Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Meh.. I voted for the guy and still think he's a transparent political climber who is pushing several measures that will harm the city.
Healy is no longer the mayor. You can't cover for Fulop's own failings by looking backward.
Posted on: 2014/6/28 12:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Oh no, Fulop has aspirations other than being naked and drunk on a porch. Can we indict him, as he is breaking the chain of Hudson County pols elected to do nothing but enrich their own pockets and preserve the status quo?
Posted on: 2014/6/27 19:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
i tend to agree with the comment about fulop being disingenuous about abatements. i think he is very transparent and will unlikley to pull off a booker
Posted on: 2014/6/26 9:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
the ones that did are now gone. No one has a clue what they are doing when it comes to this stuff. Open your eyes and look at who he put in charge on HEDC. Not a professional insight! campaign workers are heading it up and running the show.
Posted on: 2014/6/26 2:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
you are correct Dan. Under the previous administration, the tax abatements were get shorter and tighter. The Journal square tax abatement under Fulop was far more generous than the one the developer agreed to with the previous admin. The previous administration had many "old hands" who were familiar with tax abatements and how to use them. They are all gone now, so we are back to square one. The only problem for the city is the mayor is running for governor, so all the decisions coming out of city hall are short term decisions based on statewide politics and his run for gov. Once again, we get crappy political decisions that will hurt the city in the long run.
Posted on: 2014/6/26 2:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Councilman Fulop would have voted no on any waterfront abatement under the Healy Administration. What a phony.
Posted on: 2014/6/26 2:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
the Fulop zombies don't want to hear that the mayor is disingenuous and using the city as a step stool to run for governor. All the development you now city in the city was planned and started under Healy. He has nothing to show for his first year, hence the give aways to projects like the hotel-which was started under Healy!!
Posted on: 2014/6/26 2:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
 |
well this tax abatement was approved. for 20 years.
nearing the end of the previous administration, the tax abatements were trending shorter, to 10 and 12 years. whether a good deal or bad deal, the city only had to live with it for 10 years or so. would this would have continued post election, or would the longer terms would have come back, I do not know. but with the the buy up guidelines (only changing terms), for waterfront and downtown, 20 plus years are the new normal. academic research be damned. but at least jersey city has accepted global warming.
Posted on: 2014/6/26 2:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
the bottom line is that the property is too valuable to sit unused. of course, the developer is going to cry wolf. i would cry wolf if i could get a tax incentive. wouldn't you? i expect city officials to know better!
Posted on: 2014/6/25 14:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
this tax abatement contract/agreement is up for approval (2nd reading) this evening.
so what is the question to Jersey City? is a 20 year tax contract for fixed revenue payments to Jersey City better in our long term fiscal interest than risking the possibility that this property (prime) will lay abandoned and unused for the next 20 years but remain a ratable to pay its fair share of the city's (county and schools) tax burden when developed today, tomorrow and in the future? what about the impact of future municipal employee contracts in less austere times? what about future inflationary impacts? when do we stop? Quote:
Posted on: 2014/6/25 12:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm done playing whack-a-mole. You can continue to think DTJC is lacking in new developments and everyone else with eyes can understand what is actually happening. There are 15,000 new units under construction or approved between DT and Journal Sq, the vast majority in DT. As a matter of reference DT has roughly 40,000 people so we're going to increase that by over 25% in a short period of time. How quickly would we need to be increasing inventory for you to feel that we don't need to go out of our way to incentivize even more construction? 30%, 50%? I already conceded that hotels might be different than residential. I simply don't know the economics of hotels well enough to give an informed opinion. I don't know that DT is scrambling for more of them but one with decent conference space might be nice.
Posted on: 2014/6/16 20:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12 Last Login : 2020/9/30 18:46 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
2391
|
Put me in the group of people that think the design for the addition looks terrible: http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... .html#incart_river_hudson
Is there any way to voice disapproval?
Posted on: 2014/6/16 18:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I should have specified new permits. Perhaps I am mistaken but my gut is that the Newport and Liberty Harbor projects are long approved and there was building there before the recession. I did forget the new smaller building on 9th street but I'm talking approving and starting new projects since the end of the worst of the recession- it's not all over yet. Also those are residential. I don't know about hotels. Certainly the economics are different.
Posted on: 2014/6/16 17:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
In DT we have new buildings going up in Newport, Harborside, Liberty Harbor, Grove St, multiple in the PAD, two recently approved in the HP area to go along with Hamilton Sq South which should start construction next year. 2 new mid-rise apartments recently opened in Paulus Hook. I'm not sure where you are looking, but downtown is full of new construction. The area north of LSP is all owned by the people who did Liberty Harbor and they want to build even bigger buildings there. They are actively working on at least 1 new building and will continue to infill but they don't generally build all of them at once and will work like Newport does and start the new buildings as the old ones are finished. The next step is taking down the boy club building and putting in a new 36 story building, extending Grove St and putting in a park. More on what is happening now and future plans .(http://ironstate.net/properties-liberty-harbor.html) Here's a handy list. Keep in mind they missed a few that know of in HP. http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/04 ... dential_building_boom.php That anyone could look at DT and think 'I don't see much happening' is crazy.
Posted on: 2014/6/13 17:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Your former house, as well as mine, are in a National Historic District, so doesn't the land value remain constant since it is fully developed to the zoning allowed maximum? Unlike, for example, a parking lot that is zoned to allow a 10 story building.
Posted on: 2014/6/13 17:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Joshua, by the way I do respect you use a real name, JC held off the revaluation which has not been done in 26 years, then use those numbers as comparison. I also saw this at 25 Senate Place. Even my former house only had a value of $10,000 for the land under the building. The city is manipulating the numbers. This is a business, the financial should be part of the process. This is similar to the city announcing there are 200 or 500 construction jobs associated with an abatement but in reality you barely see more than 5 guys at a site. Granted they probably work in different shifts. There is too much grand standing. That hotel should only have 5 year tax abatement. I have no problem with 5 years, it is reasonable.
Posted on: 2014/6/13 16:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Yvonne,
The one issue you repeatedly refuse to address is how much the city lost in PILOTs versus how much the city gained in ratables. Saying "our ratable base is larger" is, in a vacuum, not very helpful. If the properties being added on to the ratable base were formerly undeveloped or underdeveloped properties that were not adding much to the ratable base, then it's a gain. If the property being added on to the ratable base was previously paying a PILOT, then the gain is only what the property, as part of the ratable base, exceeds the amount of the PILOT. On a larger level, I do understand the concern with 30+% of the properties not being part of the ratable base. But it is NOT because these properties aren't paying anything. They are, and in some cases the PILOTs come close to or even exceed the conventional tax payment. The problem is that future increases are not spread evenly across the city, as the PILOTs are locked in for their period.
Posted on: 2014/6/13 16:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Mooby
Maybe, but I think that hotel or condo developers (or any property purchaser) is not looking at JC in a vacuum. We have competition, which locally, is at a minimum, Hoboken, and chunks of Brooklyn and Queens. NYC has a much more developer-friendly policy. Abated buildings there have taxes of $100/year or less. Developers are permitted to increase density as a matter of right for including affordable housing. In NJ they may face litigation to do that. NYT recently published an article about tax incentive fights between NY and NJ to lure businesses. Right now they are fighting over RBC which is considering a JC move. IMO I'd rather have the incentive. I'd rather have the influx of cash off the bat. I don't see much new, big development (the kind that will spur similar development in the surrounding blocks) much in town aside from the Powerhouse area and Cast Iron II. We hear about Canal Crossing and that area north of LSP. But nothing. And despite prices going up. Developers are thinking twice. I say don't give them a reason. Fulop doesn't strike me as the sell the city down the river type. This isn't the kind of project he's going to cry from the rooftops about in the rest of the state if he's running for governor next election.
Posted on: 2014/6/13 16:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You can check the records, all abatements hearings are recorded. I spoke against the abatement on the first hotel for many reasons, Schundler did not provide the financial statements from the hotel chain for a private business seeking an abatement. Secondly, this abatement was based on the shell of the building, no the interior walls. When you or I are taxed, the total building is taxed it is not just the bricks or wooded structure of the building but it was in this case. I still remember Bill Gaughan saying, ?Do you want to tax the rugs and furniture, too?? So I argued for an occupancy tax, and I was told by the administration that Mayor Schundler was against this. It was actually Vega, who as council president introduced the occupancy tax under the new administration (Cunningham).
I will also ask for the financials for the Hyatt when they have the public hearing. We are guaranteeing a success for a private business while 2,200 people in JC are in tax liens. Where is their guarantee?
Posted on: 2014/6/13 13:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
There you have it, folks. Stand up, and applause. Jersey City has an occupancy tax thanks to Yvonne. I know you shouldn't feed a troll, but sometimes I come across some posts that are so laughably direct reflections of a person's elevated sense of self that I can't help myself but react.
Posted on: 2014/6/13 11:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It is interesting people are talking about the occupancy tax. When former Mayor Schundler gave an abatement to the first hotel in JC during his term, I said the city should have an occupancy tax, but he wouldn't do it. I complain about this, apparently his council agreed with me. As soon as he left office and some of his council returned to office. The first thing they instituted was an occupancy tax.
Posted on: 2014/6/12 22:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Maybe, maybe for the hotel this is true, not for the apartment buildings going up left and right. You can say 'property taxes are too high', but that hasn't stopped the whole area from exploding and it's not like the people who would live in JC have some low tax option to pick from instead. All these residential buildings are being built with or without abatements. Quote:
Taxes don't reset on normally taxed houses/condos when they get sold either. So this is irrelevant. (It could be come relevant again if properties are revalued, but then again by that time prices will be past their previous peak and the point is even less relevant). You can have a valid opinion on whether or not abatements are worth it, you can't really have a valid opinion that they don't bring in less revenue than a normally taxed property. That is the only reason they exist, to lower the tax burden on a property. I don't mind the fact that there are a lot of abated properties, it was the right thing to do to get development in the area, but at some point you don't need to entice development because the value of the area is high enough.
Posted on: 2014/6/12 20:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I actually think they might not. The property taxes in JC are way too high. I agree JC real estate is desirable. But I think it's not a great place for a hotel just yet. You have a handful of businesses down there right now. You have I suppose some business from visitors to local residents with small places that can't have people crash. And you have some tourists who don't want to pay NYC prices, but I question how many because those people will have to have investigated and planned actively and a lot of tourists don't. You also have to remember that with the current PATH "situation" let's call it...much of that traffic is decreasing. Secaucus has hotels because people need to stay near the Meadowlands and a bajillion highways intersect there. JC's pitch is a good one, but I'm not sure it's enough. And abatements don't cause high taxes. How ridiculous. The abatement payers are largely overpaying because our units were bought at the height of the bubble. I paid 150k less than my seller did, but my taxes are taxed at his rate. Give me a city with a corrupt bloated bureaucracy...it ALWAYS has high taxes. Union City's taxes are higher for that reason, among others. Newark has high taxes, and its problems are foisted on Essex- and we are paying for the sins of the rest of Hudson too. Hoboken has lower taxes because its kleptocracy is smaller than ours. They don't have 10 million joke authorities so that Tammany Hall West patrons can double dip on six figure salaries. When it comes to luring businesses, I trust Mayor Fulop. I know why I pay the taxes I do and it has nothing to do with abatements and everything to do with stupid contracts that awarded before he got here.
Posted on: 2014/6/12 19:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yes, Hoboken does hand out abatements but not on the level of JC. More than one quarter of JC, really a close to one third is tax abated. That is a major impact on regular taxpaying public. Abatements are not added to the ratable base, this information does not come from me, but from the county which strikes the rate for all 12 municipalities.
Posted on: 2014/6/12 19:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
@Yvonne - I'm not contradicting anything Fulop said. Just contradicting the assertion that abatements detracting from JC's rateable base is the reason Hoboken's taxes are lower.
Most of it is simple math. Hoboken property values are higher - $11 billion spread over 50k residents is significantly higher than $6-9 billion spread over 250k residents. And the City budgets are similar per capita - $100m for Hoboken, $500m for JC. Simply put, Hoboken needs to collect a smaller percent against $11 billion to get it's $100m budget, than JC does against it's $6-9 billion to get it's $500m budget. Hoboken's effective tax rate is 1.31% of market value compared to JC's 2.56%. But that's math for you, not the impact of abatements - which by the way Hoboken also hands out PILOTS. Who would think Hoboken would be cheaper in terms of taxes according to market value? Probably any 8-year with a basic understanding of math.
Posted on: 2014/6/12 18:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
jtcview, you are contradicting what Mayor Fulop said when he gave the budget to the council either in March or April. I was there and his words were recorded and part of the public record. Mayor Fulop said some abatements expired (I know Tower of America is one of them) and the city will have a 2.1% tax cut. If you bother you can see his words on the city's web site. I did confirm what he said with the county tax assessor, the ratable base did go up when those abatements expired.
Now, let me explain my words on Hoboken. Hoboken had a reval and is at 100% value, JC did not have a reval and according the county web site, it is at 31% value. There are homes in JC that are paying $10,000 to $13,000 in property taxes but their market value at most is $250,000 to $300,000. Now compare what they are paying similar to my friend's home in Hoboken at full market value nearly $900,000 and is paying $12,000. Hoboken does not give abatements like JC, if those $300,000 homes were in Hoboken they would pay no more than $4,000. Who would think Hoboken would be cheaper in terms of taxes according to market value?
Posted on: 2014/6/12 14:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
We're normally on the same page, but from reading the above I take it you think that without abatements the development won't happen. I think this is completely incorrect. DTJC is now some of the most expensive real estate in the country. If a developer won't build here because they don't get an abatement, the next guy will. We're not getting extra development because of this, we're getting the same development that makes the developer extra money.
Posted on: 2014/6/12 11:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Per capita, Hoboken's property taxes are much higher - $2,882 vs $593, so it depends how you cut the numbers. Also Hudson increased JC's equalization rate a whopping 37% or so in the past 5-10 years when the market value of house prices didn't increase anywhere near that. Abatements also help keep down City taxes - so I don't think rateable base is the only thing in play here. $11b * 1.31% /50k in Hoboken vs $5.8b * 34.24% * 7.47% /250k in JC
Posted on: 2014/6/12 4:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hoboken has property paying $12,000 for a $900,000 assessment, JC has $250,000 to $300,000 true value assessment that is paying $10,000 to $13,000. Hoboken ratable base is $11 billion and JC ratable base is $5.8 billion. Our taxes are high because our ratable base is low. There is $2.7 billion that is tax abated that is not added to the ratable base. Therefore, you are paying higher taxes due to abatements.
Posted on: 2014/6/12 3:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New tax break for Hyatt Hotel
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The pro-abatement argument is generally one where the City doesn't load a developer with upfront costs, and gives them a chance to succeed over time. Nothing strangles a new development faster than loading it with operating costs before they have a chance to pay for it with revenue. Perhaps the City hasn't gotten the balance right on the deals and should negotiate a better return based on developer profits and revenue. But the underlying principle is sound. If I thought for one second that not granting abatements/pilots would reduce my property tax bill, I'd be against them. But I think that any additional tax would simply go into another public money pit - for example, the schools mob sniffing around abatements, asking for "moar", have convinced me of that.
Posted on: 2014/6/12 3:00
|
|||
|
||||