JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Does every crevice of the city have to be built up as soon as possible as much as possible?

I used to live on Monmouth on the other side of Old Colony Mall. I still take my kids to P.S. 3. I go shopping at Ranch 99 and have the occasional craving for Popeyes or a donut from Dunkin Donuts. A while back I used the auto body shop to fix a banged up car for a few hundred bucks that the insurance company insisted was totalled. Point being that I've been around there and still have occasion to go there.

Sure you could spruce up those few blocks and build some townhouses or apartments, but is the city really hurting because they haven't done so yet? If the current landowners are really squatting or speculating that's one thing, but if it's just a question of waiting a couple of years, or maybe building a little smaller, then why give a developer the power of eminent domain at the expense of current owners, residents, and business owners?

In light of the recent tax increases in Downtown due to the reval and pending school tax increases, it's in DTJC's best interest to build as dense as it can, wherever it can. Many homeless people live in that area in the abandoned housing and that area does not feel safe at night.

Bingo! I don't understand why the anti-development people don't understand that. Also, the more luxury the development, the more tax revenue it will bring in (be it PILOT payments or property taxes, it's still revenue to the city). The luxury tower at 99 Hudson alone will have over 700 condos with assessments averaging $750,000. That's over half a billion in new ratables and 6-7 million in new property taxes. They new money can be used to lower everyone's taxes or be used to fund additional city services.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Does every crevice of the city have to be built up as soon as possible as much as possible?

I used to live on Monmouth on the other side of Old Colony Mall. I still take my kids to P.S. 3. I go shopping at Ranch 99 and have the occasional craving for Popeyes or a donut from Dunkin Donuts. A while back I used the auto body shop to fix a banged up car for a few hundred bucks that the insurance company insisted was totalled. Point being that I've been around there and still have occasion to go there.

Sure you could spruce up those few blocks and build some townhouses or apartments, but is the city really hurting because they haven't done so yet? If the current landowners are really squatting or speculating that's one thing, but if it's just a question of waiting a couple of years, or maybe building a little smaller, then why give a developer the power of eminent domain at the expense of current owners, residents, and business owners?

In light of the recent tax increases in Downtown due to the reval and pending school tax increases, it's in DTJC's best interest to build as dense as it can, wherever it can. Many homeless people live in that area in the abandoned housing and that area does not feel safe at night.

JPhurst wrote:
Does every crevice of the city have to be built up as soon as possible as much as possible?

I used to live on Monmouth on the other side of Old Colony Mall. I still take my kids to P.S. 3. I go shopping at Ranch 99 and have the occasional craving for Popeyes or a donut from Dunkin Donuts. A while back I used the auto body shop to fix a banged up car for a few hundred bucks that the insurance company insisted was totalled. Point being that I've been around there and still have occasion to go there.

Sure you could spruce up those few blocks and build some townhouses or apartments, but is the city really hurting because they haven't done so yet? If the current landowners are really squatting or speculating that's one thing, but if it's just a question of waiting a couple of years, or maybe building a little smaller, then why give a developer the power of eminent domain at the expense of current owners, residents, and business owners?

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Does every crevice of the city have to be built up as soon as possible as much as possible?

I used to live on Monmouth on the other side of Old Colony Mall. I still take my kids to P.S. 3. I go shopping at Ranch 99 and have the occasional craving for Popeyes or a donut from Dunkin Donuts. A while back I used the auto body shop to fix a banged up car for a few hundred bucks that the insurance company insisted was totalled. Point being that I've been around there and still have occasion to go there.

Sure you could spruce up those few blocks and build some townhouses or apartments, but is the city really hurting because they haven't done so yet? If the current landowners are really squatting or speculating that's one thing, but if it's just a question of waiting a couple of years, or maybe building a little smaller, then why give a developer the power of eminent domain at the expense of current owners, residents, and business owners?

In light of the recent tax increases in Downtown due to the reval and pending school tax increases, it's in DTJC's best interest to build as dense as it can, wherever it can. Many homeless people live in that area in the abandoned housing and that area does not feel safe at night.

JPhurst wrote:
Does every crevice of the city have to be built up as soon as possible as much as possible?

I used to live on Monmouth on the other side of Old Colony Mall. I still take my kids to P.S. 3. I go shopping at Ranch 99 and have the occasional craving for Popeyes or a donut from Dunkin Donuts. A while back I used the auto body shop to fix a banged up car for a few hundred bucks that the insurance company insisted was totalled. Point being that I've been around there and still have occasion to go there.

Sure you could spruce up those few blocks and build some townhouses or apartments, but is the city really hurting because they haven't done so yet? If the current landowners are really squatting or speculating that's one thing, but if it's just a question of waiting a couple of years, or maybe building a little smaller, then why give a developer the power of eminent domain at the expense of current owners, residents, and business owners?

ecoindie wrote:
There was already two developments (including Mecca) in place to be built... you should read the article again. Also remember the 2008 crash and Hurricane Sandy, not exactly great development times.


"Jim Burke, an attorney for one of the property owners, said he is stunned by the city's push to bring on Weiss as a master developer. Burke's client has approval to build a 12-story building on property he owns at Colden and Bates streets.

"My client worked closely with the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency throughout the development process, so to be told this 18 months later is a bit shocking," Burke said."

Regard your comment on how the areas looks--Not everything has to be luxury residential buildings.

ecoindie wrote:

Regard your comment on how the areas looks--Not everything has to be luxury residential buildings.

ecoindie wrote:
There was already two developments (including Mecca) in place to be built... you should read the article again. Also remember the 2008 crash and Hurricane Sandy, not exactly great development times.