it's way overpriced for what it has to offer (which isn't much to begin with). knock the prices down 20-30 k and we'd be talking

Let's face it, canco is not exactly in either the most desire-able or convenient location. It's actually quite a hike to the PATH

Quote:
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.

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

surprise, surprise...

everybody get used to this, this is the precedent our council has set - they've guaranteed that this will continue to happen with every developer now - the city absorbs any risk, the developer absorbs any profit. I'd do the same thing if I was the developer, since the city council has shown itself to be such a pushover (or a more likely scenario, there's some $ changing hands)

Why even bother negotiating any abatement terms in the first place if they're so changeable?

Let me go out on a limb here - they'll get whatever they want, the vote will be 8-1

So I guess if the developer doesn't GET a sweeter deal than his already sweet deal, he will RAZE the condominium complex? Or perhaps default the unsold units to the City?

I guess the developer will have to slip some of these councilpeople a few thousand more and then he will certainly get any rate that he wants for whatever period he chooses. He has to PAY to PLAY this foul game.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could ALL say "Times are tough, I want my taxes lowered!"

Psst, "shakedown" is a GREAT word to use!

With loft sales stalled, Coalco seeks better deal

Wednesday, June 11, 2008
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

With only 55 of 202 condo units under contract, the developer of the Canco Lofts is returning to the City Council tonight to seek a sweeter tax abatement deal than the one it received two years ago.

In April 2006, New York-based Coalco received 30-year abatements for new condo owners at the renovated factory on Dey Street in the shadow of the Pulaski Skyway. The owners would pay the city 10 percent of the adjusted gross revenue for 10 years, 12 percent for the following 10 years and 14 percent for the last 10 years. The assessed value of property in the city is 26.10 percent of market value.

The owners are currently paying 16 percent, which is above the conventional tax rate.

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."

The project is slated to have a total of 551 units.

Council members seemed open Monday to the developer's plea, especially since the city has been inking deals with similar PILOTs for more than a year.

But Ward A Councilman Michael Sottolano suggested a "check valve" that would up the percentage of the PILOTs if economic conditions improve.

McCann countered that condo abatements are "self-correcting" since the more units sell for, the more money the city makes. Units are currently selling for between $300,000 and $800,000, said Coalco president Mikhail Kurnev.

Monday's meeting featured an angry confrontation between Heights Councilman Bill Gaughan and Downtown Councilman Steven Fulop.

The developer said he couldn't participate since his construction contracts are already signed, but would be willing to hire 10 Jersey City residents for construction jobs over the next three years.

Gaughan suggested a better plan would be to give the city $150,000 to help run the program.

Fulop objected to Gaughan's attempt to, as he put it, "shake down" a developer.

"That's a bad word to use," Gaughan exploded. "Don't use 'shake down.' I resent his comment."

The council is scheduled to meet tonight, 6 p.m., at Middle School 4, 107 Bright St.