Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
 |
Nothing more then tax breaks for developers that provide politicial funding to the Healy administration - An FOI request will show how 'financially corrupt' our cityhall officials really are
 . 
Posted on: 2013/3/1 9:30
|
|||
|
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: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'd like to know how the developers prove they can't get construction financing without a long-term tax abatement. What do the projected numbers (revenue, expenses, etc.) typically look like per apartment unit for the next 10 years? Rental buildings in Downtown JC have been performing exceptionally well for the past few years and asking rents have skyrocketed. Does City Hall hire an independent professional to do a thorough review to see if the numbers provided by potential project financiers make sense before it is concluded that an abatement is indeed necessary? Or do the city council members just blindly accept that the numbers are realistic even though the financial broker may be buddies with the developer and the numbers skewed?
Posted on: 2013/3/1 6:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
An abatement might be crucial to a project's financing - but probably not.
That's pretty much irrelevant to a city's decision to abate or not. The primary purpose of abatements from the city's perspective is to encourage development in places where it would not otherwise occur. The goal is to get some ratables rather than none. You trade some of the potential tax revenue of the new property in exchange for the PILOT payments, and also to help attract other new development to an area. Sooner or later the city should be out of the abatement business in a particular area. For example, downtown. You need abatements in Journal Square, Ward F and Ward A. You may need them to get development started on the Hackensack River. But they are no longer a good planning tool downtown. As long as you keep abating downtown development, builders don't have much incentive to break ground in new areas, if they can get the same breaks in a "proven" area.
Posted on: 2013/3/1 5:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Is 401 Washington Blvd a.k.a. Marbella II? The small lot just north to A-Condos?
Posted on: 2013/3/1 5:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I believe the income / profit potentials in developing the empty lots are a lot more than what the abatement can / cannot offer (in other words, the opportunity cost is much greater than an abatement). If a developer really bases his decision of building soley on an approved abatement, I'd be surprised - that's the point I'm trying to get at.
And to answer your question, I'm only a humble home owner in JCDT. If I were a developer, I'd be building right now. If I were a psychic, I would be sipping my drink on my own beach island right now  Quote:
Posted on: 2013/2/28 19:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Either you are a major developer or your psychic. I am assuming you are neither so how do you know what developers might or might not have done? The majority of developments, maybe even all of them, have some sort of abatement. So it's really hard to say that ALL of them would have built if they didn't get a deal.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 18:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Undeveloped land close to PATH stations has got to be valuable enough to develop without public assistance. The problem is that abatements are given so routinely that developers have come to expect them. That can change.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 18:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Developers have been falling all over themselves to build in DTJC for years now. This is hardly a new phenomenon.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 17:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45 Last Login : 2023/5/12 21:59 From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
174
|
Quote:
He doesn't mean more money overall, he's talking about a share of the percentage of money collected. On a normal property tax bill, a portion of the whole goes to three separate entities - Jersey City, Hudson County and the Jersey City School System. PILOTs (which is what the city is really handing out vs abatements) are not divvied up between the three entities. The County gets nothing, the School System may get a very small portion, and Jersey City receives the lion's share. This is why PILOTs are so attractive to city government. I think the attitude is something along the lines of, 'Why share the wealth if we don't have to?' And of course the developers like them because they keep their rates from fluctuating during financially difficult times. The reason those of us who do not have PILOTs object is that every time the city finds itself in a shortfall, our tax rates go up. If the County feels the need to raise taxes, we are affected, but not those with PILOTs. If the School System needs more money, it comes from the average tax payer, but again, not those with PILOTs. Yes, the city loves it because it gives a one-time influx of cash into city coffers (as a PILOT often comes with a fairly large upfront payment) and they don?t have to share it. This way, especially in an election year, they can put off raising taxes on everyone else because they got that cash influx. But they are only putting things off until a later date. The city budget keeps rising and that money has to come from somewhere. And it?s going to ultimately come from all the rest of us that didn?t have access to the PILOT gravy train.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 17:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
well, at least this is only a 10-year deal. hopefully, there is a clause stating that the abatement will cease if construction doesn't start IMMEDIATELY
Posted on: 2013/2/28 16:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/10/12 12:58 Last Login : 2016/5/8 0:52 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
288
|
for 50 columbus...my back of the envelope calculation indicates that each unit with contribute approximately 1000 in annual property taxes per year for the next 10 years...
Posted on: 2013/2/28 15:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
The 2012 budget lists $103.3 million of PILOTs and a $215 million property tax levy.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 15:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'd also love to know how many of these 750 construction jobs and 48 permanent jobs will go to unemployed Jersey City residents. It seems like construction jobs in Jersey City are almost always filled by people living out of town. I don't necessarily fault the developer for that, because they can't control where the people they hire actually live or their previous job situations, but I really question as to how much Jersey City and/or Hudson County benefits from the "job creation" on these projects and whether they are truly worth the abatements given. I suppose some workers might spend a few bucks at the neighborhood delis to eat lunch though.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 15:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Your argument only works if the developers are only building IF and ONLY IF they get the abatement (i.e. abatement = building towers; no abatement = vacant land).
I doubt the developers are NOT building if they don't get the abatement, as I don't think the areas they picked will remain vacant for long, given the market trend. Hence, if they are going to build regardless of abatement or not, I vote for NO abatement - I think the developers are rich enough already. Who's going to help me pay $8000+ of annual property tax on my small 2 Bedroom, which by the way, has risen 80% since I brought it 6 years ago??? Quote:
Posted on: 2013/2/28 15:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21 Last Login : 2019/12/26 15:30 From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
5356
|
Quote:
Thanks for the post.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 14:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
all you really need to know is the last councilman in charge of RE/abatements is now in jail on a felony. You can pretty much guess that no truly impartial/quality analysis goes into any of JC's deals with developers.
Seriously who's the patsy when it comes to JC govt yokels versus a bunch of seasoned RE developers?
Posted on: 2013/2/28 14:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2009/12/30 14:44 Last Login : 2023/9/18 21:02 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
129
|
Quote:
It is the developer/construction firm that pays for the traffic cops and it is is a huge amount of money by the end of the project.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 14:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
It would be nice to know what the cost is for the city, county, and state for servicing these new towers and use that as a basis for determining whether the tax abatements make sense or not.
For example, how much will it cost in additional fire and police coverage for those new residents? How many seats in classrooms will be taken up by children from those buildings? Impact on roads? Trash collection? Water? Traffic? Sewer? Then compare that against the revenue generated from the abated property taxes, sales tax of residents, dollars spent on economic activity in the city, etc. I doubt that this kind of analysis happens with these kinds of abatements, but if it did it would help determine whether this development (or any development) was a benefit or burden to the city.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 13:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Ninja Please! Tax abatements are not some magical, pixie dust. I have serious concerns about whether they really do good in the long term. Just like so many people think building sports stadiums is a great idea....more and more studies have proven they are a waste except for the billionaires and big corporations....not for the rest of society. All you supporters of tax abatements need to read this report, it highlights Jersey City. http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/stat ... ng-more-taxes?%20Business)
Posted on: 2013/2/28 12:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Really? Because the Powerhouse District resembles the shiny city on a hill? Just because all of downtown isn't like the wild ghettos of some other parts of JC doesn't meant it doesn't need help. The PAD, outer regions of Newport need to be developed and there is risk involved, especially with this dangerous pipeline being laid. Also, most developers will not even step foot in another part of the city if there is room left in downtown to develop. Sorry to burst your buuble but downtown is and always will be more appealing until there is no room left in downtown. The upper east side, harlem, and even parts of brooklyn didn't "co-develop" at the same time as midtown and downtown manhattan. So for all the downtown haters, your best bet and hope for the future is to have all of downtown developed as quickly as possible.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 6:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The city gets more money through abatements than through ordinary property taxes.
The city gets much more money on developed land than undeveloped land. I'm sorry you cannot understand the way the system has been structured, but you should find a valid complaint before continuing to mutter ignorant statements.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 6:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Enough of these tax breaks downtown. That ship should have sailed long ago.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 5:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
How much are these developers spending on upgrading the sewerage systems? Resurfacing roads? Installing traffic lights for increased traffic? Also, who is paying the JCPD to have usually several officers on traffic duty around these large sites during construction? These are all necessities for these large developments that come with a steep pricetag - and someone is paying the bill for these. I could be wrong but I doubt it's the developers.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 5:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Issuing abatements doesn't cause your municipal taxes to go up.
It starves the county of money, but county taxes are then subsidized by all the other towns in the county. It starves the school district of money, but studio, one and two bedroom luxury buildings are not adding students to the schools but are generating a whole lot more money than the previous undeveloped land. So please stop blaming abatements for higher taxes. Higher taxes are the result of corruption and mismanagement, and for that you can blame the administration.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 4:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
BTW - Note that 70 Columbus ALREADY had been approved for a $28 million tax break from the state. It's a great time to be a developer as so many of us suffer and try to make ends meet.
When are they going to give tax breaks to ordinary property owners? How about rent rebates to renters? Unfortunately while these developers rake in sky-high rents, the rest of us lowly people are left footing the bill. Look at the bottom of page 4: http://www.njeda.com/web/pdf/eda/01172012public.pdf
Posted on: 2013/2/28 4:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Well, if you own property in DT and your taxes go up after the election when the next administration has secured another term, you know who to thank - the mayor and your council representative.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 4:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Agree! Probably hasn't for the past ten years.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 3:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21 Last Login : 2019/12/26 15:30 From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
5356
|
Quote:
Sottolano is the biggest asswipe, ward A cannot wait for him to be history. DT JC needs no more tax abatements period.
Posted on: 2013/2/28 3:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
10-year tax breaks approved for two proposed Downtown Jersey City towers
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal February 27, 2013 at 8:41 PM Ten-year tax breaks for two Downtown Jersey City projects were given final approval by the City Council tonight, after union members paraded in front of the nine-member body to press it to OK the measures. The two measures each received a 7-2 vote, with all members approving except Councilman at large Rolando Lavarro and Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop. Both voted ?no.? The tax breaks will go to a proposed 50-story, 553-unit residential complex at 70 Columbus Drive, and a 39-story, 311-unit building at 401 Washington Blvd. Instead of paying traditional property taxes, the owners will instead pay 10 percent of their gross annual revenue for the first 4 years of the tax deal, 12 percent for the subsequent 4 years and 14 percent for the final two years. The projects will lead to a total of 750 construction jobs and 48 new, permanent jobs, according to city officials. In addition, the developers of the two projects will contribute a total of $1.3 million to the city?s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is used to build affordable units throughout the city. Ward A Councilman Michael Sottolano, who sits on the city?s Tax Abatement Committee, praised the two deals. ?I?m delighted to see that jobs are being produced and the construction of real property is once again starting to come around to Jersey City,? Sottolano said. Fulop, who generally votes against Downtown tax abatements, said jobs are important but that tax breaks aren't the way to go. "My belief is that long term tax abatements for luxury Waterfront high-rise buildings are no longer necessary because they don't pay their fair share to schools," he said. "Until this is resolved I can't support it because everyone else in Jersey City has to foot the bill for these buildings" http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... oved_fo.html#incart_river
Posted on: 2013/2/28 2:34
|
|||
|
||||