moxiebaby wrote:
Vindication: I live in McGinley Square and walk to PATH daily. I've only been killed 4 times. You don't live there. You're info isn't accurate.

vindication15 wrote:
I am not so much a basher as giving potential residents a realistic expectation of what will happen to them in regards to safety, their money that they invested, etc.

hero69 wrote:
even downtown JC is lacking. There should be carefully thought, world class development but instead the City and state keep coming up with the same old tired ideas. Even the buildings at Newport suck!

Hoboken seems to get it, but its small. Healy seems to think he works for the developers first and voters second.

vindication15 wrote:
Look, forget about the beacon for a second. MS has absolutely nothing going for itself. Not within walking distance to the PATH

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

SammyTheT wrote:
There's a couple of hundred million dollars of development going on at The Beacon right now - this is McGinley Square.

The new Saint Peter's University Student Center is a great new amenity for McGinley Square.

The Jersey City Housing Authority's redevelopment of Montgomery Gardens will be a major change in the feel of McGinley Square.

Why do people say that nothing is happening?

Agreed. I arrived in JC right after college in 95... and MS was a Hot A$$ Mess, now its just a mess, but it looks a whole lot better than 1995. The difference with JC folks and NYC folks no one in NYC waits for the city to fix up areas they invade them and the people begin to fix up the areas.

I grew up in the slums of Williamsburg and when the first Israelis (they arrive before the hipsters and artist) arrived it was not because of some new condos that were being built, it was because it was cheap and close to Manhattan and they came in large numbers.

Developers came way later to Williamsburg when it was already happening. My dad six unit building went from 330k to 3 million in a 5 year span. JC residents are very passive with an entitlement attitude and they wait for developers to decide their faith.

Lastly To all who have moved to other areas of the city other than dtjc good for you. F*ck the haters who trash your choice, they are just looking after their investment so trashing you is only way they know how, we don't want to give potential buyers or renters ideas that there is more to JC than just downtown.

God forbid a jclister post that he or she loves living in MS, they are condemned, called poor, or they must be black, insane or all the above.

I saw how Williamsburg change vs JC and things changed in WB quickly because people got involved, stayed involved. JC gov't and residents are lazy and if there is no money in it for them they can care less, this is why the city does not push development in other areas of the city.

Good luck to you all in MS!

SammyTheT wrote:
There's a couple of hundred million dollars of development going on at The Beacon right now - this is McGinley Square.

The new Saint Peter's University Student Center is a great new amenity for McGinley Square.

The Jersey City Housing Authority's redevelopment of Montgomery Gardens will be a major change in the feel of McGinley Square.

Why do people say that nothing is happening?

PlainSlice wrote:

The second failure, which I won't put on the Beacon, is how low our sights have fallen. When built, it was not a vision of luxury residences for NY commuters and global business trekkers. It was a vision of accessible medical care for the community.

PlainSlice wrote:

4. Home to what is probably the city's least visible, least effective SID.

getz011 wrote:
Hi vindication,

I had a bit of free time to pull sales records from the Beacon from 2006-12 and ran some analyses. The data substantially replicate those that were used in the production of the nj.com article you cited. Data validation, methods and outcomes are summarized below. Let me know anytime if you'd like a copy of the dataset used to run these numbers, or if you're interested in any specific data cuts.

Based on a sample of more than 300 sales records, the data suggest that sales values have decreased by about 26% on average, but that varies substantially based on initial sales price. The sales cost of lower priced units (units that sold for $399,000 or less) decreased the most, roughly 32%. Units priced higher than that seemed to hold their value much better; on average, sales costs for these dropped only about 14% or so after the crash.

Conclusion: There's nothing to suggest a drop of 40%-60% in any unit type/size, much less the across-the-board drop for everything at the Beacon you asserted earlier: "most [Beacon] units lost 40%-60%...."

I went to this effort because I find it profoundly offensive that you accuse me of "lying... that the beacon and other similar type of condos are in good locations, good investments, etc." I've done no such thing - I've only pointed out the errors in your math and analyses, which in this case fit a pattern of extreme hyperbole in your claims. You've also accused me in the past of claiming that Lafayette is better than other parts of JC, which I've never done (and which assertion you retracted, to your credit).

These steps outline my analysis and outcomes:

Step 1: Replicate and prepare the data

I pulled all the Beacon sales records from Hudson County Public Records and recorded the following variables: month and year of sale; square footage; recorded sales price. Based on the latter two variables, I calculated the property value per square foot at time of sale.

The public records have a number of records for which the square footage is listed as zero; these cases were excluded. Also excluded were outliers with a square foot value that fell below or above a certain range based on standard deviation, which is the accepted practice in statistics. I also eliminated a handful of cases before sales began in earnest in 2006, and a single recorded sale in 2013. This resulted in a sample of n=305 cases, ranging from $102/ft2 at time of sale to $760/ft2.

The dataset includes both individual cases mentioned in the article: Leon Potts ($484,600 purchase / 1000 ft2) and Bill Matsikoudis ($335,500 / 1176 ft2).

The dataset is in SPSS format and I'm happy to share it with anyone upon request.


Step 2: Validate the data

My goal was to use a dataset as identical as possible to the one used in the nj.com article you cite as your source. That article cited these numbers:

2007: 191 sales, when "most buyers paid $458 a square foot or more." The dataset I built has 173 sales in 2007, with 54% of those having a per-square-foot value of $458 or more. The average per-square-foot value for that year in my dataset is $465.

2010: 26 sales, with an average price of $339 per square foot. My dataset has 29 sales in 2010, with an average per-square-foot value of $323.

So far, so good - these are very similar, which increase my confidence in the results I came up with.


Step 3: Run the numbers

I ran a number of analyses and would gladly report them all. In the interest of brevity, I'll focus on analysis of two main time periods: 2006-2007 (i.e., pre-crash) and 2008-12 (post crash).

Overall sales values for all properties across these periods (dollar values represent cost per square foot):

2006-07: $460
2008-12: $341
Reduction in value: 26%

But wait - vindication has pointed out repeatedly the nj.com article's anecdotal observation ("Residents, some of whom have seen the value of their condos plummet from almost $500,000 to about $200,000") means that property values at the Beacon are actually down 40% to 60%. In fact, he used this quote in his earlier post to argue that not just some properties lost this much value, but a majority: "most units lost 40%-60%... beacon homeowners lost 40%-60% of their value"

I wanted to test this hypothesis. It's definitely not reasonable to look at all sale values at the Beacon and draw conclusions about properties in a specific price range, so I narrowed my analysis only to properties within the range of $450,000 to $549,000. Here's what I got:

Per-square-foot values for Beacon properties selling for $450,000 to $549,000:

2006-07: $473
2008-12: $424
Reduction in value: 10%

10% - wow! That's a far cry from 40%-60%. This made me think I was too restrictive with the properties I selected, and I decided to cast a wider net. In this analysis, I used properties that sold within the range of $400,000 to $599,000:

Per-square-foot values for Beacon properties selling for $400,000 to $599,000:

2006-07: $473
2008-12: $406
Reduction in value: 14%

That's still an unusually low drop. So I got curious: what was the biggest drop? Not surprisingly, it was in properties at the lowest end of the sales range, those that sold for up to $399,000. Unfortunately for 85 buyers in that range in 2006-07, these are the outcomes:

Per-square-foot values for Beacon properties selling for up to $399,000:

2006-07: $440
2008-12: $301
Reduction in value: 32%

Step 4: Conclusion

Based on these outcomes, there appears to be reasonable evidence of a general reduction in Beacon property sales values of about 26% between 2006-07 and 2012 across all units, not controlling for variables such as amenities, level of renovation, view, etc. There is considerable variability based on original sales price, suggesting that units that sold for $400,000 or more lost far less value than those priced lower.

However, there is insufficient evidence at this time to suggest an across-the-board reduction in property values of 40%-60% between 2006-07 and 2012.

getz011 wrote:
You continue to miss the point about what anecdotal evidence is. Here?s a nice overview:

In all forms of anecdotal evidence, its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.

In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:
"information that is not based on careful study?
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"

No one is saying that the newspaper is printing ?fake news.? The evidence provided is insufficient to back the assertion of a 40% to 60% drop. ?Residents, some of whom have seen the value of their condos plummet from almost $500,000 to about $200,000?? is anecdotal evidence; there?s no indication of:

- How many units comprise the sample
- What the mead/median purchase prices were
- What the mean/median sales prices were

That?s what T-bird said, and that?s what I continue to say. The evidence is insufficient to back the assertion. Where the article does provide mean values and a sample size, it backs a claim of a 26% drop.

Quote:

You people propping up areas in the ghetto are doing a disservice to potential jc residents - lying to them that the beacon and other similar type of condos are in good locations, good investments, etc.

All I?m doing is pointing out a glaring mistake in your reasoning and interpretation. I?ve taught a university level class in statistics/regression analysis, and this is a mistake that an undergrad wouldn?t make after the first 3 days of class. I don't care how rude or unpleasant you choose to be if you at least show reasonable evidence to back what you're saying.

Quote:

a person sees my post and decides not to buy in the beacon and lose their life savings. A person sees your post and buys in the beacon and loses their life savings

How many people have you saved? And how many lives have I ruined?

vindication15 wrote:
That is why I am so "nasty" Although seriously, I'm an online poster on a forum you most likely have never and will never meet. My words shouldn't have any affect on you, at all.

You people propping up areas in the ghetto are doing a disservice to potential jc residents - lying to them that the beacon and other similar type of condos are in good locations, good investments, etc.

a person sees my post and decides not to buy in the beacon and lose their life savings. A person sees your post and buys in the beacon and loses their life savings

getz011 wrote:
Hi vindication,

though I often disagree with you, I do think you often make some good points. What I tried to point out was that your claim of 40%-60% drops in value at the Beacon wasn't supported by the data in the article you quoted. T-Bird pointed out below, much more articulately than I, the reasons why.

If you have data based on sales between 2007-10 at the Beacon, or McGinley Square, or wherever that show a 40%-60% drop in square-foot value for comparable properties, please post it. I'd love to see it and promise to be the first to admit my error. (BTW, in analysis we usually look for a minimum sample of 30 cases before trying to draw any meaningful conclusions, but 20-25 cases in this context would certainly seem enough to suggest a trend.)

True story: for the past few years a raccoon has been showing up on my deck and eating food that I put out for feral cats. I've written up the fake newspaper story below to be analogous to the snippet of the nj.com article you quoted:

When getz looked out the back window of his home in Lafayette one night in 2009, he was alarmed to see, for the first time, a feral raccoon foraging dementedly for food on his deck. Four years later, he says, it's sometimes possible to look out and see a feral raccoon there 5 times a month. Asked if it was the same raccoon foraging on his deck all these years, getz said, 'You know, I can't tell. Feral raccoons look pretty similar to me.'

"Other residents of Lafayette had almost never seen a feral raccoon foraging in their yard; now, however, some say they spot one about 2 or 3 times monthly. They're pinning their hopes on Jersey City animal control to end the pattern of feral raccoon foraging in their neighborhood.

Based on these two paragraphs, one might argue that there's sufficient data there to prove that the feral raccoon population of Lafayette is up 500% since 2009, and that my neighbors and I are now overrun. That's not the case, of course. The raccoon has learned where there's food and he keeps coming back; some others on my street have seen him, too.

Enjoy the weekend!

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

Really? Really? It's one single data point from paragraph 2 because it's ONE example from ONE paragraph of the MANY paragraph article...

Let me re-paste another paragraph because even though you might do data analysis, reading comprehension is not your strong point:

"Residents, some of whom have seen the value of their condos plummet from almost $500,000 to about $200,000, are pinning their hopes these days on a Connecticut-based company that bought the troubled complex from Filopoulos."

Residents is plural meaning more than a single resident which implies more than a single unit.

500k to 200k is more than a 50% decrease in value hence my earlier stats.

Look, either you think the paragraph I am talking about is FALSE or there is no help for you.

Why be nasty? I've found Getz to be a thoughtful poster who is considerate in his/her treatment of others. Why not return the kindness? I'm not interested enough to do a tax records search but based on the article you put up, I don't see how you can argue with Getz.

"Some residents" is FOX News-type laziness/overstatement. The article cites only two actual sales. So of the 28 sales that are discussed, you have 26 with an average drop of 26%, one at 38% and one that fits your claim but is suspect because they are using the purchase price of one unit and comparing it to the sales price of another. Even better, the one sale you cite might be included in the 26 sales that experienced a 26% drop because there is no date given for its sale!

The fact is, a 26% drop during the timeframe they focused on (2007 to 2010) is not really that different from what the downtown condo market experienced in general - but that would make for a much less interesting article. Fortunately, the market has rebounded pretty sharply over the past year+ and hopefully the Beacon will experience a similar recovery.

JCRealist wrote:
None of these areas will be developed unless the city stops these abatements downtown.