Browsing this Thread:
4 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
It's not fair to have abatements in Greenville or BL and not have them in DTJC. I don't want the city subsidizing areas (with my tax dollars) which I personally don't think will succeed because of current geography and/or troubling stats like crime. It's a fairness issue. If you are for tax abatements, then you shouldn't be specific to geography. If you are anti tax abatements, then you shouldn't be specific to geography. In terms of "having to spend money to make money" , that is risk and I would argue it is less risky to do that in DTJC than BL or Greenville or even the heights.
Posted on: 2013/12/12 18:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
In the case of abatements in GV or BL, isn't that an example of having to spend money to make money? Won't encouraging new developments in areas that are less attractive to developers? Taking marginal properties off the tax rolls and replacing them with higher tax yielding ones makes sense to me. Are there any abated properties in Jersey City that do not contribute more in taxes than what they replaced? As far as the if I can't have it, no one should attitude - I believe that Piaget hypothesized that the realization of the mean-spirititedness of that sentiment usually comes about at age 8, approximately.
Posted on: 2013/12/12 18:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ward D Councilman opposes Abatement
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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:
I love this guy he speaks the truth and the Heights is lucky to have him.
Posted on: 2013/12/12 17:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Ward D Councilman opposes Abatement
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index ... ost_119.html#incart_river
Opinion: Shouldn't amend tax abatement deal to worsen it for the city
Posted on: 2013/12/12 13:36
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Actually, on the abatement issue, I agree with Yvonne. But if DTJC does not get abatements and I pay more, then no one in Greenville or BL should get an abatement - that is only fair. DTJC residents should not subsidize Greenville or BL for existing where they are - in unconnected, crime ridden areas of JC. The mayor, of course, does not agree.
Posted on: 2013/12/7 5:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Yvonne said: There is a bit of a logic problem at work here. When a new, abated residential building goes up, this does NOT make other taxpayers' property taxes go up. Period. Full stop. "What?!" you ask, "If they are paying less than the ratable amount for their living space, I MUST be paying more for my ratable living space." But this is incorrect. It assumes that everyone in the city uses city resources equally. Or that the new residents in the new abated buildings will use city resources equally or greater than the citywide average. To use some very, very, very rough figures: City pop - 250,000 peeps Annual city budget - $500,000,000 Cost per resident per year - $2,000 Will each of these new residents living in abated buildings cost the city $2,000 or more each year? Who knows? One could safely assert that since these buildings have amenities, management, etc., the residents of these buildings might be less likely to avail themselves of the services of the city. Or one could assert the opposite with some point I'm not thinking of. Point is, there is not (as far as I know) any data confirming one or the other. Let me say that again: There is ZERO data supporting the notion that when a building is abated, it causes others' property taxes to be higher than if the abated building was never built or never abated. Everything else is just bitter speculation. This is not an endorsement of abatements, mind you. It is an indictment of the flawed logic that says abatements are making taxes higher on ratable properties. There are many arguments in favor of or against abatements which play in this discussion beyond that one -- like the school funding angle. You want your taxes to go down? Cut waste. For example, the unnecessary length of Council meetings costs the city money and makes our taxes higher. Without naming names, there are people who attend every single, Jersey City council meeting and speak whether they have something to say or not. This directly raises our taxes as it costs money to pay municipal staff for all of those extra hours they work over the year, keep the HVAC/lights on for those extra hours, etc. Eliminate that and you will have taken an honest first step toward lowering your taxes and mine. Then as a city we can take the next step and the next and eventually we will get somewhere in this discussion.
Posted on: 2013/12/7 5:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The only way you can answer a question is to attack the person who asks the question, but guess what? You did not answer it. With all of this abated money coming in from tax abated buildings, all taxpayers should have lower bills. But in reality the opposite is true. Tax abatements benefit the people in the building but are a burden on the rest of JC. It is the reason towns like Secaucus do not give abatements and yet they have a lot of development. Even Hoboken do not give abatements on the luxury waterfronts, such as the Tea Building.
Posted on: 2013/12/7 1:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Thanks, welcome to the dark side :)
Posted on: 2013/12/7 0:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I refuse to believe that someone like you, who claims to be so knowledgeable about the budget process, can be so ignorant of the spending side of the ledger. City spending has been out of control forever, even with the buckets of revenue coming in from PILOTs. And the old timers let them get away with it for so long by re-electing the same idiots election after election. It's only with this last election that the Irregulars have finally amassed enough clout to make a difference. Vindication is right about you - good grief, I never thought I'd be agreeing with him.
Posted on: 2013/12/7 0:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
So the response is tax abated properties pay more, so can anyone explain why my taxes keep going up? Since the city?s inception, 1660 to 2000, 340 years, city budget grew from $0 to $314 million. Thirteen years later, over $515 million. One would think all of this development would mean my taxes are going down. No! Because abatements are not ratables and only ratables are used in the tax formula. The older residents are subsidizing all of the abatements.
Sorry, I am not grateful!
Posted on: 2013/12/6 23:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Harlem should be grateful everyday of what happened...
Posted on: 2013/12/5 17:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yeah look at Harlem.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 17:22
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
DTJC is the new Hoboken? That sucks cause Hoboken is a horrible city to live in. High property values, low crime, restaurants on every block, being compared to NYC. Who wants any of those things??? Yvonne - read this again (emphasis added): Quote: Vindication, you have a poor sense of humor, I was asked to explain regular and irregular people. Obvious no person is irregular, but bringing in more people with cars without adequate parking is a hardship for the regular people who live here. Many people believe new development should not have cars, that theory does not wash because people do have cars even if they use the PATH. Does it hurt to think? Or does your brain explode on a regular basis (not literally, just metaphorically)? I 100% agree with the other posters. Those luxury condo owners you vilify have increased property values by 100000% (just an estimate). With the money you have earned through your home appreciation, rent a parking space.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 16:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2013/12/5 16:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Living areas have always changed. Always have, always will. Just because you were born in a place doesn't mean you can keep it from changing.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 16:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Actually, most of my older neighbors who have sold over the years have moved to Florida or Puerto Rico. They were able to have a comfortable retirement thanks to what the Harsimus Cove Irregulars had brought in their wake. I should also add that I have never encountered "friction" between the older people and the newbies.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 16:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Once again Yvonne, BULLSHIT! Those abated new properties are paying 2 or 3 times more per dollar value than you were before you sold your Downtown brownstone for $1.2m. You were a huge beneficiary of the development of Downtown, yet you still spout the hypocrisy. Things change. Boohoo. There's no intrinsic right to live where you grew up, in fact all over the metro suburbs are kids who went to college and came back to find the only place they could afford to live was mom & dad's basement. You know the biggest reason for this? People like you who stopped higher density, transit oriented development in those towns that would have been perfect for young singles, just like you're trying to stop the place on Bright.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 16:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Why should you have the right stay here, if you can't afford all the improvements to the neighborhood. If you are an old timer who is a homeowner, congratulations you made a great return on your investment. Now you can sell, and move to a cheaper, crime riddled neighborhood, just like the good old days.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 16:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So the "regular" people prefer higher crime, dirty streets, fewer local business and jobs, and subpar schools. But, hey, as long as they can continue to park their cars on the street. Glad we've straightened out the priorities of the "regular" people. Btw, did it ever occur to you that taxes are high here - and throughout the state - because of mismanagement and/or corruption? Barring that, NJ has a structural problem of too many layers of local government and bureaucracies. To get any real property tax relief, you would pretty much have to move out of the state. But I guess for you, it's far easier to put the blame on "Us versus Them."
Posted on: 2013/12/5 15:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Then perhaps you weren't listening, gentrification means you are being priced out of your community where you born and your taxes are going through the roof. Sean Connolly, spoke well about this when he was running for council at large. I believe his family was here before the Civil War. He is another person who does not believe in abatements.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 15:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Um, I don't see those people complaining when the gentrification sharply drives up their property values and the PILOTs subsidize their absurdly low property taxes. Find me one born-and-bred-in-JC rowhouse owner who would prefer to give up the appreciation in home value over the last 15-20 years for the sake of easier street parking. The influx of newer residents demanding better services has also resulted in a safer city vs. 20 years ago. Imagine what will happen when all those yuppie parents demanding better schools actually start to get what they want. Your argument really makes no sense. There is no law that says people who were born here and have never left should continue to live here if they're miserable. I'm willing to bet they do because the benefits of staying far outweigh those of leaving.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 15:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You raised an interesting point that no one is forced to move here. But many people were born here, never left and now lives in a city that has dramatically changed for the benefit of newer residents, along with the benefits of abatements.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 15:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That's a really good point. If cars were just being introduced for the first time and for whatever reason the current street grid already existed (a stretch, I know, but stay with me) - who on earth would say "hey, let's give away half of the street for free for the benefit of a small minority of people"? I read a study recently that said those who benefit from free onstreet parking in the metropolitan NY area are, in effect, receiving a subsidy of a bit more than $3,000 per year. (I forget the exact number - it was around $3,100.) Meanwhile, people who live in newer condos (the PILOT PEOPLE) aren't entitled to street parking and have to either rent or purchase parking while their PILOT payment subsidizes "the regular people."
Posted on: 2013/12/5 14:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
+1
Posted on: 2013/12/5 14:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What I don't get is all the angst about high rises and parking. The big new developments aren't what cause parking problems, just about every one has a deck that is underutilized. The parking issues mostly come from the row houses.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 14:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It seems like the developers are the new government and DT J.C. is the new Hoboken with highrise apartment buildings and selfish/limited parking.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 14:17
|
|||
|
Get on your bikes and ride !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
In my opinion, this city does not very well accommodate all the people, in all the neighborhoods, who want:
good schools low crime neighborhoods a tax rate that reflects the level of services provided clean streets etc. Why should parking be such an important expectation? No one is forced to move here, no one is forced to stay. Plenty of people have left because of the schools, the desire for a less crowded/more affordable living space, etc. How many have left because they can't find free parking for their cars?
Posted on: 2013/12/5 13:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
As everyone has repeated pointed out there are several decks in that are that are open to the public and not even close to full. If every single resident in this new building has a car they could be accommodated in the existing decks with room to spare.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 12:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You can have a car here and you can park it here. You just have to pay for it.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 2:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Vindication, you have a poor sense of humor, I was asked to explain regular and irregular people. Obvious no person is irregular, but bringing in more people with cars without adequate parking is a hardship for the regular people who live here. Many people believe new development should not have cars, that theory does not wash because people do have cars even if they use the PATH.
Posted on: 2013/12/5 1:17
|
|||
|
||||