mwa7368 wrote:
For me it's not so much about the bus, although I believe that it is inherently not safe for a 3 year to be in a vehicle without a car seat or restraint system, it's about sending the kids downtown to the shit ass neighborhoods in the rest of the city. I would rather pay the 14-20K a year to put my kid in private daycare than send him to The Heights, Greenville, Journal Square, West Side or whatever other shit hole they want to send them.
Fulop knows this and that's why he doesn't give a flying f about putting free preschool downtown. Bottom line!

K-Lo wrote:
Quote:

Your kid will survive being bused to other parts of town. They might even learn about diversity in the process!

Monroe, this is your best one yet. You think anyone going to a public school in Jersey City doesn't live with diversity every day? That's why we live here. This is about putting a 3 year old on a bus.

moobycow wrote:

No doubt the developer would probably get a plus from the buyout, but the city would have more to tax as well and one less building to maintain as the BOE isn't covering the costs of a whole new building they don't want. To me it seems like a win/win.

I don't know how much under market the BOE bid but my understanding is that it was similar to what they pay for other spaces. Could be that is way under market. If so you may have a point.

I don't think them having some of the space means that none of the rest of it can be leased to anyone, but that is possible as I'm not sure that schools can share spaces.

I do abject to the language of 'giving away', 'free assets' because that is objectively not true. It may be less than the city could make via other options, but it is better than what they have now. Depending on the delta between the other options and the BOE proposal it could be better one way or another in the short term. I'd be pretty interested in seeing that math because my understanding is that it is not that compelling. Granted my source is probably biased.

Your kid will survive being bused to other parts of town. They might even learn about diversity in the process!

dtjcview wrote:

I think you are confusing covering original costs with asset value and potential lost City revenue. The BOE offer is a low-ball one based on their declared ability to pay, and not market value. Plus it likely blocks other parties interested in renting the space. And the developer tapped for the new building gets their abatement extension without needing to give over preK space:

- Win for the BOE in terms of low-cost classrooms
- Win for the developer - can devote more space for regular rental/sales, plus keeps longer abatement. I'd bet this more than covers the "buy-out".
- Loss for City on the developer buy-out, plus revenue stream loss compared to a full-price rental, or a resale/new PILOT.

Going back to the PA example. What's being championed would be similar to handing over office space at City hall to the PA, so the PA could build another Grove St exit direct to City hall for the convenience of office workers and VVP residents. Handing over City assets like this is insane.

moobycow wrote:
...

What free assets? The BOE is willing to pay for the space and the developer tapped for the new building is willing to pay of a huge portion of the debt. No one is asking for a hand out.
...

Monroe wrote:
If there is an existing school that has unused capacity (that's true, yes?) with existing staff and infrastructure why repeat the staffing (school nurses, aides, security)? Isn't that a huge cost?

That said, I'm not for spending precious school dollars so brownstone owners can have their nannies walk their kids to school rather than walk them to a nice yellow school bus

Monroe wrote:

Apparently the city has the capacity for preK, just not within stroller distance of the loudest complainers. Under Abbott, the parents can expect free preK for their kids (at the expense of other kids parents in the suburbs) but they can't expect it to be smack dab in their own backyard.

Your kid will survive being bused to other parts of town. They might even learn about diversity in the process! Worried about busing? Maybe create a volunteer group to rotate riding with the kids to and fro?

dtjcview wrote:

Twisting words I think. Substitute BOE with PANYNJ. The City has every interest in working with the PA to ensure good transport links into JC. It's not responsible for handing over free City assets to facilitate those links.

As far as interests of JC and its citizens, put it on the ballot. The interest of JC and it's citizens isn't simply about a narrow section of entitled downtown parents that think a bus ride across the City is too much of a hardship for their free preK places. I doubt the rest of JC shares your view.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

It's the BOE's and the NJSDA's responsibility to provide classrooms and not the City's. The BOE seems to eaten it's own half-billion dollar lunch and now seems intent on robbing the City. So no, letting the BOE raid the City's assets makes zero sense to me.

The city has zero responsibility towards helping provide schooling for the people who live here? There is no 'raid on assets', they would pay to use the space as a school.

Simply put, anyone who thinks that the city has no responsibility to work with the BOE on providing education and facilities is a person who I can feel pretty safe in ignoring when it comes to what is actually in the interests of JC and its citizens.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

It's the BOE's and the NJSDA's responsibility to provide classrooms and not the City's. The BOE seems to eaten it's own half-billion dollar lunch and now seems intent on robbing the City. So no, letting the BOE raid the City's assets makes zero sense to me.

The city has zero responsibility towards helping provide schooling for the people who live here? There is no 'raid on assets', they would pay to use the space as a school.

Simply put, anyone who thinks that the city has no responsibility to work with the BOE on providing education and facilities is a person who I can feel pretty safe in ignoring when it comes to what is actually in the interests of JC and its citizens.

dtjcview wrote:

It's the BOE's and the NJSDA's responsibility to provide classrooms and not the City's. The BOE seems to eaten it's own half-billion dollar lunch and now seems intent on robbing the City. So no, letting the BOE raid the City's assets makes zero sense to me.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:


I don't think the City's stance on this is insane - quite the reverse. They are protecting the best interests of the City and it's finances. Their fallback is to sell the property for redevelopment, perhaps getting the developer to agree to providing low-cost preK facilities as part of any redevelopment. The City would profit from the sale and PILOT issued. Long-term, that may be a win for everyone. Any other resolution needs to be measured against this option in cold hard financial terms. The point of the RFP, and not guaranteeing preK at the building, is that the City is trying to figure whether there's a real rental interest, and cannot offer that if the BOE is a sitting tenant.

Except for the pre-school kids who have to bussed across town. What seem to be happening here is Fulop has strange set of priorities based on JC not having to fund the shcool system. So he's willing to have an ad-hoc solution that costs more overall and is worse for the children and families because it saves JC some money, regardless of the impact on the BOE, families and neighborhood.

It might be a better long term solution if you think money is always the only determining factor. Even given that, adequate classroom space in your most valuable neighborhood seems like a good idea for long term success.

Again, a developer offered to pay off a good chunk of the debt instead of building an unneeded building that no one besides Fulop wants built.

dtjcview wrote:


I don't think the City's stance on this is insane - quite the reverse. They are protecting the best interests of the City and it's finances. Their fallback is to sell the property for redevelopment, perhaps getting the developer to agree to providing low-cost preK facilities as part of any redevelopment. The City would profit from the sale and PILOT issued. Long-term, that may be a win for everyone. Any other resolution needs to be measured against this option in cold hard financial terms. The point of the RFP, and not guaranteeing preK at the building, is that the City is trying to figure whether there's a real rental interest, and cannot offer that if the BOE is a sitting tenant.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

rescuelife wrote:
Unfortunately everyone I've met who blames the Mayor doesn't comprehend that this is voted on by the development board, and NOT the Mayor nor the Council, and that there is absolutely zero precedent of a city doing what the BoE wants this city to do. If these people come back to earth this issue becomes somewhat of a no brainer.

There's zero precedent of a city taking a property they own that was built to be a school and is currently vacant and making it a school? I doubt that.

They Mayor is working to have a developer build new facility where no one wants one and kids will have to bussed there. The developer put a deal on the table to take what they would have paid to build the new facility (as part of a deal for more density) and put the money towards paying off the debt on this one and Fulop nixed it. That's insane.

rescuelife wrote:
Unfortunately everyone I've met who blames the Mayor doesn't comprehend that this is voted on by the development board, and NOT the Mayor nor the Council, and that there is absolutely zero precedent of a city doing what the BoE wants this city to do. If these people come back to earth this issue becomes somewhat of a no brainer.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
...
Allowing the school district to utilize the center is "the best outcome for the city, for the students, for the parents, for the Board of Education," Schapiro told The Jersey Journal.
...

If the BOE covers the City debt burden on the property then fine. Otherwise it should go to the best offer. The City can't simply hand over property virtually for free just because the BOE say they cant afford it. That is stupid financial mgt.

jerseymom wrote:
...
Allowing the school district to utilize the center is "the best outcome for the city, for the students, for the parents, for the Board of Education," Schapiro told The Jersey Journal.
...