So, is it a possible future scenario that the assistance being given to renters will be withheld from the five thousand property owners behind in their taxes whom Yvonne is speaking of in an earlier post?

So, worst possible case: tax sales of those properties to voracious real estate investors, tear downs and more uglification of Jersey City?

Although I think Yvonne is full of it most days, your statement below is truthful. Can anyone refute?

The small homeowner is on the hook for the affordable housing's taxes, it will not pay school taxes and county taxes except an extra 5%. All affordable housing is nothing but a transfer of taxes to the small homeowner. 5,000 were in tax lien in December 2020.

.
New details revealed for Jersey City?s Bayfront project; City Council gives initial approval

Updated Feb 11, 2021; Posted Feb 11, 2021
By Peter D?Auria | The Jersey Journal

Plans for Jersey City?s largest mixed-income housing development are beginning to take shape.

At Monday?s City Council caucus, designers presented details of a plan for Bayfront, the ambitious, multi-development housing project on the city?s west side. And on Wednesday, the City Council gave its initial approval, voting 8-0 in favor of the plan.

https://www.nj.com/hudson/2021/02/new- ... ves-initial-approval.html

This is from the NJCU newspaper:
https://gothictimes.net/10182/showcase ... qtoUmVssyUW5pC9PsC9iZiMLA

well, there is no way the city could have anticipated coronavirus. eventually, i hope, this crisis will pass and demand for housing will rebound

You'd think that someone in oddicialdom would take the hint about cramming and crowding people into megalopolises. Sheesh.

Quote:

No way this gets developed anytime soon with Cornavirus. Did the city make a $170 million mistake?

It will be very interesting to see if Jersey City will be able to break even on this development with the economy catering.

Those bond interest payments still must be made.

.

New NJ Transit light rail will serve developments along N.J. waterfronts

Updated Mar 03, 2020; Posted Mar 03, 2020
By Larry Higgs | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Gov. Phil Murphy and other officials announced the start of construction of the first Hudson-Bergen Light rail extension since the line was extended to the end of Bayonne in 2008.

Murphy?s press event on Tuesday signaled the start of construction of the ?440 connection? from the current end of one of Hudson-Bergen Light Rail West Side Avenue branch, across Route 440 to a new 8,000 unit ?Bayfront? residential development to be built on land owned by Jersey City and Honeywell, located on the Hackensack River.

https://www.nj.com/traffic/2020/03/new ... along-nj-waterfronts.html

You're absolutely right.Quote:

There is a big difference between paying millions in debt and moving a statue. The city has $25 million in reserves which they could have used for terminal leave. In fact, Councilwoman Watterman voted no on the terminal leave of $14.5 million, which was the second bond that night, the first being the $170 million for Bayfront. She voted no because the city lied about have the money in reserve. I personally think this is stage one and there will be other bonds for Bayfront. The city has a history of lying. It said it would not pay for City Hall Annex but bond money is being transferred to that project. Also on the agenda was the transferred of a tax abatement to another entity. Councilman Fulop always voted no on transfers of tax abatement and Mayor Fulop has no problem doing this.

Quote:

If "financial watchdog" Yvonne is so concerned about debt, maybe she shouldn't have forced the city to appropriate 200k over moving a statue one single block. I think the bill for that election should be debited straight from Yvonne's checking account.

Quote:

Again you show yourself to be financially illiterate. Anyone who doesn't refinance high rate debt during low rates is a moron and should be fired.

Actually, that is the one thing I asked about, the interest rate and it is the one thing that the administration will not answer. The ordinance just states the interest rate cannot be higher than 8%. It also states the bond can be refinanced which is am totally against. JC had bonds floating around for 50 years in the past which is absolutely ridiculous due to refinancing.

Quote:

Nope. From Moody's press release announcing the upgrade:

Rating Action: Moody's Upgrades Jersey City's GO to Aa3,
31 Oct 2016

New York, October 31, 2016 -- Summary Rating Rationale

Moody's Investors Service has upgraded to Aa3 from A1 the rating on Jersey City, NJ's outstanding General Obligation Unlimited Tax debt. Concurrently, Moody's has upgraded to A3 from Baa1 the enhanced rating on the city's MQBA enhanced debt. The underlying outlook remains stable while the enhanced rating carries the negative outlook attached to the MQBA program.

The upgrade to Aa3 reflects the city's rapidly growing, large and diverse tax base, satisfactory and improving finances, and manageable debt burden.

Debt went down very slightly in 2016 and, as you point out, is back up. According to Moody's updated research earlier this year, even at the higher levels there is no concern about the city's ability to repay its debt.

Quote:

Backwards. The debt has a very low interest rate and represents a small added burden on the city's finances. If new debt hadn't been incurred, the city would have had to pay for these expenses (setting aside the Bayfront borrowing, since that is a mortgage) out of general revenue. This would have meant higher taxes.

Obviously, people who actually look at these things for a living are not concerned about the city's debt level. They also understand that a $1 in the early '90's is not the same as a 2018 dollar.

It is the people who pay the bonds, not the city. The reason for the upgrade - some old bonds were paid off. In theory, if Fulop did not bond this year, our debt would have been reduced and taxes would have fallen. I still find it amazing that citizens in JC, came to city hall and complained when the yearly bond debt payout hit $20 million in the early 1990s. It is now $75 million and God's know what it will be next year.

Quote:

And yet, the bond rating agencies continue to upgrade Jersey City - Moody's having done so twice in the last four years. The current rating of Aa3 indicates a negligible chance of default.

This debt will be repaid when the city sells the land. Could they end up selling it for less than they are paying? Possible, but the amount at risk is a very small fraction of what is being borrowed and not the likely outcome.

Yes - numbers can be big and scary (and for some, confusing!) - especially when taken out of context.

Sell and move while you can. It's not going to get better regardless of how many trendy restaurants
pop up.

The city debt increased this year to an additional $170 million, plus $45 million bonded several months ago, $14.5 million for terminal leave. If you add an additional $100 million for tax refunds. That is an additional $329.5 million for 2018. The gross debt is already $650 million, bringing the debt well over $900 million. Then there is the loss of $170 million from the state for the schools. Forget about being the best midsize city in America, we will be the next Detroit who went bankrupt.

Councilman Yun said by the time it is finished, the money to be borrowed will be $200 million. Since he reads everything, I will go with that number.

BUSINESS & ECONOMY
Jersey City set to move forward on 100-acre Bayfront development
BY David Cruz, Senior Correspondent | July 2, 2018, 5PM EST


At close to 100 acres, the Bayfront property, located in the city?s southwest Greenville section represents the most significant development opportunity in the city since the downtown boom began in the 80s and 90s. A once chromium-polluted brownfield, Bayfront is now clean and ready for redevelopment. With affordable housing at a premium, Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop has proposed buying the property ? of which the city is already part owner ? from Honeywell, the successor company that cleaned it up. Fulop thinks the development could feature up to 30 percent affordable units, but it won?t be cheap.

?Up to $105 million for the specific property, and then we?re going to go out for bonding of $105 [million] plus $80 [million] approximately for infrastructure, so it?s a big undertaking. It?s about $180 million,? said Fulop. ?Our models project that, over some time, we?re going to be able to return that as an investment to the taxpayers, maybe make some money and get some inclusionary housing in there.?

But borrowing $180 million, government officials call it bonding, is no small step, and the city council held a hearing on the proposal late last month to gauge public support. Needless to say, opinions were expressed.

?I am opposed to the city of Jersey City floating bonds for the Bayfront project,? testified resident Christine Bamberger. ?Jersey City should not enter into the banking business of floating bonds for real estate development regardless of how the plan is couched or the options are couched right now.?

Abundant Joy Community Church Pastor William Ashley, who was part of a group of citizens who pushed the city to buy the property, said its redevelopment was overdue.

?We recognize that the details are yet to be worked out. We recognize there are numerous questions that need to be asked and answered,? he said. ?We stand with you in saying that this is a bold step. It?s game changer and there?s no place else in this state that has taken this bold initiative.?

Councilwoman Denise Ridley, who represents the Greenville section where the project would rise, says affordable housing is a good goal, but so-called workforce housing, the kind of housing working class professionals can afford, should be part of the mix.

?Workforce housing would be geared more toward everyday Greenville residents. It?s more feasible for people who might be police, fire, teachers,? she said. ?Sometimes with the affordability portion of it, you lose a lot of people. We want to make sure that, yes, we want the affordable units, but we don?t want to lose those potential people that are here in Greenville. I think a lot of people hear affordable and they automatically assume that they?re going to qualify, and a lot of people will not.?

A proposed extension of the light rail across busy Route 440 is already in the works, with NJ Transit earmarking $5 million for an environmental impact study. That extension could double the number of units here to 8,000, an almost 20 percent population increase for Greenville.

The council has already given preliminary approval for the city to go get the money. The mayor says, if all goes well, you could see shovels in the ground by the end of next year.

The public will get a chance to speak out on the city's $180 million plan to purchase the 100-acre Bayfront site on the Hackensack River waterfront.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... 80m_bayfront_plan_in.html

No rent control on new construction in J.C.

NJ state law (unless it has been changed since I last checked) exempts new construction from local rent control laws for 5 years.

If they are 6 units then they are under rent control so when taxes or water goes up maybe 4%, they can only go up an amount set by city hall. Lately, those increases have been less than one percent.

Quote:

Wow good one. I nearly spit up my lunch. Since when has a Democrat run administration cared about tax payers? They are simply a revenue stream.