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

Members: 0
Guests: 42

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users






Re: JC v Hudson County (debt)
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/12/30 11:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 559
Offline
The county has less income, so it's debt is a heavier load to bear.

Posted on: 11/25 16:16
Print Top


Re: JC v Hudson County (debt)
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4742
Offline
The point is missed, there are more Hudson County residents to pay the county debt which is equal to our debt. The burden is greater for JC residents considering we are facing an uncertain future with the school funding. Even if this payroll tax passes, it will not cover the missing $170 million, taxpayers will still have to cough up the missing funds.

Posted on: 11/19 8:48
Print Top


Re: JC v Hudson County (debt)
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/18 21:18
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1568
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Or one can let someone else do the heavy lifting, and refer to their bond rating...moody's, s&p...jc's rating is good.


A point I was about to make as well. Hudson County and Jersey City have the same Moody's rating - Aa3, which is a fairly strong rating. That's three notches above the state, six notches above Newark and only one notch below NYC.

Posted on: 11/16 13:01
Print Top


Re: JC v Hudson County (debt)
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/12/28 8:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 156
Offline
Or one can let someone else do the heavy lifting, and refer to their bond rating...moody's, s&p...jc's rating is good.

Posted on: 11/15 6:23
Print Top


Re: JC v Hudson County (debt)
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4742
Offline
It is your choice to be stupid, Brewster, but here is the difference, there are nearly 700,000 residents to pay the county debt but only around 250,000 to pay the same debt in JC. If you deduct affordable housing which has a contract and cannot take on new debt or even rent control buildings which also cannot take on new debt then that number shrinks. Other Hudson County towns do allow pass along in taxes in rent controlled buildings unlike JC. You like pretend you are smart but here is the truth, this debt is a cancer and more people will lose their homes especially after the refunding bonds of tax appeals which is not in this $870 million bond deal. JC will then have more debt than the county. By the way, bond debt is excluded from caps, meaning the state will not allow taxes to go up but so much, bond debt is that exception. Even Detroit had to pay its bond debt when it declared bankruptcy. The courts made them tear up other contracts and sell buildings.

Posted on: 11/14 21:45
Print Top


Re: JC v Hudson County (debt)
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3589
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
This is why Yvonne is numerically illiterate. She has no idea how to compare apples to apples. She simply throws stuff at people like a monkey throwing it's shit, hoping to get a reaction. There's actually data out there, we're not best, below average, but far from the worst.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/01 ... nces-116-US-Cities-Ranked


Not to mention that her entire premise is a false equivalency. Numbers in a vacuum have little to no meaning.

Just because we make up 35% of the population of the county, it does not mean that our city budget should be the same proportion when compared to the county. For starters, the city provides a number of services not provided by the county, and it carries other responsibilities different from those of the county. As a result, the city's budget is actually higher than that of the county. So, when looking at debt loads and outstanding payables, the city having a debt equal to that of the county is actually good news. That's because the ratio of debt to budget looks favorable for the city when compared to the county.

But, of course, Yvonne is ignorant about numbers, and she prefers to lie or obfuscate by presenting only half of the story.

Posted on: 11/14 21:43
Print Top


Re: JC v Hudson County (debt)
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5370
Offline
This is why Yvonne is numerically illiterate. She has no idea how to compare apples to apples. She simply throws stuff at people like a monkey throwing it's shit, hoping to get a reaction. There's actually data out there, we're not best, below average, but far from the worst.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/01 ... nces-116-US-Cities-Ranked

Posted on: 11/14 20:57
Print Top


Re: JC v Hudson County (debt)
#2
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/10/10 18:00
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 52
Offline
So?

Posted on: 11/14 19:48
Print Top


JC v Hudson County (debt)
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4742
Offline
JC is 35% of Hudson County population, but we are just equal to the county is other ways. Thanks to Mayor Fulop's bonding of Bayfront, terminal leave, and general bonds, we both carry similar bond debts. The county debt as of Dec. 2017 is $870 million which is what JC debt is too.

Posted on: 11/14 18:47
Print Top








[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