalco representatives offered to donate $100,000 to the city's apprentice program.

"I think it's a victory for Jersey City residents who are going to be in the program and it's a victory for Coalco, because we certainly want them to sell their 500-plus units," Gaughan said. "I was upset at my colleague Steve Fulop for calling me a 'shake down' artist," he added.

Fulop didn't back away from the characterization yesterday.

"City tax abatements, granted or not granted, should stand on their own merit, not who you pay off," Fulop said. "It is just bad business policy to shake down developers, no matter how good the cause."

According to the terms of the new abatement deal, rather than paying 16 percent of revenue in lieu of conventional property taxes over the next 30 years, owners would pay 10 percent for the first 10 years, 12 percent for the next 10 and 14 percent for the final 10 years.

The new agreement is up for final adoption at tonight's council meeting at 6 at Middle School 4, 107 Bright St.

FletchFletcher wrote:
Because the city's so called tax abatement is actually higher than if the building didn't have an abatement at all. If they want the developers to pay for the abatement or PILOT program, there should be some advantage for the home owner.

Do a little research please!!!! Bunch of freakin morons on this site.

misterdude wrote:
Quote:

Wibbit wrote:
Why is everyone saying the place is far from the PATH?

Absolutely right. It's not more than 8 blocks to JSQ.

Wibbit wrote:
Why is everyone saying the place is far from the PATH?

regulator wrote:
to the poster raving about the value of the canco... you DO realize that there are other condos in the area, some with NYC views, with 2 bedrooms, for less than the price of the canco 1br... right? and they all have pools, and doormen, and gyms. yes the canco might be great, but comparing apples to apples, you can get much better deals in the area.

The question is "Whether the city should essentially become a guarantor of any developer's profitability by renegotiating an already agreed upon abatement?"

FletchFletcher wrote:
Because the city's so called tax abatement is actually higher than if the building didn't have an abatement at all. If they want the developers to pay for the abatement or PILOT program, there should be some advantage for the home owner.

Do a little research please!!!! Bunch of freakin morons on this site.

GrovePath wrote:
With loft sales stalled, Coalco seeks better deal

Wednesday, June 11, 2008
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
[snip]

Facing a slumping real estate market and the reality of attracting buyers to an off-the-waterfront location that's not close to a PATH stop, Coalco developers now say they need a bigger break.

"We know you are not obligated the change the terms of the abatement," James McCann, Coalco's attorney, told council members at their caucus Monday. "The problem is they can't sell units."
[snip]

FletchFletcher wrote:
First of all, a 10 minute walk is hardly far from the Path. Secondly, I am purchasing at Canco because it is one of the most amazing buildings in Jersey City!

If you havn't been there, you really should not be commenting on this board. The building is very cool!

And I WANT ALL THE AMENITIES!!! Sorry, I dont want to live in a crappy walk up and I can afford more than 300K. Once again its not the pricing so much but the fact that you simply can't afford anything.

I'll have my doorman, gym, shuttle, and everything else that comes along with it.

Good luck looking for a shitty 1 bedroom for less than 300K or just keep renting buddy.

The developer erred in the original negotiation...

The reduction translates directly into lower payments for the prospective buyers...

heights wrote:
Quote:

G_Elkind wrote:
The abatement process should not be used to insure or guarantee the profitability of any developer's project.

It's just plain wrong to do this off the backs of the residential taxpayer.


While promises to hire Jersey City construction workers should always be a condition for the grant of any abatement, it's a grossly insufficient trade off to justify revisiting the already agreed upon abatement. In this context, it's not a "shakedown," but more accurately, it's a cheap "give away" that the developer might willingly pay -- as the value of any renegotiated abatement is worth millions more to them. In essence, it's another variant form of pay-to-play.

All the best.

Geoff

Do the tax payers really care if the job is being done by locals. It's union so they get the last say in the matter. How about local developers. I believe the residents get a tax break as well when property taxes are being paid. Also when seeking a new home porential owners can seek a tax abatement.

yesfan wrote:
if all these condos like canco and the beacon would just lower there sales prices buy 15 - 20%,they would probably sell more units and faster.its better to sell 200 units at slightly less money,then sell 60 units and have more then half the place empty.