Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
41 user(s) are online (28 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 41

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 »


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5319
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Nearly $3 billion is missing from the ratable base due to tax abatements. This means, the average taxpayer is paying higher taxes due to these missing ratables. If these ratables were included, then our taxes would be around $50.00 per thousand instead of $77 per thousand.


You can't just keep saying things that aren't true again and again. That's Donald Trump's job. You keep saying taxes here are high and that abated property pay nothing. Neither is true.

Please prove this statement that our not very high taxes would go down. Contrary to your continually stating they pay nothing, abated properties DO pay, it's called PILOTS. Many of these PILOTS are far more than the 1% of value you were paying on your VV Park Brownstone. Were these properties to suddenly be ratables, the net gain in tax isn't the entire tax as you claim above, it's the difference between the tax and the PILOT.

Also, please reference your source for $9B of market value being in abated properties. Seems high considering the entire equalized value of the unabated is is $21.6B

Posted on: 2016/9/9 16:49
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5319
Offline
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:

1.
Hoboken is a ultra high-tax base rich district that gets K12 state aid like it's working class.

JC is a middle-tax base district that gets K12 state aid like it's a desperately poor, blightzone. (more below)


Can you define your terms like "ultra high-tax base"? Is this Equalized Valuation/student population or Equalized Valuation/total population, or what? It's hard to see how JC can be "middle" when "Jersey City's students are much poorer than average".

Posted on: 2016/9/9 15:34
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4673
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Not paying for local schools is misleading. Abatement property owners do pay local taxes/contribute local revenue which supports municipal expenditures, including its schools. If they did not pay, then the City would not be able to pay for its schools, police, fire, etc. PILOT and prop tax revenue are commingled funds.

While Jersey City's schools are heavily State funded, the City does spend quite a bit on low income housing. Those outside the city may cry foul about Abbott Funding, but they should look at themselves in the mirror when it comes to the lack of affordable housing they spend within their town. That is, they may pay for Abbott, but save $ with their NIMBY lack of low income housing spending.

Additionally, quite a few NJ suburban residents are employed in Jersey City. Without Jersey City, there would be less State income to fund their hometown schools and Jersey City schools.





Sorry, your math is wrong. First the county not city sets the tax rate which is based on ratables. Nearly $3 billion is missing from the ratable base due to tax abatements. This means, the average taxpayer is paying higher taxes due to these missing ratables. If these ratables were included, then our taxes would be around $50.00 per thousand instead of $77 per thousand. Secondly, tax dollars are not paid to the schools from abatements. That is a fact. If the state reduces the funding no one living in tax abated building will have their rents or payment to the city increase to make up for missing state tax dollars.




Posted on: 2016/9/9 15:28
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#79
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
'Christie/Abbott' regime??

Christie wants Abbott to go away, no?


I was being a little facetious, but I think "Christie/Abbott regime" is a legitimate exaggeration.

Christie doesn't like Abbott (neither did Jon Corzine), but the state aid distribution is still dominated by NJ Supreme Court orders made in the 1990s.

Under Abbott, the Abbott districts were entitled to state aid that would bring their spending above what DFG I and J districts spending, meaning whatever Mountain Lakes, Livington, and Princeton spent, the Abbotts had to spend more than that. The NJ Supreme Court, quite literally, also said that Abbott unwillingness to pay higher taxes and Abbott inability to pay higher taxes, were the same thing, so the Abbotts all took a long tax increase holiday in the Abbott era and let the state pick up the slack.

Later, the Abbotts even got the right to get "supplemental funding" for whatever plausible educational project they could think of.

SFRA's passage in 2008 technically erased Abbott privileges for K-12 aid, but all their aid up to that point was grandfathered in.

In 2011 the NJ Supreme Court disallowed cuts to the Abbotts, but allowed cuts to all other districts. Christie obeyed this dictate and thus let the Abbott spending advantaged actually increase.

Aside from K-12 aid, the Abbotts also continue to have a monopoly on Pre-K and get 100% state construction funding.

So even though Christie doesn't like Abbott, he hasn't succeeded in changing the distribution. (nor has he really tried.)

What Christie has done since 2012-13 is flat-fund all districts, including ones getting way more than they need, like Asbury Park. Under Christie, the only thing that determines a district's aid is what it got the year before.

So I think speaking of a "Christie/Abbott regime" is a fair rhetorical flourish.


Posted on: 2016/9/9 14:25
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#78
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Hoboken has less than 3,000 kids enrolled in school, JC on the other hand has around 30,000. Hoboken has some tax abatements, JC on the other hand has one third of the properties under some sort of tax abatement, meaning no money goes to the local school system. Removing Abbot from Hoboken would be a hiccup, but removing Abbot in JC would be the loss of many homes and major cuts to the local school system. But our mayor and council first concern is for development, not the homeowner paying taxes.


People (including me) often talk about Hoboken and JC being districts that should lose state aid because they've become wealthier, but on close inspection there are big differences between Hoboken and JC.

1.
Hoboken is a ultra high-tax base rich district that gets K12 state aid like it's working class.

JC is a middle-tax base district that gets K12 state aid like it's a desperately poor, blightzone. (more below)

2. Hoboken's tax abatements have zero distortion on its state aid. Jersey City's tax abatements have a large distortion of its state aid. (more below)


K-12 Aid
I'm glad Yvonne mentioned that Hoboken has fewer than 3,000 students, because that fact combined with Hoboken's having over $13 billion in Equalized Valuation is why Hoboken should lose not only its Adjustment Aid, but all of its state aid.

In Local Fair Share, Hoboken has $67k per student. That's double what Millburn, Prinecton, and Paramus have.

If Hoboken lost its $5.5 million in Adjustment Aid the increase in its taxes would be imperceptible. Even if Hoboken lost all $10 million of its K-12 aid the increase would only be $600 for someone with a $1 million property.

And that $600 increase is assuming that Hoboken wouldn't make cuts. Hoboken now spends about $23,000 per student and it could make cuts before getting anywhere near core educational services. That poor owner of a $1 million condo in Hoboken might not see a $600 tax increase after all.

However, no one is talking about taking away Hoboken's Sped Aid, Transportation Aid, Security Aid, and Interdistrict Choice Aid. Thus, even if Sweeney's plan is passed and implemented, Hoboken will still get about $2000 per student.

Hoboken people sometimes defend Hoboken's state aid by saying that Hoboken's students don't represent the city at large. That might be true, but it's irrelevant, since Hoboken's tax base is so enormous.

Jersey City, on the other hand, is slightly below average in tax base, with about $10.2k per student (not counting PILOTed propety). Since Jersey City's students are much poorer than average (70% FRL eligible), the state calculates a high Adequacy Budget for JC of about $21,000 per student. If JerseyCity got exactly what SFRA's formulas recommend, it would get about $9200 per student.

$9200 per student is still pretty high, but what JC actually gets is $13,600 per student, which is almost as high as Paterson and Newark (who are both underaided)

Finally, it should be noted that JC might have 30,000 kids, but that's nto a lot in proportion to JC's population. Paterson is much smaller than JC but has almost as many kids and actually a greater number of FRL-eligible kids.

PILOTs

PILOTing only distorts state aid in a real way when a district gets Equalization Aid. Hoboken gets no Equalization Aid, so its PILOTing doesn't affect its state aid. The PILOTing hurts Hudson County, but not the state.

This is because Equalization Aid = Adequacy Budget - Local Fair Share

If a district's Local Fair Share exceeds its Adequacy Budget, it does not get Equalization Aid.

If the district's LFS exceeds Adequacy budget by 10%, 50%, or 300% it doesn't matter. The district still doesn't get Equalization Aid.

Hoboken's Local Fair Share is about $180 million. Its Adequacy Budget is about $46 million. So if Hoboken "hides" more wealth behind PILOTs it doesn't matter. Hoboken's Equalization Aid will be $0 no matter what.

Jersey City on the other hand, is much poorer than Hoboken and would get well over $200 million in Equalization Aid even if SFRA were properly run. Every time JC PILOTs something it hides the wealth from the formula for state aid and sustains a level of aid that is not justified based on JC's real wealth.


Posted on: 2016/9/9 14:16
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/12/28 8:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 154
Offline
Not paying for local schools is misleading. Abatement property owners do pay local taxes/contribute local revenue which supports municipal expenditures, including its schools. If they did not pay, then the City would not be able to pay for its schools, police, fire, etc. PILOT and prop tax revenue are commingled funds.

While Jersey City's schools are heavily State funded, the City does spend quite a bit on low income housing. Those outside the city may cry foul about Abbott Funding, but they should look at themselves in the mirror when it comes to the lack of affordable housing they spend within their town. That is, they may pay for Abbott, but save $ with their NIMBY lack of low income housing spending.

Additionally, quite a few NJ suburban residents are employed in Jersey City. Without Jersey City, there would be less State income to fund their hometown schools and Jersey City schools.






Posted on: 2016/9/9 13:09
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4673
Offline
Hoboken has less than 3,000 kids enrolled in school, JC on the other hand has around 30,000. Hoboken has some tax abatements, JC on the other hand has one third of the properties under some sort of tax abatement, meaning no money goes to the local school system. Removing Abbot from Hoboken would be a hiccup, but removing Abbot in JC would be the loss of many homes and major cuts to the local school system. But our mayor and council first concern is for development, not the homeowner paying taxes.

Posted on: 2016/9/9 11:02
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/16 23:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 790
Offline
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

Quote:

135jc wrote:
[quote]
brewster wrote:
[quote]
135jc wrote:
Somerset has probably the lowest taxes in the state.


Not really, about average, but there's a wide spread

NORTH PLAINFIELD 3.665%
FAR HILLS 1.300%

It's funny how people howl about their taxes being high but never actually justify that. JC's are average, 2.216%, and Hoboken is on the low side, 1.313%. Hoboken could pay their way with no aid and still be well under 2%. Food for thought, no?
Tax rate of every town in NJ for 2015
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/taxrate.shtml[/quote
Quote:


Lower property taxes will increase property value and naturally the opposite will lower values. Look at Essex county. So measuring property tax as a percentage of property value is pointless.


I don't think the measuring tax burden by percentage of property value (ie, Equalized Tax Rate) is pointless, but I agree with your point that high taxes can lower property values and low taxes can raise them.

I think therefore that tax relief for the most tax-burdened towns in NJ is desperately needed. High-tax, low-school spending towns like Prospect Park, Bound Brook etc are being wrecked by their tax burdens. People living there are seeing the values of their homes (their biggest assets) steadily diminish.

The point of state aid is to allow struggling towns to stabilize their taxes and arrest spirals of decline, but under the Christie/Abbott regime, there's no redistribution of state aid. Taxes steadily increase in towns that are already overburdened and their declines deepen.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... y-wealth-in-njs-most.html



Doesn't it all come back to jobs? With a stronger economy less aid is needed. You can point to all the job reports you want this recovery is not what we are expected believe

Posted on: 2016/9/9 10:15
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4326
Offline
'Christie/Abbott' regime??

Christie wants Abbott to go away, no?

Posted on: 2016/9/9 9:56
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#73
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
Quote:

Quote:

135jc wrote:
[quote]
brewster wrote:
[quote]
135jc wrote:
Somerset has probably the lowest taxes in the state.


Not really, about average, but there's a wide spread

NORTH PLAINFIELD 3.665%
FAR HILLS 1.300%

It's funny how people howl about their taxes being high but never actually justify that. JC's are average, 2.216%, and Hoboken is on the low side, 1.313%. Hoboken could pay their way with no aid and still be well under 2%. Food for thought, no?
Tax rate of every town in NJ for 2015
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/taxrate.shtml[/quote
Quote:


Lower property taxes will increase property value and naturally the opposite will lower values. Look at Essex county. So measuring property tax as a percentage of property value is pointless.


I don't think the measuring tax burden by percentage of property value (ie, Equalized Tax Rate) is pointless, but I agree with your point that high taxes can lower property values and low taxes can raise them.

I think therefore that tax relief for the most tax-burdened towns in NJ is desperately needed. High-tax, low-school spending towns like Prospect Park, Bound Brook etc are being wrecked by their tax burdens. People living there are seeing the values of their homes (their biggest assets) steadily diminish.

The point of state aid is to allow struggling towns to stabilize their taxes and arrest spirals of decline, but under the Christie/Abbott regime, there's no redistribution of state aid. Taxes steadily increase in towns that are already overburdened and their declines deepen.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... y-wealth-in-njs-most.html

Posted on: 2016/9/9 9:51
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/16 23:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 790
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
[quote]
135jc wrote:
Somerset has probably the lowest taxes in the state.


Not really, about average, but there's a wide spread

NORTH PLAINFIELD 3.665%
FAR HILLS 1.300%

It's funny how people howl about their taxes being high but never actually justify that. JC's are average, 2.216%, and Hoboken is on the low side, 1.313%. Hoboken could pay their way with no aid and still be well under 2%. Food for thought, no?
Tax rate of every town in NJ for 2015
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/taxrate.shtml[/quote

Lower property taxes will increase property value and naturally the opposite will lower values. Look at Essex county. So measuring property tax as a percentage of property value is pointless.

Posted on: 2016/9/9 0:55
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5319
Offline
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Somerset has probably the lowest taxes in the state.


Not really, about average, but there's a wide spread

NORTH PLAINFIELD 3.665%
FAR HILLS 1.300%

It's funny how people howl about their taxes being high but never actually justify that. JC's are average, 2.216%, and Hoboken is on the low side, 1.313%. Hoboken could pay their way with no aid and still be well under 2%. Food for thought, no?
Tax rate of every town in NJ for 2015
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/taxrate.shtml

Posted on: 2016/9/8 23:13

Edited by brewster on 2016/9/8 23:29:30
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/16 23:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 790
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

greenville wrote:
If this happens, it would wreck JC. Christie needs to go back to sniff Donald Trump's rear and resign.


A lot of this is being pushed by suburban towns-many of them Democrat strongholds, like Maplewood/South Orange, the Montclairs, Dover, that are getting bled dry by funding Abbott schools and getting little state support. It's not just rich Morris and Somerset County towns that are getting squeezed and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).


Somerset has probably the lowest taxes in the state.

Posted on: 2016/9/8 23:04
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4673
Offline
At the August Council meeting, Candice Osborne said the state will never change the formula as she voted yes on a tax abatement. I told her she is wrong, changes have been made, we use to pay $72 million and now we are paying $114 million.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... g.html#incart_2box_hudson

Posted on: 2016/9/8 18:20
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#68
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Maybe because spending more and more money hasn't been shown to result in improvements?? It's sure always easy to spend the money others have worked so hard to earn.

The best way out of poverty is proven to a) finish high school, b) don't have children out of wedlock, c) get a job, any job. If you don't do a), what do you think happens to b and c?

Since the 'war on poverty' began in the sixties more money has been spent than all the wars combined in our history, and poverty keeps winning. A, B, and C are the problems, not education funding.


So naturally the answer is "fuckem, they don't need books, heat, teachers, whatever". I'm all for cutting waste if you can find it, but from everything I've seen and heard, no one is getting a gold plated education in JC public school. I don't know where the money goes, but it sure doesn't show up in the classrooms or activities. But you're all in with "starve the beast", especially as you don't even live here and have to deal with the consequences.


I'm not saying that at all, and I agree that Christie's plan is a non-starter. But how about a plan that insists that local towns fund a minimum percentage of their own school costs? For all the talk of how JC is a melting pot, with lots of kids needing expensive ESL classes-well, it is the Latino and Asian kids that have much better graduation rates than our African American kids. And to an earlier point, JC graduation rates are only 5% higher than Newark kids-and JC is 15% lower than the state average, while spending 25% more per student than the state average.

Maybe begin with towns paying 33% of their own school costs (less than half of most suburban districts) and raise it a bit over time until it's 50%? That sounds equitable and, after all, shouldn't everyone pay their fair share?


The minimum percentage proposal isn't economically workable. For the poorest districts, like Camden, Bridgeton, and Woodlynne, there is no way they can pay 25% of even the state's average, let alone the higher amount they should be paying. Those three districts have Local Fair Shares per student of under $2,000.

(on the other hand, NJ does need a minimum local contribution from the Abbotts for construction. Right now they pay 0%)

The formulas of the current law, SFRA, would allow some money to be taken from Abbotts. Half of the Abbotts are overaided, even Camden.

While I believe that Abbott has become extremely unfair and has always been ineffective, I strongly disagree with the Republicans that the focus should be on taking money from the Abbotts since not all of them are overaided and they aren't NJ's only overaided districts either. There are many overaided exurbs, rural towns, and Jersey Shore districts too.


Posted on: 2016/6/22 9:50
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4326
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Maybe because spending more and more money hasn't been shown to result in improvements?? It's sure always easy to spend the money others have worked so hard to earn.

The best way out of poverty is proven to a) finish high school, b) don't have children out of wedlock, c) get a job, any job. If you don't do a), what do you think happens to b and c?

Since the 'war on poverty' began in the sixties more money has been spent than all the wars combined in our history, and poverty keeps winning. A, B, and C are the problems, not education funding.


So naturally the answer is "fuckem, they don't need books, heat, teachers, whatever". I'm all for cutting waste if you can find it, but from everything I've seen and heard, no one is getting a gold plated education in JC public school. I don't know where the money goes, but it sure doesn't show up in the classrooms or activities. But you're all in with "starve the beast", especially as you don't even live here and have to deal with the consequences.


I'm not saying that at all, and I agree that Christie's plan is a non-starter. But how about a plan that insists that local towns fund a minimum percentage of their own school costs? For all the talk of how JC is a melting pot, with lots of kids needing expensive ESL classes-well, it is the Latino and Asian kids that have much better graduation rates than our African American kids. And to an earlier point, JC graduation rates are only 5% higher than Newark kids-and JC is 15% lower than the state average, while spending 25% more per student than the state average.

Maybe begin with towns paying 33% of their own school costs (less than half of most suburban districts) and raise it a bit over time until it's 50%? That sounds equitable and, after all, shouldn't everyone pay their fair share?

Posted on: 2016/6/22 6:25
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 13:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2448
Offline

Posted on: 2016/6/22 3:49
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/5/11 22:57
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 448
Offline
Quote:

MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:
by Monroe on 2016/6/21 20:22:31
...and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).


As a caveat, I am much more familiar with JC than Newark but it is foolish to equate the two school systems.

The Jersey City Public Schools have the benefit of an outstanding Superintendent and a flourishing population, both of which has dramatically improved student outcomes in our public schools.

Newark has a waning population and a fleet of half-empty public schools. Their trajectory is nowhere near as optimistic as ours.

Do the JC district schools still need improvement? Of course they do. But we are on the right track and don't let anybody paint all urban schools with the same broad, nasty brush.

Parents across the city of all backgrounds are seeing their children succeed here.


How about that there seems to be "de facto" segregation at the elementary level in Jersey City?

Posted on: 2016/6/21 23:58
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5319
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Maybe because spending more and more money hasn't been shown to result in improvements?? It's sure always easy to spend the money others have worked so hard to earn.

The best way out of poverty is proven to a) finish high school, b) don't have children out of wedlock, c) get a job, any job. If you don't do a), what do you think happens to b and c?

Since the 'war on poverty' began in the sixties more money has been spent than all the wars combined in our history, and poverty keeps winning. A, B, and C are the problems, not education funding.


So naturally the answer is "fuckem, they don't need books, heat, teachers, whatever". I'm all for cutting waste if you can find it, but from everything I've seen and heard, no one is getting a gold plated education in JC public school. I don't know where the money goes, but it sure doesn't show up in the classrooms or activities. But you're all in with "starve the beast", especially as you don't even live here and have to deal with the consequences.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 22:58
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#63
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
I really can't fathom what Christie is doing. Because there is a political constituency for redistributing aid. That would hurt Jersey City and some other Abbotts, but could possibly be passed on grounds of "fairness." This is so off the wall that it's hard to take seriously.


This would take money from all of the Abbotts except Hoboken, which gets $4100 per student.

But there are non-Abbotts who get more than $6900 per student too, although not that many.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d ... dA_3CEPAsiEpUI/edit#gid=0

Just state aid reform admits that there is a conflict between the underaided and the overaided and proposes to shift aid from the overaided to the underaided. Usually this is between districts that have gotten richer and/or smaller and districts that have gotten poorer and/or larger. As I says always, it is NOT suburban versus urban. Christie's proposal just pits the rich against the poor.

Christie's idea has no chance, but the framers of our constitution, in their infinite wisdom, gave the governor the ability to thwart the will of 2/3rds of the legislature and gave the legislature no ability to remove a governor except for criminality.

In the past Christie had supported cutting Adjustment Aid so I thought he might support it now.

I am afraid that now Sweeney's bill has no chance of becoming law either and we will not have reform until 2018 at the earliest.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 21:54
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4326
Offline
Maybe because spending more and more money hasn't been shown to result in improvements?? It's sure always easy to spend the money others have worked so hard to earn.

The best way out of poverty is proven to a) finish high school, b) don't have children out of wedlock, c) get a job, any job. If you don't do a), what do you think happens to b and c?

Since the 'war on poverty' began in the sixties more money has been spent than all the wars combined in our history, and poverty keeps winning. A, B, and C are the problems, not education funding.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 21:20
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5319
Offline
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

greenville wrote:
If this happens, it would wreck JC. Christie needs to go back to sniff Donald Trump's rear and resign.


A lot of this is being pushed by suburban towns-many of them Democrat strongholds, like Maplewood/South Orange, the Montclairs, Dover, that are getting bled dry by funding Abbott schools and getting little state support. It's not just rich Morris and Somerset County towns that are getting squeezed and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).


You know, beating the "abysmal graduation rates" drum gets really tiresome. Anyone with half a brain know why inner city districts with high levels of immigrants and poverty have abysmal graduation rates. It has little to do with how money is spent.

You could really care less about our graduation rates, you just want us to get less money.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 20:42
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#60
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/6/10 14:23
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 87
Offline
Quote:
by Monroe on 2016/6/21 20:22:31
...and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).


As a caveat, I am much more familiar with JC than Newark but it is foolish to equate the two school systems.

The Jersey City Public Schools have the benefit of an outstanding Superintendent and a flourishing population, both of which has dramatically improved student outcomes in our public schools.

Newark has a waning population and a fleet of half-empty public schools. Their trajectory is nowhere near as optimistic as ours.

Do the JC district schools still need improvement? Of course they do. But we are on the right track and don't let anybody paint all urban schools with the same broad, nasty brush.

Parents across the city of all backgrounds are seeing their children succeed here.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 20:38
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4326
Offline
Quote:

greenville wrote:
If this happens, it would wreck JC. Christie needs to go back to sniff Donald Trump's rear and resign.


A lot of this is being pushed by suburban towns-many of them Democrat strongholds, like Maplewood/South Orange, the Montclairs, Dover, that are getting bled dry by funding Abbott schools and getting little state support. It's not just rich Morris and Somerset County towns that are getting squeezed and seeing Newark and JC get $1.5 billion dollar/year with abysmal graduation rates (while spending way over the state average as well per student).

Posted on: 2016/6/21 20:22
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/4/10 22:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 440
Offline
If this happens, it would wreck JC. Christie needs to go back to sniff Donald Trump's rear and resign.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 20:12
ಠ_ಠ
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4326
Offline
People always advocate for others to pay their 'fair share', until they are the ones having to do the paying.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 16:29
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4673
Offline
I remember when former Mayor McCann wanted to cut the board of ed funding in 1990. The state said no and froze JC's contribution to $72 million. It stayed that way for a long time. I mentioned to various elected politicians that it will go up and was laughed at. Well in 2005, our contributions started to rise. It is now $114 million, $42 million higher. Politicians were wrong that our contributions will not rise and they are wrong about the change of formula. They want to justify the giving out of tax abatements.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 16:15
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/7 23:24
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1332
Offline
I really can't fathom what Christie is doing. Because there is a political constituency for redistributing aid. That would hurt Jersey City and some other Abbotts, but could possibly be passed on grounds of "fairness." This is so off the wall that it's hard to take seriously.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 15:59
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#54
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/20 20:40
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 133
Offline
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
I am confident that Christie's proposal is a non-starter.

First, even between Republicans and Sweeneycrats in Trenton, this will probably not have a lot of support.

Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court will not allow it.

When the Court allowed the School Funding Reform Act (Abbott XX), it was based on the finding that the legislature and executive had developed a formula that remedied the defects that led to the Abbott line of decisions. Replacing this with a formula that ignores the needs of poorer students and urban districts ignores the entire line of cases, which the Court has made clear is grounded in a Constitutional mandate.

If Christie/Sweeney were serious about reallocating aid to districts based on appropriate need, the Court might buy it. But this is just Christie being a blowhard. Being Trump's cabana boy has rubbed off on him.


I agree with JPHurst that this is DOA; even the majority of the GOP will be against it.

Sweeney is completely against Christie's proposal. Christie's proposal has NOTHING in common with the increase in aid and redistribution that Sweeney has proposed.

http://senatorsweeney.com/press/sween ... ties-school-funding-plan/




Posted on: 2016/6/21 15:26
Print Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/7 23:24
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1332
Offline
I am confident that Christie's proposal is a non-starter.

First, even between Republicans and Sweeneycrats in Trenton, this will probably not have a lot of support.

Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court will not allow it.

When the Court allowed the School Funding Reform Act (Abbott XX), it was based on the finding that the legislature and executive had developed a formula that remedied the defects that led to the Abbott line of decisions. Replacing this with a formula that ignores the needs of poorer students and urban districts ignores the entire line of cases, which the Court has made clear is grounded in a Constitutional mandate.

If Christie/Sweeney were serious about reallocating aid to districts based on appropriate need, the Court might buy it. But this is just Christie being a blowhard. Being Trump's cabana boy has rubbed off on him.

Posted on: 2016/6/21 14:40
Print Top




« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 »




[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