Browsing this Thread:
5 Anonymous Users
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
You are paying fixed agreed upon taxes. No one else has that luxury. When our taxes go up, you will look like a genius .
Quote:
Posted on: 2013/10/12 1:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I'm sure your quality of life would go way up if all the kids were just wandering around the streets all day instead of in school. Does the idea of helping society occur to you at all? No school to save some tax money would quickly collapse your property value. Yes, obviously I was being sarcastic. I guess I am just tired of this constant insinuation people living in these tax abated properties aren't paying their "fair" share of taxes.
Posted on: 2013/10/11 19:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
60 years of abatements is simply insane. While I don't pretend to understand all the details on PILOTS and abatements, I do know that JC property tax payers end up getting hit.
They need to create and apply a different, but fairer abatement formula. Something based directly on occupancy - like the equivalent property tax for every occupied unit. Developers still get a break while they're still trying to rent out/sell their units. But there's a closer correlation between number of households and what gets contributed in City taxes.
Posted on: 2013/10/11 0:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This would be basically a 60 year abatement, James. This is the Salem project in Ward F. There are many 1 and 2 families homes in Ward F that pay a lot of money in taxes, where is their abatement? It reminds me of College Towers. They had a 40 year abatement, then Schundler gave them ten more years. People in College Towers were buying homes at the shore. The rents in College were approximately $400.00 a month, someone told me it is not much higher even now.
Posted on: 2013/10/10 19:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
$6k tax sounds reasonable for a 1 bedroom condo - works out implying a value of about $250k or so. For comparison, until recently, I was paying $22k on a 3-bedroom condo, without abatement, purchased in 2005 for $550k.
I know some folks "locked-in" a higher property tax, with an abatement, over the buildings PILOT term, when condo prices were much higher. Generally though, people in buildings with PILOTs, pay less. Particularly renters.
Posted on: 2013/10/10 19:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
LOL
Oh no abatements in JSQ. Yeah because without them, we have all those awesome bodegas and dilapidated shanties providing value to the city. Who needs JSQ to have expensive condos with people paying PILOTS- which reality check- are probably at least 6k a year which is line with suburbs with good schools and 1/4 acre or better property. No, who needs those professionals and the new businesses they will patronize and the jobs created! What we need is JSQ to stay as is, a bunch of old time Healyites and an Indian immigrant community bursting at the seams desperate for more space. It amazes me how the PILOT opponents have no understanding of the system. Here's a little newsflash for you. I pay $6200 a year for a 1 bedroom condo. $6200 when no one living there will likely ever send their kids to a JC public school. My extent of using JC services them taking the garbage from the building and me driving on roads and walking the sidewalk. Basically the message from the old school pols is this: Don't fix the neighborhoods because it will bring in more "interlopers" who are good at nothing but subsidizing our schools, our pools, and everything else that they will never use because most of them will be in Montclair in a few years. And their 6k plus a year isn't enough to pay for no-show jobs and among the worst schools in the state. Pathetic, shameless. The gravy train has left the station guys. If you really think Fulop is protecting us interlopers with PILOTS, you are sorely mistaken. His is protecting you for now until the process is looked into and then you will get the hit you deserve- which by the way, won't be as bad with more interlopers in JSQ taking the hit on their 1 bedrooms so the parking authority can employee you and issue more useless fines, or whatever other scheme our tax dollars go to here before Fulop fixes it.
Posted on: 2013/10/10 18:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Not sure when everyone is going to realize that this Fulop character is a fraud.
It all started when he inexplicably cancelled the citywide reval and he still has not explained his reasoning on that. The reval was almost complete and he shut it down and we are now left wondering when taxes in this city will be evenly distributed. Its all snowballing from there. In a couple of years he will run for higher office and leave us with empty promises and a divided city....
Posted on: 2013/10/10 15:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Where is this development cited below that is getting a renewed abatement? If it is in any part of JC aside from downtown, it probably should get an abatement.
Posted on: 2013/10/10 14:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
What? Another tax abatements. Jesus. His faux tax abatement policy is loosey goosey and written by developers. He scammed us. Looks like he is running fast but is just running in place. No change. Quote:
Posted on: 2013/10/10 12:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Tonight the city council gave another 30 year abatement to a development that already has a 30 year abatement. This project received its abatement in 1976, the developer plans to do renovations. The renovations will receive a tax abatement but not the shell of the building. Each tenant will pay JC $544 dollars a year. They will pay more in cable. Abatements do not make a project, in 2004 Healy gave a 30 year abatement to Harwood and that project went nowhere. Ordinary citizens who improve their properties only receive 5 years tax abatements. Abatements basically discriminate against the tax paying public.
Posted on: 2013/10/10 2:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
FGJCNJ1970:
Why would I question the adminstration on any of that when I agree mostly with what it's doing? I voted for Fulop and Candice, and so far in their short tenure, with the exception of the halted revaluation, I like what I'm seeing. I have written to and urged all my friends and neighbors to write Candice on traffic-calming measures. We have been agitating for years for safer streets. I'm pleased that she has responded to her constituency with concrete proposals. Some of these, such as changing the timing of green lights on busy streets like Grand should come at next to no cost. With three people having been killed in less than two years by reckless drivers on a short stretch of Grand near where I live, the financial cost of calming traffic in the city is a distant second to the cost of human lives as far as I'm concerned. I agree that no more abatements should be handed out downtown, and as far as I can tell none have been approved since Fulop took office. I disagree about the JSQ area, it's not "prime." It has the potential to catch up with downtown in amenities and development, but I'm not sure that can be done without incentives. The tax increase in the current budget absolutely sucks, no doubt about it. But that budget was largely inherited from the previous administration, and I'm willing to give Steve until the next budget to see if he honors his campaign pledges. I think the sick days are a great idea, the sort of progressive thinking I want to see in an elected official. If that means paying a bit more for goods and services, I'm good with that. You see it as an anti-business measure, I see it as a public health measure. I cringe whenever I eat out, wondering if some infectious food server or cook came to work sick because she/he was too scared of losing their job if they stayed home sick. When you first ran for council, I actually admired your pitch about being independent and not beholden to anyone. Your conduct after the election, however, is less than gracious and smacks of sour grapes from a sore loser. Even worse, the likes of you and john1952 (if indeed you are two different people) have sought to divide residents through misinformation about who pays taxes (or doesn't pay) and who is demanding services. I was willing to consider voting for you in a future election, but not after reading all your post-election posts.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 21:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The only changes I am aware of - the change in timeline and money. Healy was reducing abatements to 10 years and one 12 years in Journal Square (Welfare Building). Now the abatements for Journal Square is back to 30 years, why? Also affordable housing is going back to 6.28% while older affordable gave the city 15%. There is an affordable housing that will pay the city $544 a year per unit. That is outrageous, they will pay more for cable per month. And it will add to the overcrowding to the public schools. Remember affordable housing pays nothing to the public schools.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 20:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/11/29 18:19 Last Login : 2015/7/15 3:35 From Jersey City, NJ
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
289
 |
Hey Jaded,
A little birdie texted me today. And, I'm not sure why you are calling me out here (as I haven't been posting here for a while anyway), but since you are curious as to minding my business (instead of your own), here is the answer for you. After having been denied three times by Chase to get refinanced over the past four years (while everyone else is either walking away, getting lower rates, or balance reductions or other modifications, or living for free waiting for foreclosure), something must have happened because I finally got pre-approved for refinance on my over-taxed measly 543 sq ft abode here in Jersey City. That process started in June and it finally wrapped up at the end of August. One thing you should know is you can't be in arrears in taxes if you sell or refinance. Chase made all those tax payments on my behalf at the closing. And as far as I know, having checked this morning. I am current on my taxes, thank you very much. Instead of checking up on me and on my tax payments, you should be holding the Fulop administration (including Councilwoman Candice Osborne) accountable for their 7.9% tax increase back in July which loaded the 2013 budget with significant extra spending for lots of patronage jobs. You should be demanding that the $784,000 + in unused excess money that was not be used for original purposes, be returned to the tax payer in the form of tax relief. This is coming up at City Council meeting tonight by the way. Ord 13.100, introduced 09.25. You should be demanding that no more tax abatements be handed out to rich developers for "luxury" apartments and condos downtown or in other "prime" areas like JSQ. What we now have is more of the same and the proverbial store will continue to be given away on the backs of the middle class taxpayers of Jersey City. You should be livid that the Fulop administration and his council puppets just passed a very bad piece of anti-business, anti-job legislation that will make it impossible for small mom & pop businesses here operate here and for new businesses to open up. What good are sick days if people don't have JOBS. This just made life tough for the middle class and the working class. Instead of full time jobs, they will now have part time jobs working under 30 hours. Just great. What pisses me off here is they didn't even study it. There is a clause in the ordinance that the research and study will take place one year AFTER it is in effect. That's BACKWARDS. You should question Candice Osborne's pedestrian and traffic calming measure initiative. I got a copy of it at the Harsimus Cove association meeting last month. While I commend her for taking on such a task, there is a big problem. There is no price tag attached. I call that INCOMPLETE. How can an MBA grad from NYU's stern school of business submit a proposal without any cost information is BEYOND me. I started googling some of the costs for stop signs and all I can say is wow. How is all of this going to be paid for? Jaded, I think we have big issues to look at here in Jersey City. But unless Steven Fulop get's tax relief to the middle class and we have a fair tax system in place here in JC, he will NEVER get to be Governor. (and you can tell by some of his initiatives - like hiring McGreevy, that is where he is aiming.) Thanks again for your input and for minding my business (instead of your own) in a public forum, which was a bit inappropriate if you ask me. Oh and BTW, the whole reason I ran for council this past May was so I could help fix the problems. Unlike some who were elected, I know how to read a budget and identify wasteful spending. What have YOU done lately? FG Quote:
Posted on: 2013/10/9 19:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2011/3/21 20:32 Last Login : 2017/8/9 18:01 From Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
153
|
@JCDD--I completely agree that poor schools are holding back JC's success as a good place to live for families. I know many folks who have moved to the burbs when their kids hit 5 years old.
HOWEVER, I dont agree that spending more money is going to fix JC Public Schools. According to http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13 ... /mapping-school-spending/ JC PS has one of the highest per student spends in NJ, at an overall $22,273 per student (2011-2012 year). Funding cant be the problem. Clearly we need to get more for our money. Throwing more money at JCPS will not improve performance. I'd like to know what the candidates for the School Board election in November are planning to do, but so far all i have read are platitudes.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 19:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
If you own any property in Jersey City, regardless of whether you are a parent or not, you should be in favor of doing whatever it takes to improve the school system. Why? Because the school system is dramatically holding back the property value of jersey city. One major difference between NYC and JC is that NYC has some really excellent options for public schools. JC does not - and, in fact, the system is a true embarrassment to the City (with the exception of a very few such as McNair). Just look at the crappy infrastructure of most of the public schools! It is shameful.
Also, if you call yourself a liberal or a democrat, you should also be in favor of doing whatever it takes to improve the schools. It's easy to say you support social equality and change, but I often find that people's true selves are revealed when it is their own wallet involved.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 17:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
For those students that exit the system and end up in jail within a year or 2, the answer is likely yes. I do think we need to blow up the 19th century idea of schools as institutions, and move to 21st century practices. There's still a place though for public schools, but we need to take a lead from what's happening in the college space, and successes like McNair.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 16:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
I send my daughter to public schools and so far have not had a problem. I'm actually quite impressed. I suspect the rubber will hit the road when it gets to Junior High level or so. But for now we are very happy with the education she is receiving.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 16:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Do you honestly think our current school system is worse than doing nothing at all? Because that was the original point, and if you agree with it, then I don't think we have enough common ground to even move forward with the discussion. That is so bat sh!t crazy I wouldn't know where to start. There's lots that should be done about the school system. Blowing it up and doing nothing is not one of them.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No. But replacing crappy parents with a crappier broken school system isn't a solution.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
MDM,
Not the 'primary' purpose, but when someone suggests getting rid of school altogether perhaps the primary purpose isn't all that relevant to the discussion. Of course the kids whose parents really care would still get an education. A large portion would get that education because the parents would leave the city, the rest would go private I suppose. In any case, getting rid of public school altogether would be a disaster for lots of reasons. Should we, as a society, just abandon the kids who have crappy parents? ?
Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
JC schools can't even manage that. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... en_man_officials_say.html JC schools look to me like gang recruitment centers. We see their graduates arrested daily for shootings, robberies, drug-dealing and murders. We'd be better off home-schooling a lot of these kids IMO.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Is the primary purpose of JC schools (excluding McNair) to warehouse kids during the day to keep them out of trouble? Pre-prison? If you were to cut off all taxpayer support for schools (I know this will never happen) I bet that the kids who get and education now will still be getting an education. Their parents / guardians will make sure of it. I doubt they would be spending the $20k plus that is being spent currently per pupil. It is depressing to see how much is spent per student vs. test results and graduation rates. It is scary to think how little of that bill do the taxpayers of J.C. actually cover (I think its around 15%). If the suburban voters decide to stop sending the school system money, we would see the mother of all tax increases.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 13:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm sure your quality of life would go way up if all the kids were just wandering around the streets all day instead of in school. Does the idea of helping society occur to you at all? No school to save some tax money would quickly collapse your property value. I understand (or hope) that was hyperbole, but it irks me.
Posted on: 2013/10/9 12:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Well I guess the webmaster felt this belonged on this thread, but its not about Mayor Fulop's plan for tax abatements (which is like running in place and is really no change.) This is about people whose taxes are fixed wanting to spend more money on streets and 311 systems.
You're the troll who works for the city now paid for by my taxes, not I. I thought I was promised a leaner government, but feel betrayed. I should not have to move to get tax relief. I live here, invested here, paid taxes here, lived my whole life here. Quote:
Posted on: 2013/10/9 11:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hey, Fletch, did you spend so much time online grinding your ax that you forgot to pay your Aug. 1 property tax bill for over a month? That's $157.46 in interest you could've avoided paying to the city. If you think you're overpaying in taxes the solution is pretty simple: sell your freaking place and move to one of those abated properties, or better yet move out of JC altogether. I did that in 2010 and it turned out to be one of the smartest financial moves I've ever made. Kvetching on JC List and continuously spreading misinformation may make you feel better, but it won't actually lower your tax bill. It just makes you look like a pathetic sop who finds it easier to complain about your lot in life than doing something to fix it.
Posted on: 2013/10/8 20:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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:
Yes, I am sure it is the people living in tax-abated buildings that have been clamoring for assistance through the prisoner re-entry programs. And only the tax abated residents ever have to call the Resident Response Center And it was all those tax abated residents who insisted that the city open a new pool in the Lafayette neighborhood. And it is all those tax abated residents who were victims of violent crime this summer that demanded a new public safety director and new police recruits.
Posted on: 2013/10/8 19:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
It looks like we are heading to becoming a divided city. Those protected from property tax increases by owning tax abated properties and those that don't who are taxed conventionally subject to property tax increases. I live in a tax abated building and like most people in my building, I don't have any kids but I feel like I probably pay more in taxes for my measly 700 sq feets than those with kids and huge houses. I am not asking any more services. In fact I'd perfectly fine if they did away with schools here to cut down on spending.
Posted on: 2013/10/8 19:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I know you are a troll who posts here and on nj.com as the token anti-Fulop wacko, but you do realize this was already a big issue in the election right? Did you not read the abatement plan the administration put forth, radically changing how the practice will continue? Since you are aligned with some interesting right-wingers, I suppose you want to completely leave the poor areas on their own and left to crumble, though, so I'm sure you are not a fan of that plan either. Also, Mayor Fulop could cure cancer and you would criticize it :) .
Posted on: 2013/10/8 18:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
tax abated vs. regular taxed
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
It looks like we are heading to becoming a divided city. Those protected from property tax increases by owning tax abated properties and those that don't who are taxed conventionally subject to property tax increases.
Those protected from tax increases are more affluent and are asking for more services while the rest of us have little need for more services, but seek control of spending and taxes.
Posted on: 2013/10/8 17:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Steve Fulop says police restructuring, teen recreation, abatements policy top agenda
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/27 12:04 Last Login : 2016/7/1 9:09 From Southern JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1205
|
Quote:
Let's hope, unlike Barack Obama, he TRIES to fix this mess instead of using "hope and change" as a cynical campaign slogan. I don't expect miracles, I do want you to mean what you say. I have good feeling about Steven Fulop. I think he's one of the good ones like Elizabeth Warren.
Posted on: 2013/5/22 11:28
|
|||
|
||||