Browsing this Thread:
5 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Willie Flood voted in favor of caving - how much more awesome can she get?
Posted on: 2008/2/2 22:50
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Good move. I'm guessing if they had caved on this, it would effectively force them to give every future development the same deal.
Posted on: 2008/2/2 22:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hallelujah!!!
Posted on: 2008/2/2 17:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Can't change your payments
Council rejects cheaper tax deal for developer of 47-story buildings Ricardo Kaulessar Hudson Reporter 02/01/2008 The Jersey City Council voted on Jan. 23 against a change to a tax abatement deal for the 47-story Monaco North and South buildings on Washington Blvd. The developers wanted to change the amount that they give the city in lieu of taxes each year, citing added construction costs. But the city declined the change 6-3, as the city would receive $6 million less from the developer than with the old arrangement. Those voting in favor of the change were City Council President Mariano Vega, City Councilman Steve Lipski, and Councilwoman-At-Large Willie Flood. The council members who voted against the changes were Steven Fulop, Mary Spinello, Peter Brennan, Bill Gaughan, Viola Richardson, and Michael Sottolano. The new Monaco North and South abatements would have been for 15 years rather than 20 years, and the annual service charge (a charge levied by the city against residential property exempted from conventional taxation) would have been lessened from 14 to 12 percent of the annual gross revenue for the rentals. The number of rentals in Monaco North would have decreased from 264 to 243, and number of parking spaces would decrease from 203 to 187. Changes for Monaco South include an increase from 277 to 281 units and an increase in the number of parking spaces from 213 to 223. The buildings are proposed for 465 and 475 Washington Blvd., near the Doubletree Hotel in Downtown Jersey City. Officially, the developers of the two buildings are Monaco North Urban Renewal LLC and Monaco South Urban Renewal LLC. But those companies are a joint venture of the Roseland Property Company and Garden State Development. Twenty-year abatements for each of the two buildings were initially approved by the City Council in November of 2006. At that time, the Monaco North abatement was for 264 market rate rental units, 6,105 square feet of commercial space, and 203 parking spaces. The Monaco South abatement was for 277 market rate rental units and 211 parking spaces. Voting down an abatement At the council's caucus on Jan. 22, the council heard a presentation on the Monaco abatements from the attorney for the project, James McCann. McCann said no construction has started on the buildings, because the cost of construction materials, such as concrete, has increased. McCann also said the developer would start construction by the end of May if the council were to approve the abatement changes. McCann said the cost of constructing the Monaco North building has increased from $88 million in November 2006 to the current price of $105 million. They said they would save $3 million on Monaco North and $3 million on Monaco South if the abatement changes were approved. Council President Vega voted for the changes, citing the "reality" of the nation's current financial conditions that have led to a nationwide construction slowdown. "Getting something built is better than keeping it like a blank slate, so to speak," Vega said. But some of the other council members were not in a giving mood. Councilman Fulop said the developer should honor the abatement agreement that the City Council approved in November 2006 and not seek changes when times are tough. "If we open this Pandora's Box over here, we will be renegotiating every single tax abatement that we did," Fulop said. Comments on the story can be sent to rkaulessar@hudsonreporter.com.
Posted on: 2008/2/2 11:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project \'stalled\' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
What you're all forgetting and is certainly an important part of the equation when comparing Brooklyn to Jersey City is the NYC income tax which, for income over $90k, is an additional 4% over and above the NYS income tax. This you do not pay if you live in Jersey City.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 18:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project \'stalled\' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Read about NYC tax abatement program for new waterfront condos:
http://www.urbandigs.com/2006/03/what_is_a_421a.html Here is an excerpt: Lets take a look at a real-life building for an example of the 421a Tax Abatement and the listings for sale in pre-construction: 205 East 59th New Development  Apt. 9B #Beds - 2 #Baths - 2 Total Size - 1,368 Sq. Ft. Maint/CC - $1,626 *RE Taxes - $261 Asking: $2,211,000 Apt. 22A #Beds - 1 #Baths - 1.5 Total Size - 1,122 Sq. Ft. Maint/CC - $1,344 *RE Taxes - $216 Asking: $1,799,500 =============================== There is a lot on the web about McBrooklyn too -- here is a start. http://www.nysun.com/article/66516
Posted on: 2008/1/29 15:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project \'stalled\' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/6/27 22:27 Last Login : 2012/4/20 14:33 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
235
 |
Quote:
I think the comparison to Brooklyn had to do with tax abated properties. In other words, a tax abated property in Brooklyn pays 1/10th of the taxes of a tax abated property in Jersey City. And I think this is about right. Tax abatements in Jersey City are no bargain for anyone except for the city itself.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 14:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Why does there have to be so many parking spots?
Take a walk around downtown now - and there are towering ugly parking garages and the residential part starts at least 5 stories above... not very neighborly to me.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 3:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project \'stalled\' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
ok this is really my last post - but my bad, emergent... you're right.
However, for what it's worth the taxes I paid in the city were pretty much right in line with what I'm paying here, almost eerily so... so a) in my experience there wasn't much of a difference and b) either way that one poster was pulling that 1/10 number out his kiester and ianmac, I hope you get your tower, maybe newport can secede and have no school district whatsoever.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 2:35
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project \'stalled\' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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:
Actually, the arguments on this board concerning the abatements have been logical, coherent, and detailed. Many listers have pointed out that the abatement process is a short term revenue boost that deprives the schools of funding, prevents flexibility across the ratable base, and skews neighboring property values in case of a revaluation. Unfair, yes. Also unwise. As for the current project. Every developer in this city knows that they can hold out and eventually get the city to offer an abatement. That's why they can hold the city hostage and say "or we just wont do it." The city needs to quite simply stand up for itself. It deserves better than the developers give. Even if it turned out this project would be delayed a few years, it would be worth it in the long run. Both in terms of the project itself and with respect to finally setting a standard.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 2:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to nitpick, but he's saying Brooklyn pays 1/10th the taxes that we do, not 10 times the taxes like you said.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 1:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project \'stalled\' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Parking lots are ugly. Parking lots are the antithesis of a vibrant urban landscape. Parking lots are a for suburbia. Quote:
The most frequent argument on this board and elsewhere against abatements is that its somehow unfair or unjust. Its an emotional argument, not a logical one. A developed property with an abatement pays into the city coffers far more tax dollars than a lot assessed as a parking lot. That's a financial benefit to the city. In addition, the added residents spend money in the city's economy, which leads to more jobs, especially low skill service jobs-- the sort of jobs that are replacing the low skill, manufacturing jobs that had been the mainstay of city's economy 50 years ago. Again, another benefit. Then of course there is the population itself-- the next census is two years away. Population determines representation in Trenton and Washington-- and the greater the population, the more power Jersey City has in legislative seats, which ultimately means more money from the state and federal governemnt. Now there are of course costs that come from adding more development. Schools for instance, are cut out of payments under abatement programs. The county is cut out too. And there are infrastructure issues that also need to be addressed, like capacity on the PATH. But the Port Authority doesn't collect any money through taxes-- so their budget is unaffected by abatements. ANd as far as the county-- thats a blackhole of patronage, so WhoTF cares if they get their money. And as far as the schools-- that comes down to a cost / benefit problem. If the towers are primarily going to be filling the schools with children-- three and four bedroom and larger apartments-- then the costs to the school system will be high and the benefits low. But if the building is catering to residents who won't be adding huge numbers of school age children-- studios, one and two bedroom apartments-- then the school system is getting few if any new children and the city is getting much more cash then is generated by a parkign lot. Quote:
If you are referring to my entry, "Foreclosures and Me" its a very straightforward answer. If the government bails out people who borrowed money for a house they couldn't really afford, its creating a special class of citizens and creating a benefit for making the wrong economic decision. Its reinforcing negative behavior. Abatements on the other hand, are positive reinforcement. By granting an abatement, the city is rewarding investment that is bringing positive change.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 1:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
And just to belabor the point a little more, what is so terrible about one parking lot sitting for a while in a neighborhood where so many new buildings are already going up? And why should the rest of Jersey City pay so that that corner can have a "more vibrant streetscape," especially when you consider the potential future losses of revenue from the precedent this would set if it were accepted? I happened to peak at your blog, and you seem to be fairly free-market oriented in your take on the housing crisis. I find it strange that you feel differently about this.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 0:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This is my last post on this, it's pointless (see my earlier Upton Sinclair quote) but for what it's worth, emergent:
Quote: ...abatements right across the pond in Brooklyn are much more generous, to the point where developers/residents pay 1/10th of the taxes they pay in JC fixed over 15 year periods
Posted on: 2008/1/28 23:16
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Ian, I'm having a hard time seeing whether there's any bigger picture to your argument.
The bigger picture would include the fact that there's already been a bona fide explosion of residential development in the area - both condos and rentals. If there's really such an urgent need for even more, prices should be high enough that the developer can justify building with the current abatement offer. If not, then we're gambling away tax revenues on something that might not succeed anyway.
Posted on: 2008/1/28 22:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
How long do you have to wait for "interim" to become permanent? 10, 20 years? By that logic, The Monaco Towers certainly was not any stunningly brilliant piece of architecture. But its current design is still better than rows of cars. Time is not going to improve the design. If nothing else, the passage of time will lead to an inevitable increase in costs -- costs for construction, costs for land. An increase in costs will likely mean the developer seeks greater density, not less. In the region, several major construction projects are set to consume huge amounts of steal and concrete, which will drive up the costs of construction on other projects. The World Trade Center, Atlantic Yards, and West Side Rail Yards projects are going to be blackholes of construction materials for the next decade. So if Roseland sits on the property for another 5 or 10 years, when there is less land available to develop, and demand is even higher, are they going to come back with a better designed tower, or are they going to come back looking to build taller, denser of towers? Meanwhile, the people already living here spent the last 5 or 10 years staring at a hotel parking lot.
Posted on: 2008/1/28 21:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
come-on,
the parking lots are interim uses. is it not said good things come to people who wait.... patience. until we get land-use decisions that improve our quality of life, I am willing to walk by a parking lot (and be able to see the sky). Quote:
Posted on: 2008/1/28 14:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
That isn't what he said.
Posted on: 2008/1/28 10:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Ouch, it's tough to take this stand since everyone is so anti-development anti-abatement is *not* the same thing as anti-development (but I think you know that) Abatements are a Bad Idea not only because they're a short-term end-run around the county and schools, but also because they're locked in and assume an indefinite state bailout of the schools - so as that changes, the city can't adapt because they took the easy upfront money. This has been explained here before. (and I told myself I wouldn't post on this thread anymore...) p.s. Brooklyn residents pay 10 times the property tax of Jersey City residents? That's an interesting claim - funny, I owned in the city prior to moving here, I don't seem to remember noticing much of a difference, let alone by a factor of ten. Sounds like you've got a lot of truthiness there - I guess Bloomberg must lack Healy's business acumen...
Posted on: 2008/1/28 4:09
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
JC is so overdeveloped right now it is astounding. Just drive down Grand Avenue past the hospital and Pathmark. They built up a whole waterfront looking city there, um, without the waterfront. It's absolutely amazing to see the condos going up there, and has been over the past years. In the current environment, none of these places would seem to stand to sell for anything close to the asking prices of two years ago.
It's not at all prime property location, it's just pretty looking, brand spanking new, all-the-same condos in the middle of decrepit neighborhoods. In the market of a couple of years ago, one might think that would hold up. But now, it all seems like nothing in the middle of nowhere. So what say you all. Will it expand, will Grand become the next Grand location to move into? Or will it all fall apart as housing vacillates, corrects from all the subprime speculators?
Posted on: 2008/1/28 1:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Ouch, it's tough to take this stand since everyone is so anti-development on this board - I give you alot of credit for always fighting the grain and writing about your well thought out positions. I agree, the high rises are beneficial to both the downtown neighborhood and to the city's budget, especially considering the alternative - vacant or underused lots. Jersey City's abatements are not even very advantageous - the abatements right across the pond in Brooklyn are much more generous, to the point where developers/residents pay 1/10th of the taxes they pay in JC fixed over 15 year periods. So to the contrary, the JC city goverment is actually the giver, screwing over the Hudson County and the state of New Jersey by not sharing any of this new revenue with them, while accepting significant state funds for local schools. I still respect the city standing up and saying no to ammending an existing agreement - this can set a dangerous precedent. The city did the right thing in this situation but not because abatements are evil. Bottom line, this is a negotiation process and it will eventually reach a give and take compromise and move forward.
Posted on: 2008/1/28 1:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Brewster writes:
Quote: Even discussing this is ridiculous. fat-ass-bike writes: Quote: another load of crap Sadly, I agree...
Posted on: 2008/1/27 0:39
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Another load of crap - we have thread saying we're still in a boom in JC and this one chasing abatements.
Posted on: 2008/1/25 23:33
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Or maybe I just want to live someplace with more people than parking lots.
Parking lots are awful to walk by as a pedestrian. Residential towers, even ugly ones, at least have humans inside them, coming out of them, going into them. Two years ago, Washington Blvd / St was mostly empty lots between Montgomery and Pavonia Ave. The Westin Hotel, across the street from the Monaco lot will open probably this summer. Further south, Athena just opened. Trump's Tower will probably open this summer or early fall. Washington Commons just opened a few weeks ago. The 111 First Street lot will shortly have a building on it too. So from two years ago to three years from now, Washington Blvd/St will suddenly have people living and shopping on it. There are two lots unaccounted for, the Monaco / San Remo property, which at this rate will still be an ugly parking lot, and the Evertrust parking lots next to Trump. So yes, I think its important that Monaco break ground sooner rather than later because its a key component to creating a vibrant streetscape along Washington Blvd, especially since Avalon Cove's ugly fence is across the street. There is a big reason why Newport is often referred as a suburb-- all the parking lots.
Posted on: 2008/1/25 23:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
if they hasten the development of certain lots, then they could be the engine of some positive change ^!&&#< please. As if Washington and 6th is some underdeveloped neighborhood needing extra economic incentive.... I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess someone's income is directly or indirectly connected to corporate development in eastern Jersey City - which would happen anyway at that site, without this short-sighted slow-motion dismantling of the property tax system. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Posted on: 2008/1/25 22:07
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
The problem is that city hall doesn't know how to turn off the tap when it's not needed. The "Engine of Positive Change" argument was used even when it isn't warrented. How can it be effective when it's used all the time? It's like interest rate cuts... If you continuously cut, there's a point where rates are so low additional cuts won't yield substantial results. What City Hall has created is a downward spiral where even those who have abatements want more. But what do I know, I'm just a lowly citizen.
Posted on: 2008/1/25 21:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This would have been true at this time last year, but now the we're headed for a recession, financing is still difficult, and real estate is slumping or popping, depending on your point of view. Sure, the property will eventually be developed with or without an abatement, but there could be a difference of completing the building by 2010 or some yet to be determined date in the future. I think that the lots for Monaco and San Remo are critical to creating a unified urban fabric, along with five or six other big lots downtown. Maybe abatements are unnecessary, but I think if they hasten the development of certain lots, then they could be the engine of some positive change.
Posted on: 2008/1/25 21:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
they rip off the schools and county in favor of the city, plus give a upfront payoff that makes the sitting mayor's budget look better. But where are the grownups saying you can't do this indefinitely or the property tax system will crash? well put, brewster... as usual, you nailed it.
Posted on: 2008/1/25 21:06
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Even discussing this is ridiculous. There should simply be no more abatements downtown. The pump has been primed already!! If developing normal tax base property on Washington and 6th really isn't yet economical, there's something seriously wrong.
A question I've had for I while is: isn't there anyone at the county or state level holding the leash on our ability to hand out these abatements? The city loves them since they rip off the schools and county in favor of the city, plus give a upfront payoff that makes the sitting mayor's budget look better. But where are the grownups saying you can't do this indefinitely or the property tax system will crash?
Posted on: 2008/1/25 20:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
exactly - there should be a bronze statue in front of city hall, Healy and the Council all in a line, bending over...
Posted on: 2008/1/25 18:36
|
|||
|
"Someday a book will be written on how this city can be broke in the midst of all this development." ---Brewster
|
||||
|
||||