Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
55 user(s) are online (22 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 55

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 4 ... 7 »


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2/27 19:41
Last Login :
Yesterday 14:42
From Badashaw
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 64
Offline
NOT AS LONG AS JERSEY CITY & HOBOKEN REMAIN "DEMOCRATIC" STRONG-HOLDS "PAL" !!!!! "ThaWheelman."

Posted on: 2/27 20:00
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
Correct. I responded to the last message you posted. That is how message boards work.

And that is all I was responding to in a very long thread, with hundreds of messages over 4-5 year period. I don't recall all that you, I or anyone else has written since the beginning. That is unreasonable.

What you wrote, emphatically so, was incorrect. Flat out in correct. No explanation is needed. Res ipsa loquitor Move on already.

Posted on: 1/22 19:28
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
It would have been a lot easier if you admit what you originally wrote, that is PILOT owners would pay less on property taxes than the payment in lieu. That is what I responded to. It is on you to correct what you have written.


Here is my original message:
Abatements expiring is not going to magically solve the tax problem: as those properties start to contribute directly to the school budget, the city itself will receive a LOT LESS in tax revenue from the formerly abated properties. And, since the city budget will not decrease, it is fair to conclude that as more and more abatements expire, the city will have to increase its tax levy to make up the loss of revenue.

That's what you responded to with an incorrect statement. It really is that simple.

In a subsequent message, I stated that some properties may actually end up paying less when paying the regular tax rate, and that's a fact. I even gave you a concrete example of that (CanCo Lofts) but you still refuse to believe the data. Not all abatements have worked out to be a good deal for the property owners. That's because, as already explained, the abatements were based on (and, compared to) a tax rate that was estimated, and WAY OFF from what turned out to be the actual rate post-reval.

I can keep explaining it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Posted on: 1/22 14:20
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
It would have been a lot easier if you admit what you originally wrote, that is PILOT owners would pay less on property taxes than the payment in lieu. That is what I responded to. It is on you to correct what you have written.

Instead of admitting such, your followup posts instead escalate matters with your pomposity and arrogance. Your assumptions about what I know or do not know are wrong.
You do not even know who you are responding to. I can assure you that I am most knowledgeable about the subject both personally as someone who owned a PILOT property and professionally.

With such, your postings do not really foster productive dialogue. To wit, my time is better spent with other activities.

Posted on: 1/22 12:21
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
You wrote:

"Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! "

"Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218"

The 1st paragraph is wrong. The second paragraph is correct. Take a deep breath. Do you understand the problem?

Now, back to the original thread title. If all PILOTS were to expire overnight, yes indeed there would be less (tax) revenue for the municipal government** and more for the school district. However, all other things remain equal, Jersey City would still remain an Abbott school district.

Collectively, there is not enough revenue among the municipality and the school district. The district has a big budget deficit. That redistribution of tax revenue would only go towards plugging the district deficit, while creating a deficit in the municipal budget (short term)

I'll let you do the math, i sure am not going to do so on my phone - but the MUNICIPAL property tax rate would increase dramatically on the 100% PILOT overnight expiry. That will create great economic harm to many JC residents. There is a very good reason why JC was designated as an Abbott district.

Also it would be counterproductive to NJS, despite all their school aid doled out to the district, the City does generate a lot of tax revenue for the State, much like NYC overwhelmingly does for NYS. How much that is above my pay grade, but I bet it is very significant. The folks in Trenton should realize that. That shock in residents and commercial property taxes would hurt the local economy. Leas economic activity means less revenue for the State.

Overtime, as PILOTs do expire and RE development activity drops off, then I could see JC losing its Abbott status. That is less shocking - fiscally, economically, and the thought itself.

Losing such status - it is not quite there, yet. **In part, with emphasis on "in part" due to what you meant to write originally - a big drop in revenue for the municipality.


It would have been a lot easier for you to simply admit you were wrong when you said "Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition" instead of writing all of that nonsense above.

As for Abbott, it is essentially impossible for JC to lose Abbott status. It has to do with the way legislation was written, and the many Abbott court rulings.

Also, as to your contention that municipal taxes would have to go up dramatically to make up the shortfall as abatements expire (btw, that budget shortfall was my initial contention, which you failed to understand) that will not necessarily be true. Using the numbers from the 2017 User Friendly Budget, the necessary increase to cover the shortfall would have to be about 32%, which translates to a 16% increase in our total tex levy. That's a heck of a lot less than what the school budget shortfall (after the state proposed cuts) will require, which will be in excess of a doubling, leading to an increase in our total tax levy of at least 25%, and quite likely much higher.

Posted on: 1/22 2:07
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
You wrote:

"Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! "

"Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218"

The 1st paragraph is wrong. The second paragraph is correct. Take a deep breath. Do you understand the problem?

Now, back to the original thread title. If all PILOTS were to expire overnight, yes indeed there would be less (tax) revenue for the municipal government** and more for the school district. However, all other things remain equal, Jersey City would still remain an Abbott school district.

Collectively, there is not enough revenue among the municipality and the school district. The district has a big budget deficit. That redistribution of tax revenue would only go towards plugging the district deficit, while creating a deficit in the municipal budget (short term)

I'll let you do the math, i sure am not going to do so on my phone - but the MUNICIPAL property tax rate would increase dramatically on the 100% PILOT overnight expiry. That will create great economic harm to many JC residents. There is a very good reason why JC was designated as an Abbott district.

Also it would be counterproductive to NJS, despite all their school aid doled out to the district, the City does generate a lot of tax revenue for the State, much like NYC overwhelmingly does for NYS. How much that is above my pay grade, but I bet it is very significant. The folks in Trenton should realize that. That shock in residents and commercial property taxes would hurt the local economy. Leas economic activity means less revenue for the State.

Overtime, as PILOTs do expire and RE development activity drops off, then I could see JC losing its Abbott status. That is less shocking - fiscally, economically, and the thought itself.

Losing such status - it is not quite there, yet. **In part, with emphasis on "in part" due to what you meant to write originally - a big drop in revenue for the municipality.

Posted on: 1/22 0:02
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.


You still write a lot of nonsense.

Here is what you do. Go to the city's website, finance section. Click on a link for the "User Friendly Budget" in that budget, there is a sheet that lists all PILOTS - what they currently pay and what they would/will be paying if it is not an abatement. Compare the two lists. You will see that you are wrong.

It is really as simple as that. There is no mystery. It's a simple fact.

Alternatively you can simply look up the definition of "abatement". It will be time better spent than typing out ignorant comments.


Sigh. I will try to explain it for you again, using the very documents you reference in your reply.

If you look up the most recent user-friendly budget document in the city's website, you can see a list/breakdown of all the long term abatements on the seventh page. Here is what the GRAND TOTAL line shows:

Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218

(Figures taken from here: 2017 User Friendly Budget)

The total revenue the city would get to keep from the "Taxes if Billed In Full" is ~50%, which would amount to about $104,295,000. That's because the total tax levy follows a breakdown close to 50/25/25 between the city, county, and BOE.

So, based on the 2017 User Friendly Budget, the city would stand to lose almost 33 million dollars if all abatements expired tomorrow and the formerly abated properties were to pay regular taxes, as those properties currently contribute just shy of 137 million dollars to the city budget.

Posted on: 1/21 16:53
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.


You still write a lot of nonsense.

Here is what you do. Go to the city's website, finance section. Click on a link for the "User Friendly Budget" in that budget, there is a sheet that lists all PILOTS - what they currently pay and what they would/will be paying if it is not an abatement. Compare the two lists. You will see that you are wrong.

It is really as simple as that. There is no mystery. It's a simple fact.

Alternatively you can simply look up the definition of "abatement". It will be time better spent than typing out ignorant comments.

Posted on: 1/21 12:24
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2006/5/10 16:36
Last Login :
Yesterday 20:59
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 926
Offline
State taxes are *supposed* to take more taxes from wealthier areas with relative surpluses, and use it to help areas in greater need, that is a goal of taxes!

If every district paid an equal 'fair share', there would be no point in collecting state taxes in the first place, they could just allow each municipality pay fully for their own schools (and everything else).

Robin.

Posted on: 1/21 2:47
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.

Posted on: 1/21 1:08
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:58
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 958
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.


Wrong.

City recieves more money in Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) payments than it would receive under normal taxation.

I challenge you to look at the tax records of a recently expired building and compare the PILOT payment to the city portion of a property tax bill.

Posted on: 1/21 0:20
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.

Posted on: 1/20 23:43
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Quote:

azsrz wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.


Look at the numbers it will probably be around 2%, not too bad. And many of the abatements are going to expire soon. IMO they should put the rate at 1.8% like many people expected and start increasing from there so there wouldn't be another outcry like the reval.


Abatements expiring is not going to magically solve the tax problem: as those properties start to contribute directly to the school budget, the city itself will receive a LOT LESS in tax revenue from the formerly abated properties. And, since the city budget will not decrease, it is fair to conclude that as more and more abatements expire, the city will have to increase its tax levy to make up the loss of revenue.

Posted on: 1/20 2:42
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined :
2017/3/12 19:51
Last Login :
1/20 0:07
From jersey city
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.


Look at the numbers it will probably be around 2%, not too bad. And many of the abatements are going to expire soon. IMO they should put the rate at 1.8% like many people expected and start increasing from there so there wouldn't be another outcry like the reval.

Posted on: 1/19 23:46
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:


"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."



Well that's the argument of the state, not necessarily the law.

The argument simply begs the question - whether the SFRA, as amended by S2, is constitutional. One way the legislature was able to convince the court it was, was that it provided for the hold harmless/adjustment aid. The aid that Jersey City and other Abbott districts received was based on prior court findings and mandates.

SFRA tried to cobble that all into a one size fits all formula. If they had not included the hold harmless/adjustment aid, the court may very well have rejected the formula entirely, because it would be ignoring the needs that had been demonstrated and the remedies that had been ordered.

SFRA used anodyne terms such as "local fair share" and "adequacy budget" in order to sell the SFRA as equitable. It doesn't mean one way or another that those terms have meaning as applied to the NJ Constitution's requirement for the state to provide a thorough and efficient education.


I know you are a smart, and reasonable, person. So, I respect your opinion. Having said that, I think it would be hard for the average person to look at the JC local school budget, and the fact that our local school taxes only pay for ~17% of said budget, and conclude that we are paying our fair share. Particularly when most towns cover a majority of their own local school budget.

In my opinion, we have gotten away for far too long with contributing a pittance towards our school budget, which has enabled the runaway spending we are now seeing. I suspect (hope?) that in the future, when local taxes are inevitably raised to cover the school budget, people will feel enough pain to expect and demand more accountability. If the proposed cuts are fully phased in as proposed, we will soon need to at least double our school taxes (not sure how much revenue is being generated by the recent payroll tax, so I am hedging my estimate, which would otherwise be a tripling of current rate) and our local tax rate would surpass 2%. That is still one of the lowest in the state, but given the reaction to the reval's 1.48% tax rate, I am sure we will see many more DTJCers picketing outside city hall complaining about unfair taxation.

Regardless, the court case, and its eventual result, will be very interesting to watch.

Posted on: 1/19 17:40
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
10/20 21:46
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1391
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:


"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."



Well that's the argument of the state, not necessarily the law.

The argument simply begs the question - whether the SFRA, as amended by S2, is constitutional. One way the legislature was able to convince the court it was, was that it provided for the hold harmless/adjustment aid. The aid that Jersey City and other Abbott districts received was based on prior court findings and mandates.

SFRA tried to cobble that all into a one size fits all formula. If they had not included the hold harmless/adjustment aid, the court may very well have rejected the formula entirely, because it would be ignoring the needs that had been demonstrated and the remedies that had been ordered.

SFRA used anodyne terms such as "local fair share" and "adequacy budget" in order to sell the SFRA as equitable. It doesn't mean one way or another that those terms have meaning as applied to the NJ Constitution's requirement for the state to provide a thorough and efficient education.

Posted on: 1/19 3:18
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
We need a new slate that will defund the school board and keep taxes low.


I am all for lower taxes and lean governments, but defunding the school board may not be a very practical or viable approach. We need to provide a public education (it is a "greater good" action that merits public funding) and that requires money. But, we should demand greater accountability from the BOE, and responsible stewardship of public funds. Currently, Jersey City has one of the most bloated/costly school budgets as evidenced by the per-pupil cost. Add to that stat that we also have one of the worst achievement/graduation rates, and you really have to start asking some questions.

BOE apologists bristle at the notion of citizens demanding better results and more accountability, but they seem to forget that their job and mission, by its very nature, implies accountability to the city residents.

Posted on: 1/18 17:52
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 19:58
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 958
Offline
We need a new slate that will defund the school board and keep taxes low.

Posted on: 1/18 14:24
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.

Posted on: 1/18 13:54
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/2/20 18:20
Last Login :
2019/8/20 2:01
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2561
Offline

4 Hudson lawmakers punt on school funding bill

Nearly half of Hudson County's Trenton delegation did not vote on a school funding bill that would lead to a massive cut in state aid for Jersey City's public-school district while boosting funding for districts elsewhere in the county and statewide.

Two of the lawmakers — Assemblywomen Angelica Jimenez, D-West New York, and Angela McKnight, D-Jersey City — said they were not in Trenton for the Thursday vote. Both told The Jersey Journal they had children with school functions that night. Jimenez said she would not have voted "yes" if she had been present, while McKnight declined to say whether she would have or not.

https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _school_funding_bill.html


Posted on: 2018/6/26 3:48
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
You provided a link citing numbers and rankings by which you state jcps janitors are the highest paid in the country.

I am telling you those figures include other expenses in addition to their salaries. The stats you cite are misleading. I already alluded to as to why that is so.

To that end you are wrong with your repeated assertion, but hey don't let the facts get in the way of your tirade or being open to learning something new.

Posted on: 2018/6/6 19:01
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3793
Offline
Trusting the BOE, or anyone in bed or business with them, is the very personification of trusting the fox to guard the henhouse.

Very simply, we need more visibility into their dealings, improved accountability, and quite likely, much more control over their operations. The current state of affairs is simply untenable for much longer. People are only now starting to wake up to the issues because of the reval, and things will get that much more interesting in a year or two, as the school funding topic gets increased attention and changes from Trenton. While a 2% property tax rate would be considered low by comparison to the state average, it will definitely get a ton of attention from local residents, particularly those in DTJC, as it would represent a 25% hike, on top of the reval adjusted levies.

Posted on: 2018/6/6 17:29
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
8/27 2:43
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5600
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Bullshit. That's not what the link nor the cut and paste I posted from the state site says. Call the the state document wrong if you like, but don't say I'm misleading anyone or failing to understand.


I worked with the State Board of Education and the Jersey City Public School district and specifically on this matter.

You can go to the source, the NJ School Report Card Database and look up _the source_ of this information, as in the link you provided, for starters - but you are just too lazy or full of yourself to do so - much like your unwillingness to comprehend the information provided. Likewise, you can do the same - look at the school (capital) budget as I indicated earlier.


You again say the perfectly clear numbers I linked are wrong, don't provide a link to your data, and call ME lazy and full of myself????? BTW, I did try to find it on the awful JCBOE website you said it was on, now you're saying it's somewhere else.

Make up your mind or, God forbid, actually link the data rather than pontificate, so everyone can know. SO much of this game is obfuscation, even the format of the "user friendly" budget is deliberately misleading and confusing.

Posted on: 2018/6/6 16:17
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/12/28 13:51
Last Login :
7/10 23:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 204
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Bullshit. That's not what the link nor the cut and paste I posted from the state site says. Call the the state document wrong if you like, but don't say I'm misleading anyone or failing to understand.


I worked with the State Board of Education and the Jersey City Public School district and specifically on this matter.

You can go to the source, the NJ School Report Card Database and look up _the source_ of this information, as in the link you provided, for starters - but you are just too lazy or full of yourself to do so - much like your unwillingness to comprehend the information provided. Likewise, you can do the same - look at the school (capital) budget as I indicated earlier.

Or better yet, bring it to the board of education's attention at the next monthly board meeting. I will guarantee you that someone from the board, whether it be a board member, the school BA, the facilities director (O'Reilly) will address what you incorrectly pontificate.

One can lead a horse to water, but cannot force them to drink. If you care to ignore the facts, so be it. But when you spread misinformation - and someone knowledgeable enough on the subject matter calls you out on it - own up to it.

Posted on: 2018/6/6 14:41
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4453
Offline
But that's what JC has been doing, more so under Fulop but also by previous administrations by giving out PILOTS for parcels that don't deserve them. It deprived the JCBOE of money (which was made up by suburban taxpayers), and let the JC mayors keep the tax rate low as well as fund populist programs. PILOTS for a project on Ocean Avenue, I'm down with that. PILOT on the Hudson, not so much.

Posted on: 2018/6/6 2:38
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
10/20 21:46
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1391
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

East Newark isn't a Abbott school system, doesn't contribute 200 million less than its local fair share like JC taxpayers, and isn't trying to put its hands in the pockets of other NJ taxpayers like JC is. So yeah, given JC's historic, epic, and continuing tradition of graft and corruption should be a part of this conversation.


There's the problem. By all means I do not want corruption, graft, or waste in Jersey City's public schools. But being covered under Abbott does not turn Jersey City into a "debtor" city that has to be better than its non-Abbott counterparts. Nor does it mean that as the city develops it must forego police, fire, infrastructure, open space, etc and give any surplus over to the schools.

And in any event, until recently Jersey City was run and overseen by the state. Interesting how state monitors were unable to find an excess $75 million that our current board cut.

Posted on: 2018/6/6 2:09
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
8/27 2:43
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5600
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
The link you provided is for total maintenace costs, which include other expenses than salry and benefits. Your comments are ignorant and misleading.



Bullshit. That's not what the link nor the cut and paste I posted from the state site says. Call the the state document wrong if you like, but don't say I'm misleading anyone or failing to understand.

Salaries and Benefits for Operations and Maintenance of Plant
Per Pupil Ranking Within Group* (2016-17 budget): 100|101

http://www.nj.gov/cgi-bin/education/c ... dist_code2390&maxhits=650

This clearly states we pay more than all but one big district. I link to my data, link to yours rather than saying some doc says what you want it to say.

Posted on: 2018/6/6 0:26
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4453
Offline
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
And do you think that the districts clamoring for more funding are free of corruption, graft, and waste?

As I've noted before, this school board was told there was a $75 million gap. They closed it with no layoffs.

Some of it was cutting unnecessary expenses. Some of it involved sacrifices. Some of it involved taking bold steps in the face of vocal opposition (like saving $13 million by pulling out of the State School Employees health fund).

I am confident other districts could undertake similar measures and recognize spending.

We all talk about corruption in Jersey City. Let's not pretend other districts are free of it. East Newark's Micro-District just hired a superintendent under investigation, for goodness sake. "He's a good fit" said the board. Well ok then!


East Newark isn't a Abbott school system, doesn't contribute 200 million less than its local fair share like JC taxpayers, and isn't trying to put its hands in the pockets of other NJ taxpayers like JC is. So yeah, given JC's historic, epic, and continuing tradition of graft and corruption should be a part of this conversation.

Posted on: 2018/6/6 0:06
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
10/20 21:46
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1391
Offline
And do you think that the districts clamoring for more funding are free of corruption, graft, and waste?

As I've noted before, this school board was told there was a $75 million gap. They closed it with no layoffs.

Some of it was cutting unnecessary expenses. Some of it involved sacrifices. Some of it involved taking bold steps in the face of vocal opposition (like saving $13 million by pulling out of the State School Employees health fund).

I am confident other districts could undertake similar measures and recognize spending.

We all talk about corruption in Jersey City. Let's not pretend other districts are free of it. East Newark's Micro-District just hired a superintendent under investigation, for goodness sake. "He's a good fit" said the board. Well ok then!

Posted on: 2018/6/5 23:47
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/8 3:24
Last Login :
10/20 21:46
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1391
Offline
And do you think that the districts clamoring for more funding are free of corruption, graft, and waste?

As I've noted before, this school board was told there was a $75 million gap. They closed it with no layoffs.

Some of it was cutting unnecessary expenses. Some of it involved sacrifices. Some of it involved taking bold steps in the face of vocal opposition (like saving $13 million by pulling out of the State School Employees health fund).

I am confident other districts could undertake similar measures and recognize spending.

We all talk about corruption in Jersey City. Let's not pretend other districts are free of it. East Newark's Micro-District just hired a superintendent under investigation, for goodness sake. "He's a good fit" said the board. Well ok then!

Posted on: 2018/6/5 23:47
Top




(1) 2 3 4 ... 7 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017