Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Don't know anything and your link didn't work for me: But found this link (click here)
Posted on: 2007/8/3 14:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Has anyone noticed that huge paint factory across from the West Side light rail parking lot? Do you know if there are any plans to get rid of that from the area? It's this place http://www.elementis.com
Posted on: 2007/8/3 14:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Flipping the usual eminent domain script, a property owner in Jersey City is suing the city to buy his property. So when Fulop raises an issue to council members a potential lawsuit is the hot topic but the Mayor can continually make bad decisions opening the city to lawsuits? Good work council members.
Posted on: 2007/8/3 13:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Flipping eminent domain - Owner wanted wanted fuel storage facility now zoned "open Space"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Owner's suit to city: Buy my land
Friday, August 03, 2007 By KEN THORBOURNE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER Flipping the usual eminent domain script, a property owner in Jersey City is suing the city to buy his property. According to a lawsuit filed in federal court by Edwin Siegel and his corporate entity, Edlin Limited - owners of 32.2 acres on the old PJP landfill site - the city has so devalued his property through zoning changes the municipality should be forced to buy it - but at pre-rezoned rates. Peter Herzberg, Siegel's attorney, said his client would be willing to sell the property, for $16 million. "The plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief they are seeking," Bill Matsikoudis, the city's chief attorney, responded. "However, it is clear the city's goals are to insure the property is remediated so that it is protective of the health and safety of Jersey City residents." Siegel's property lies adjacent to the roughly 47 acres of vacant land the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark is under contract to sell to a California-based company, which plans to build a super-sized warehouse. In an epic battle last year, Mayor Jerramiah Healy prevailed over opponents in the community and county government who wanted the land preserved as open space. But to ease the warehouse plan along, the city adopted a redevelopment plan that rezoned much of the PJP landfill site, including Siegel's property, for open space. Siegel doesn't have to move, but future owners can only develop the land as open space. The lawsuit states Siegel had found a purchaser for his property who wanted to develop it as a fuel storage facility, but once the redevelopment plan was adopted, the sale fell through. The city also tagged Siegel with $17 million worth of fire violations, which Siegel characterizes in his lawsuit as harassment. The city's Board of Construction Appeals eventually reduced the fines to $137,000.
Posted on: 2007/8/3 12:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
""[The project is] an effort to bring some of the large scale development occurring on the Gold Coast and the eastern part of the city to the west side and [Route] 1 and 9,"
I believe that our McMayor is being padded to make this deal. First of all the above statement is a bizarre and absurd distortion. The development occuring on the Gold Coast consists of luxury condos and office towers for high pay skilled worker jobs. Anyone who has ever seen a high cube warehouse knows that it is a box full of humanless robotic sorting machines and in 1 million square feet, it will have about 100 jobs. A similarly sized office building would have about 3,500 workers in it. Moreover this ruins the real value - as planned - for the City's Western Waterfront. I'm sure Bob Cotter is in tears over this. JC is burning its chances at another Gold Coast because someone must have gotten into the Mayor's pocket to convince him to push for this thing. Finally the claim that the City is in dire need of the $1mm in annual PILOT revenue from this thing is somewhat spurious. Virtually every single waterfront condo or office building throws off at least $1mm in new PILOT tax revenue for the City, yet you never see the Mayor throwing his weight around to support each of those projects. He could replace the $1mm in revenue from this project with just one PILOT agreement for any 200-unit Condo building on the Western Waterfront. Like I said, someone must have gotten into the Mayor's jeans on this one. What a shameful waste of waterfront property.
Posted on: 2007/7/29 16:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Planning Board OKs warehouse
Contaminants from old landfill must be removed first Ricardo Kaulessar - Hudson Reporter - 07/29/2007 AMB WAREHOUSE ? The Jersey City Planning Board at their Tuesday meeting approved the AMB Warehouse project to be built at 219-295 Route 1 and 9 between Sip and Duncan avenues. The Jersey City Planning Board at their Tuesday meeting approved a warehouse with 344 parking spaces and 159 loading docks for the western side of the city near Lincoln Park. The AMB Warehouse project, an 878,000 square-foot warehouse, will be built on property that is being sold by the Archdiocese of Newark. The property was home to The PJP Landfill where chemical and industrial waste was dumped from about 1968 to 1974. "[The project is] an effort to bring some of the large scale development occurring on the Gold Coast and the eastern part of the city to the west side and [Route] 1 and 9," said Tom O'Connor, an attorney for the developers. "It is also a tax-exempt property that will bring substantial ratables to the city." The warehouse is slated to be built at 219-295 Route 1 and 9 between Sip and Duncan avenues. No starting date has been set for the construction of the warehouse. O'Connor said during the presentation at the Planning Board meeting that the 49 acres of land on which the facility will be built has to be cleaned of contamination before construction begins. The board asked questions about how trucks would enter without blocking traffic on Routes 1 & 9, and the kind of signage being sought for the warehouse. No controversy this time This most recent presentation for the warehouse project was quiet compared to past discussions of the subject. In March of last year, both the City Council and Planning Board first considered changes to the city's land development law to allow the warehouse to be built in an area already zoned as the city's Waterfront Planned Development district. The Planning Board approved the changes, but the City Council had to postpone its own approval of the changes until October because residents living near the site of the future warehouse brought up concerns pertaining to the past land use. Finally, in October 2006, the City Council approved the new Hackensack River Edge Redevelopment Plan, including the warehouse site. The new plan allows 137 acres of land between the Hackensack River and Highway 1 & 9 on the west side of Jersey City to be developed for commercial use and open space. Starting around 1970, fires under the ground's surface burned continuously in various parts of the landfill, the result of the decomposition of landfill materials. The fires were finally extinguished by 1986. Since that time, the site has been in the works for cleanup. The state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered the cleanup to be carried out by those companies responsible for dumping on the site. The Archdiocese currently owns it, and is in the process of selling it to the AMB company contingent on AMB receiving city approvals. Ricardo Kaulessar can be reached at rkaulessar@hudsonreporter.com
Posted on: 2007/7/29 16:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
ccitizen wrote: Employee payroll taxes!!!! How does that help Jersey City? Payroll taxes are comprised of a variety federal and state taxes, not county or city taxes. Jersey City would get just as much benefit from the payroll taxes of the supposed 300 jobs if this warehouse was employing people in Cape May! As for generating support jobs, what jobs would those be? Truck drivers more often than not sleep in their rigs so as to avoid the cost of hotels, and the workers likely won't be earning enough there to afford to buy meals at local establishments on a routine basis. The only support jobs that are likely are those you might find around a seedy truck stop, which is exactly what this is going to end up being. I don't think I need to mention what those are but I sincerely doubt that the people working those jobs report their income or are the kind of people I want buying property or renting nearby. I agree with only one thing you have said in this entire discussion, the PJP landfill site is not suitable for residential development. I don't think that anyone has ever disputed that. However, it is suitable for park land, ball fields, and other recreational activities. Having a warehouse built there will severely hinder the redevelopment of this whole area. Where as people generally enjoy living near a park, they do not want to live near a high cube warehouse, which is why the residents of this area have opposed it so strongly. You don't see Mayor Healy proposing to fill in the reservoir and put the High Cube Warehouse there do you? Even he doesn't want it in his back yard.
Posted on: 2006/9/29 16:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
 |
Quote:
Sort of like the anonymous cowards who do nothing but post on JClist and lie about other people's activities.
Posted on: 2006/9/29 16:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
You saying the level of jobs "appears to greatly exaggerated" doesn't mean anything. It's just another one of these vauge statements you use to sound like you know what your talking about while saying nothing. To you, it's modest employment to the 300-400 people that will have jobs it means a lot. This one tax paying property will bring revenue not only from property taxes, but also from employee payroll taxes, and peripheral taxes and fees. It will also generate additional jobs for people to support the workers and truckers coming through. People need jobs BEFORE they can buy/rent housing. Give them employment and housing will follow. It doesn't work the other way around. This area is not suitable for residential development given it's noble "history" as a landfill and the fact that it is already in the middle of industrial businesses. There is plenty of more suitable land to be developed further up the river that makes more sense. I speak for no one but myself. I just can't stand people that sit on the sidelines criticizing but creating nothing.
Posted on: 2006/9/28 21:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Well, my point wasn't that we tax and spend too much (at least not in this thread), but that a more attractive business environment is better for business than the loopholes you mention. BTW, loopholes & exemptions = abatements. My point was that states that are successfully growing are reducing the tax burden across the board, not granting special favors to select businesses. As an example, Ingersoll-Rand, a $6B industrial manufacturer, has had its headquarters in NJ for over 30 years. Currently, they only keep the highest executives and a skeleton admin staff in the HQ because it is so expensive. All other corporate function have moved to NC. How do you think the executives feel about other big business getting tax breaks to come to NJ? A level playing field creates competition, which companies generally aren't afraid of. Picking and choosing who gets the tax benefits drives as many jobs out of the state as it brings in.
Posted on: 2006/9/28 18:04
|
|||
|
I'd go over 12 percent for that
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well, here's a quote from your 3rd link "- New Jersey?s surprisingly low state and local tax burden, as calculated by the Tax Foundation, is a powerful signal that the state?s tax system is riddled with credits, deductions and exemptions. With corporate and individual tax rates at 9 percent (without the surtax) and 8.97 percent respectively, New Jersey should be on the top of the tax burden ranks. It is not because its tax systems are riddled with holes." So much for taxing and spending too much, rather than poorly. I note also that many (not all) of the cited business friendlier states are in the boonies, where they need to incentivize companies to move there. From the 1st link: The ten best states in the Tax Foundation?s 2006 State Business Tax Climate Index are as follows: 1. Wyoming 2. South Dakota 3. Alaska 4. Florida 5. Nevada 6. New Hampshire 7. Texas 8. Delaware 9. Montana 10. Oregon
Posted on: 2006/9/28 14:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Quote:
Yes, you put one tax revenue producing property on the lists, which will provide modest employment (which appears to be greatly exaggerated). And in return, you inhibit significantly more development which would create more ratables and more jobs. Very simple. Unless you are just a sockpuppet for developers.
Posted on: 2006/9/28 14:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Brewster, sorry for the late response. Here are a few sources: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/78.html http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/businesstax.htm http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1834.html http://www.njchamber.com/media/march%2006%20tax%20climate.htm As you can see, NJ doesn't do very well in any of these. Also, if you look at population trends, some of the states that are growing the fastest are AZ, NV, FL and TX, and they also have some of the friendliest tax environments. I'm sure there are other reasons, but our taxes don't help.
Posted on: 2006/9/28 13:11
|
|||
|
I'd go over 12 percent for that
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
ccitizen wrote: 1) You assume that there will be years of tax revenues. The redevelopment plan allows AMB to have a much easier time getting a tax abatement. How much do you want to bet that they'll seek and get one (or at least some other concession that costs tax payers money or prevents the city from collecting all of the taxes that it is rightly owed)? 2) You assume permanent jobs for 300-400 people. (a) Who says that any Jersey City residents will be employed here (other than the mayor who would give away his last beer to get this project)? The warehouse will be situated just off the Pulaski Skyway, just north of Lincoln Highway, and just south of Newark/Jersey City Turnpike. Again I ask, what keeps Newark, Harrison, or Kearny residents from getting these jobs? It may actually be more convenient for them to get to the warehouse than many Jersey City residents. If this project creates jobs for people not living in Jersey City then why should I, and more importantly why should the mayor, give a damn? (b) This is supposed to be the most technologically advanced type of warehouse there is. Much of it is automated. When I was younger I worked in a warehouse that had all of about 10 employees. All, except for the manager and two truck drivers, were low paid hourly workers (myself included). Maybe the 300-400 permanent jobs will be the truck drivers who will be rolling in and out of there 24-7. 3) Speaking of truck traffic. What do you think all this increased traffic, consisting of hundreds of multi-ton trucks a day not to mention all the cars full of people coming to work from Harrison and Kearny, is going to do to the city roads? Who do you think are going to have to pay to repair them? I also wonder how much productivity is going to be lost by people stuck in traffic on 440 because of the gridlock that all of this truck traffic will cause. 4) "5 acres of dedicated open space". One regulation sized soccer field is between 7,700 and 9,600 square yards. One acre is 4,840 square yards. Therefore, you would be able to fit between 2.5 and just over 3 soccer fields on this site, and if it's not regulation size you might be able to make it 4, assuming that the "dedicated open space" were completely utilized and in such a configuration that such fields could be constructed. I kind of doubt that the "dedicated open space is going to be of the type that is "usable". Far more likely is that it will be like all the other industrial parks in this country, a lawn surrounding the warehouse, its loading docks, and parking lot. 5) I probably forgot to mention above but the EPA has classified diesel exhaust as a carcinogen (as well as a cause of asthma and a number of other respiratory ailments). (See Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-90/057F, 2002.) Putting this warehouse right next to Lincoln Park, and routing the trucks directly through its center, is going to have lasting consequences on the health of the people who live, work and play in the surrounding area. 6) I ask again, if tax revenues are so strained that we need to build this monstrosity, why isn't the mayor seeking the Distressed City Aid package?
Posted on: 2006/9/28 12:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Plan: 67 acres around warehouse for eventual green
WAREHOUSE WINS Thursday, September 28, 2006 By KEN THORBOURNE JOURNAL STAFF WRITER In what's shaping up to be a victory for Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, the City Council last night introduced a redevelopment plan calling for construction of a huge warehouse at the old PJP landfill site on the city's west side. To become official, the plan must be adopted by a majority vote of the council two weeks from now, at which time a public hearing is scheduled. In what's billed as a compromise with county officials who pushed to have the polluted, but mostly barren 87-acre landfill site preserved as open space - and possibly turned into a golf course - the plan calls for rezoning about 67 acres surrounding the warehouse as open space. But more than half of the land designated as "open space" is dotted with assorted trucking outfits that are under no obligation to relocate under the plan. These businesses can even sell to other trucking concerns, officials said. Outside of this grandfathered-in "non-conforming" use however, the land must be used for green space, officials said. In fact, the bulk of the site's current open space - roughly 58 acres - is where the warehouse will sit. Healy, who championed the warehouse in the face of stiff community and council opposition was ecstatic last night. "This is clearly a victory for Jersey City residents and taxpayers alike," Healy said. "The AMB project will bring over $100 million dollars in private investoment to Jersey City . . .put residents back to work . . .bring in over $1.1 million in tax revenue." Last night's council vote was 6-2-1, with Councilman Steve Fulop abstaining and council members Bill Gaughan and Peter Brennan voting against the plan. The turning point in this nine-month controversy came roughly two months ago when council members Mary Spinello and Steve Lipski forged a compromise that included both the warehouse and open space. Six weeks ago, the council asked the Planning Board to draft a redevelopment plan with these two priorities in mind. The Planning Board initially studied an area that included 160 acres stretching from just beyond Broadway to the north to Duncan Avenue in south, from Route 1/9 on the east to the Hackensack River on the west. Ultimately, the board lopped off about 30 acres of study area, concluding that business in the northern section, including a Hartz Mountain plant and waste transfer station, shouldn't be included in a redevelopment plan. The redevelopment plan approved by the Planning Board on Tuesday night does include most of Trophy Trucking near Sip Avenue and other trucking outfits along Duncan Avenue. Trophy Trucking, which owes the city $9 million in fire code fines, is slated to be acquired for open space, but the Duncan Avenue properties aren't. Including acquisition, construction, and additional environmental clean-up costs, the warehouse will cost $105 million, AMB officials said. The big losers in the compromise solution are the Marion Avenue residents who were against having a warehouse at all. They said it would bring traffic congestion and pollution to their neighborhood. "The redevelopment study was just a 'Trojan horse' to get the warehouse," said Paul Catsandonis, chair of the Lincoln Park Advisory. link
Posted on: 2006/9/28 12:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
If the warehouse passes I suggest the city make every effort to have the developer enlist a starchitect for the project: Zaha, Frank Gehry, Liebeskind, Lord Norman, etc. If the warehouse is deemed a civic good - make it a great piece of architecture. My JC geography sucks, but I am pretty certain that this building will be one of the first people see of JC from the Skyway - make it a spectacular first siting!
Posted on: 2006/9/28 10:09
|
|||
|
Yes,we have no bananas.
(Silver & Cohn, 1923) 
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Oh, I didn't realize it was only the short term benefit of years of tax revenues from a well-established, successful business listed on the NYSE and permanent jobs for 300-400 people, plus 5 acres of dedicated open space and $500k for Ward improvements.
Posted on: 2006/9/28 6:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
The last time I passed this place it looked like there is already light industrial use on both sides. I can see development of homes further up the Hackensack River, but the industial nature of this area seems already established. I could see the northern portion of the river supporting development along the lines of Bayonne on Newark Bay.
Posted on: 2006/9/28 3:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
The issue isn't just what goes on the PJP site itself. What is being suggested, and has been suggested for quite some time, is that development should take place along the Hackensack River. The area is grossly underutilized right now.
Building a warehouse right in the middle of that area will kill off all surrounding development. On the other hand, increasing open space adjacent to Lincoln Park would make the surrounding neighborhood an incredibly attractive neighborhood in which to live. The warehouse is a short term benefit which prevents any long term future for the neighborhood.
Posted on: 2006/9/28 2:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/3/19 18:27 Last Login : 2019/10/21 14:19 From McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
173
|
Dearest Deathmask,
Please read my earlier posts. I never said I would want to live on it. I said that I would prefer that it be turned into a nature preserve. worm
Posted on: 2006/9/28 1:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
worm,
i'd take my chances walking past a brownfield via a waterfront walkway as opposed to living in housing built on one as advocated by civicjc. also, my city wouldn't have to pay the millions of dollars required to clean up the brownfield!
Posted on: 2006/9/28 0:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
that's a good point. maybe Falcon knows what happens. i'm assuming the taxes on the unsold units would be paid by the developer, right? if the buildings were not sold as condos...then what happens? does the owner lose the abatement?
Posted on: 2006/9/28 0:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/3/19 18:27 Last Login : 2019/10/21 14:19 From McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
173
|
Quote:
There has been a plan on paper to develop the hudson river walkway all the way from the palisades to bayonne. i'd much rather see that than trying to reclaim brownfields. Ummmm....You don't think that there are any brownfields between Jersey City and Bayonne on the waterfront? what do you think that pretentious golf course was built on? Something far worse than the cemetary on Poltergeist. I think it would be great if they continued the hudson river walkway on this side of the river too, but I don't think that you need to look at it like "I'd rather it here, not there". If that were the case than all of our tax money would just go to the wealthiest parts of town.
Posted on: 2006/9/28 0:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
population density manhattan (only residents, not tourists or commuters.) 66,940.1/mi? According to the census during a weekday the density increases another 30% to over 88K per square mile. http://www.census.gov/population/www/ ... o/daytime/daytimepop.html jersey city 16,045.6/mi? There has been a plan on paper to develop the hudson river walkway all the way from the palisades to bayonne. i'd much rather see that than trying to reclaim brownfields.
Posted on: 2006/9/27 23:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Personally I would like to see where this tax revenue is supposed to magically appear from when, as I can pretty much guarantee, the majority of these new tax-abated units come on the market in the next five - seven years as RENTALS.
Posted on: 2006/9/27 23:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Can you provide data proving that we tax and spend too much relative to other cities or state's overall tax load? I'm perfectly willing to believe it, but all I've seen or heard is statements like yours. On the other hand I've seen a Rutgers study I linked in another thread that said our tax load wasn't actually high, just imbalanced & overeliant on property tax. Lets see numbers like per capita tax load comparisons, or per capita municipal expeditures, rather than ideology.
Posted on: 2006/9/27 23:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/3/19 18:27 Last Login : 2019/10/21 14:19 From McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
173
|
Quote:
manhattan waterfront greenway = 20480 acres.
Posted on: 2006/9/27 22:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
While I agree with your goal, abatements are the tools uncompetitive cities use to attract business. Smarter, and less politically entrenched, areas actually lower the cost of doing business, such as sales tax, property tax and employer tax. JC, and areas like it, prefer to spend too much, tax everybody and then rely on political favors to attract business. NJ overall is still losing employers because of its high tax base. With recent tax reductions in Deleware and Rhode Island, this will only increase. I've never met a business manager that would rather rely on political favors than a lower, more level playing field for all.
Posted on: 2006/9/27 22:46
|
|||
|
I'd go over 12 percent for that
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
How is that besides that point in you world of "ideal" development? Does it make sense to have all these forms of open space right next to each other. Bought by a city that can't currently afford it. Especially with your friends wanting all that money to go towards their Embankment Project. And don't tell me you are suggesting building houses on a location that is in the middle of and industrial zone and had underground fires burning on the site for 40 years. Central Park = 843 acres Liberty State Park = 1212 acres
Posted on: 2006/9/27 22:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: How to develop western JC? 160 acres including warehouse on agenda for Planning Board
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
MCA, The city is actually showing some sense. The abatements to developers keep PILOT dollars in the city as well as helping to bring taxpaying citizens into JC today. As the abatements expire over time they will raise revenues for the city in the long term. The abatement are a good short and long term strategy.
Same thing goes for the abatement to employers. There are other treads on this. The bottom line is they work. Cities have to compete like any business. If a city does not create incentives, history shows us that business goes elsewhere. Jersey City has been across the river from Manhattan for hundreds of years. It's only started booming in the last 30. Smart abatements are part of the reason. New Jersey awards $21.9M jobs grant to Deutsche Bank to bring 1,200 jobs to Downtown Jersey City
Posted on: 2006/9/27 21:50
|
|||
|
||||