It may surprise you to learn that public research dollars are shrinking and the big money is in the private sector. So studies researching drugs, for example, are mostly funded by pharm companies.

These studies should disclose the potential conflict of interest but just because there is conflict of interest does not invalidate the results.

It might also surprise you that most journals publish positive results over negative results so published articles, just by the mere fact that it is published, have a conflict of interest.

Most global warming studies are funded by organizations which have a vested interest in preservation. There is a conflict of interest there but that doesn't disprove global warming...

Finally, there is a difference with being posted on and published by...The credit score study was published by experian and posted on many realty sites. The questions you raised about SES are good ones and I am not sure if it is addressed in the article. However, the problems with credit scores relate to BOTH homeowners and renters.

Look, I would love to get into an argument about conflict of interest but there is a general consensus that more homeowners than renters in a community are better for that community. There is a role for renters and a role for homeowners. An all homeowners community would suck but if the majority of residents are homeowners with a tenant community, it is better for the area.

Actually I did click on them.

The first is subscriber restricted.

However, the second article is published by a Realty website. REALTY. As in "we make money selling homes to people."

You know how realtors work, right? They collect a commission on the sale of property, much more money than they collect on rentals, not to mention that the idea of renter paid broker fees is pretty limited to the NYC metro area. So essentially a publication representing a whole class of people who exclusively earn money through selling property said that buying property is good. HFS, I am so impressed by the objectivity of this report I am losing my mind.

Oh, and the report is based on "evidence" from a credit reporting agency, the same agency that makes a lot of money when banks issuing loans buy credit scores. How convenient that a credit reporting agency has "proven" once and for all how great homeownership is. I wonder if they would open up those records for independent analysis, but maybe not since its relies on "Experian's own proprietary version" of a credit score. And it doesn't say how any of this was adjusted by race, income or other statistical demographics.

Let's take a look at your third source. I'm sure you found something unbiased.

Oh, you're citing something with the caveat at the bottom "Funding for this project was provided by the Homeownership Alliance."

I wonder who the Homeownership Alliance is?

Ohhhh... I see "Charter members of the Homeownership Alliance are ICBA, the National Association of Home Builders, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the National Association of Realtors."
http://www.icba.org/tools/index.cfm?ItemNumber=1536

I'm sure none of THOSE organizations have a vested interest in selling homes. No, of course they don't. Why would bankers, developers, loan makers, and realtors have a vested interest in selling more homes?

Now let's see what Conflict of Interest means:

"A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other."

First, I'd like to thank the moderator for leaving ianmac47 comment calling a member of the community stupid up for a few days and taking my response calling his comment childish and being on the level of a 4th grader down right away. Can you explain that to me?

In any case, ianmac47 - I take it that you never even clicked on the links which is very convenient for you and not surprising.

The first article is from the Journal of Housing and the Built Environment written by two authors from the OTB Research Institute for Housing Urban and Mobility Studies. Maybe there is a conflict of interest here but what financial conflict of interest do they have in showing homeowners are more satisfied than renters?

The second article is POSTED on a realty site but the study was conducted by Experian - a national credit reporting agency. What conflict of interest is there? They just compared scores of renters versus homeowners....

The third article was done in Ohio University Department of Economics and Center for Urban and Regional Analysis. Yes, I hear that the professors in that department double as realtors....



And let's just humor you and say there is conflict of interest in ALL THREE STUDIES, as long as it is disclosed, it doesn't make their arguments false.

1. Don't renters form the most likely pool of potential buyers. Most of the people I know in JC rented before buying.

2. Compare Villa Borinquen - moderate income renters - to the block to the south which are individually owned row houses. Walk both sides of Second St. between Manila and Marin. Which development is looking after the neighborhood better? Walk the east side of Manila after a snowfall.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

i think a good balance between homeowners and renters is okay. you need renters to keep the influx of people flowing (see manhattan, williamsburg, etc). if everything is a condo, that kind of has it's limits, too.

If we can't agree on averages then why even argue..

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f5264648u0u03465/
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20060828_renterscore.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18332673/Th ... equences-of-Homeownership

I am not providing an opinion here. I am saying for a fact, that the social benefits of home ownership, ON AVERAGE, are better than the social benefits of renting. I thought this was common sense?

Quote:
How true of the above. Europe was spotless in even the most congested cities and towns.

Regarding Gulls Cove, don't the owners have to vote is any changes to the POS? How does Metro Homes expect any changes to Phase II to pass?

In the name of the Almightyand All Powerful and the All Merciful, people get real. There are plenty of bad homeowners and plenty of bad renters.

But chances are that someone in their 80's might not be able to take care of their property as well as someone much younger. Chances are that someone who has six children and is married to someone who's spent more time in jail with his children probably won't care for their property. Children increase the amount of wear and tear and that mother probably has never had to take responsibility for anything....need I say more.

I've met renters who invest more energy in the building than the landlord and want things to be nice.

If you live in a city chances are you live next to a lot of renters, this is even true in Manhattan, where they have somehow managed not to trash the place.

Heck 1/2 of Europe is renters and they somehow have managed to maintain some pretty nice cities.

I'm sure the homeowners who are 70 year old pensioners and can't afford to or physically unable to maintain their homes are way better than renters who will not only spend money in the community but care about the conditions of the apartment they rent.

And, even if its true that renters are less likely to have children, then that means the housing stock they occupy are generating tax revenue without costing the money to educate their children. In fact, I think there is a better argument that homeowners with children are bigger drain on the community by sucking away tens of thousands of dollars in costs to the school system.

Quote:

Did I say that? You put words in my mouth.

JP - I heard that GC I and GC II will be two separate legal entities so metrohomes doesn't hold majority vote in the condo association. Is that correct?

To CSXrailfan - I appreciate the sarcasm but what I say is true, on average. You'll find amazing renters who want to improve the area, improve the schools, be involved in city government but you'll find more homeowners who want those things.

I do know some Gulls Cove residents who have expressed the above concerns regarding renters, so I can't disagree with the above.

I will say that my concern is largely not sharing facilities with the tenants but establishing an ongoing relationship with a landlord. Although there are different ways to allocate expenses and deal with governance issues, whenever you have a hybrid building or complex it means that you are tethered to a single entity that owns a large portion of the infrastructure. Metro Homes wants to build a rental because it can't afford or get financing to complete Phase II as originally planned. So when it comes to the homeowners who bought in Phase I and says it wants to build rentals and be forever attached to the building (unless it sells its interest down the road) it does not exactly inspire confidence. Especially true when you consider that it defaulted on Trump, walked away completely from the Esperanza in Asbury Park, and allegedly has some very angry owners at Metrostop in Hoboken.

The presence of renters doesn't really bother me personally. There are already quite a few in Gulls Cove who lease from the purchasers. I don't know anyone who trashes the facilities. Except, of course, for the building's dog owners who let their dogs piss on the side of the building.

You're absolutely right. A gentleman in a top hat was telling me the other day that homeowners are on average 1000% smarter and cleaner than renters too. A guy I know who rents his place said the schools could burn down for all he cares, because they just make the local kids into smarter criminals. This is coming from a guy who killed his cats because they were cutting into his spare time, which he spends chopping down trees for sport and throwing his garbage into the planters at the local park.

I remember the day we closed on our place. The transformation was like night and day. Previously my mind had been completely fogged by the massive complexities of nuance and subtlety. No more! It's much easier to go on living day to day when things are a clear cut black and white.

most renters do not have families while most homeowners do. renters could care less about the quality of schools.

On average, renters do treat their units like shit compared to homeowners. That is why avalon cove is crap - the renters destroyed it. That is also why Gulls Cove part 2 has all the homeowners worried - because they don't want renters.

since homeowners have at least 30k invested in their homes, they try and make the surrounding area better. renters only want 1 thing - to be close to nyc.

I agree. I've found that the rich homeowners in Jersey City tend to be far more civilized, intelligent, neighborly, and highly non-judgmental compared to the filthy renters I've met in my time living here.

i guess it depends on what type of renter and homeowner we are talking about. i tend to think that someone who is paying top dollar rents cares a lot about the environs.

Quote:


You could make a very solid argument that homeowners are stuck here, so once everyone is a homeowner everything can go to shit. Whereas since renters are mobile, the need to continually attract them to the city will encourage better, smarter development and government. If renters are persistently able to leave at the drop of a hat, government will be more responsive. If schools are not good, renters will leave. If there are not enough parks and green space, renters will leave. If crime rises, renters will leave. Thus there is an incentive to maintain schools, parks, and reduce crime in order to continually attract new renters, while if there are a many homeowners, they are all stuck here regardless of how good the schools, parks and police presence is.

The whole "I'm super special because I was dumb enough to buy into the real estate bubble and everyone else should sink a lot of money into property just like me" is kind of old.

Quote:

So you want a city full of renters and no homeowners? Homeowners care about the unit they live in, renters on average do not. Homeowners have skin in the game while renters do not.

Quote:

Yes, an entire city should be developed according to your tastes.

Quote:

From what I gather, 18 Park is replacing this building.

Quote:


Is 18 park replacing this building or sitting next to it?
http://www.appliedco.com/aboutUs/pipeline/liberty_harbor.shtml

18 Park will be the new home for The Boys & Girls Club:
http://www.metro.us/newyork/life/arti ... rhood-profile-jersey-city

Great, any renderings of this new building and of the revitalized boys/girls club?

18 Park is the building planned for the lot in front of Gulls Cove (I am not sure if this is a redesign of an earlier Applied building planned for that lot, or a second building sharing the lot in front of Gulls Cove).

As to 45 stories, height is irrelevant; its whether or not the building is well designed. I'm not saying the design will be good, and given the precedent in the area, I suspect probably not. But keep in mind the surrounding buildings are 16 to 20 stories. Also, not all stories are the same height. Ten feet per story is significantly less than 14 or 16 feet per story.

Finally, rentals are being built because the market can support rentals. The newest rental towers are filling up quickly. Condos are slow to move. When the market turns around, there will be more condos.

No more rentals for gods sake...make condos instead of rentals. homeowners have much more at stake in the immediate area than renters.

Quote:

regardless of the size of the buildings around grove st path LHN area should not go above 20 stories tops in my opinion. it will look out of place and cast shadows everywhere. we should keep that area low to mid rise. there is still plenty of land for towers closer to the waterfront/PAD/grove st that is more appropriate for towers. 45 stories even behind that near gulls cove is too tall.

This article mentions 18 Park. Is that development in LHN?