Quote:

You should re-read the article. Quote:

"Never mind that the Red Bulls averaged 18,281 fans per game last year, while the Brooklyn Nets check in at 17,100 per game and the New York Rangers are at 17,678 per game."

That was the 2013 attendance. 2014 increased to 19,460 and 22,264 in the playoffs.

The Nets and Rangers are both playoff teams in their sports - and the Red Bulls outdrew them (and the Nets and Rangers, I would bet - particularly the Rangers - have a hell of a lot more corporate ticket buyers than the Red Bulls.)

Next up..... Artisanal Toast Shops!!

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/healt ... tisanal-food-craze-72676/

Quote:

Maybe Bed, Bath and Beyond should start carrying these...

http://www.noisebot.com/i_pooped_today_t-shirt.htm

Couldn't agree more about Pacific. It's an embarrassment - but... I almost don't want to see it fixed because the traffic is already so bad in the mornings from people jumping off the turnpike to cut through to the tunnel. I realize it isn't a huge deterrent but every little bit helps.

What am I saying??? Pave the damn street!

(I couldn't believe the traffic cone "solution" that was employed for about two months in that two feet deep crater under the turnpike. That hole is so deep that it's been patched twice already and it won't hold.)

The "luxury" topic is a good one. My wife and I debate this from time to time. We've come to the conclusion that "luxury" means, essentially, stainless steel appliances and marble, where appropriate. A very loose (and low) standard.

A rooftop pool is inviting - and the Trump building has tremendous amenities, but then you have the wall unit heating and cooling, like at the Econo Lodge. Some people don't mind that, but for me that would be a deal breaker - so is "luxury" in the eye of the beholder?

Council meeting tonight. Is there anything related to the fire department on the agenda? Sounds like Joe Krajnik calibur theatrics!

Quote:

Process-wise, there should absolutely be an RFP for EMS services. It is something the city has been paying JCMC almost $4 million a year to provide. Any time the city is contracting for services (i.e. paying), there should be a competitive bid.

The truth is, EMS is a profitable enterprise and the city was paying JCMC over the past several years largely to subsidise JCMC's operations, when they were on the verge of closing. That isn't a criticism - it's great that the medical center is still here and doing well, that is a better sign of vitality for the city than a 100 new pizza places.

But now that the Medical Center has rebounded and is growing and doing well, there is no longer a need for that subsidy. There should definitely be a bidding process, but the JCMC's outstanding track record should count for something too - it shouldn't just be about dollars.

The whole security-paranoia sham that looms over everything is really sad. Example - the office building at Columbus and Marin with the bollards surrounding two sides of it (along Columbus and Marin.) Really? That building is a target for terrorists when there are easily 500 higher value targets that don't have near the same level of external barriers just across the river? The Grove Street PATH station can't have a trash can when the many subway platforms sitting under Grand Central, Penn Station, Wall Street, etc. do? Because the Grove Street PATH station (or JSQ or Exchange Place, etc.) are much more valuable targets? And the guys with the machine guns at the WTC. Do we really need that? Or is it yet another way for the Port Authority to spend money?

First, this is about the dumbest and most transparent thread ever posted on here. The Alaskan Way tunnel project in Seattle is being used as a straw man to blow Christie and beat the ARC tunnel horse yet again, four years after its demise.

Funny enough though, glad Monroe brings up the tunnel - half-informed though he may be about the project. There is so much to love about the Seattle tunnel - first and foremost because it offers such a stark contrast to how things get done (or don't) around here. The one (and likely only thing) Monroe and I can agree on is the absolute horror that is the Port Authority (half run by his bromantic interest....)

Yes, there have been overruns - and guess what? The contractors are bearing a lot of those costs! In Seattle, local government tends to side with the people and isn't an arm of the construction/development business the way it is here.

Look at this website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/

A project budget! A sources and uses table! A project timeline! Frequent and useful press releases! Explanations of problems and outlines of solutions!

And independent oversight!: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2014/01/13_StepsMeetDBEGoal.htm

Contrast that with this: http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/index.html

The soon to be 13 year and counting WTC rebuilding project. A website of glowing self-praise and a bunch of "biggest" "tallest" "world class" bullshit. Beautiful portrayals of things that will be built to a lesser standard than depicted. Not one ounce of substance.

While the crusade continues against abatements, it would be wonderful to have a fully informed conversation about them - that recognises all of the elements in play and not just the convenient cherry-picked aspects that make for a salacious "gotcha".

The administration points to the need for development and job creation while paying lip service to the education piece.

The "anti" crowd pretends as though every bit of development would happen were there no abatements (and that it would happen just as quickly) and that a straight up comparison between what a development would generate in unabated tax dollars vs. PILOT payments received via abatements is actually a valid exercise. Rubbish. Some of these places have sat vacant for decades, through several bull real estate markets and but for incentives most, if not all, would continue to be undeveloped. Development that generates revenue now is worth much more than dollars ten or twenty years from now - and it is certainly worth more than revenue that never appears.

Brigid, the latest new self-anointed sheriff among the anti-abatement crowd, would have you believe that the cost/benefit analysis performed when an abatement is issued is a trifling exercise. And yet people who have been engaged statewide on this issue for a long time (the Eagleton Institute at Rutgers, for instance) have come up with tools for evaluating the appropriateness of cost allocation among new development. Sometimes using these tools generate answers that are too precise - such as a building that is forecast to result in an additional 1.8 students to the district. Yes, there is no such thing as .8 of a student - and yet it's often issues like "tell me what 0.8 of a student looks like?" that becomes the focal point of discourse rather than the substantive issues.

The Schools Canard. The point that gets lost in the whole diatribe about the school funding imbalance - and one that is not emphasised for obvious political reasons - is that the lion's share of funding received by the JC school district (somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% I believe) comes from the state, because of its (the state's) takeover of the city's schools through the "Abbot" designation. (That Abbot designation, btdubs, is the reason why Jersey City gets free PreK - a topic many of the anti-abatement crowd also has an interest in because the recently introduced possibility their free day care might become a little less convenient....)

So, while sure - as the recipient of an abatement I pay nothing into the school district and the unabated tax payer pays an extra tax - the entirety of the revenue generated by the school tax is much, much smaller than it should be. Why should that matter in terms of the fairness between me and the unabated tax payer? Because many of the unabated taxpayers are underpaying on their property taxes due to the lack of a revaluation. You can't have this conversation about what's fair without looking at the whole picture - if I'm paying a larger overall PILOT than you are in conventional, school and county taxes combined on an item of equal value, how is that fair?

Further complicating the math on abatements vs. traditional property taxes is the fact that there is no "typical" abatement.
I'll use myself as an example. I pay more than double in abatement what Yvonne was paying in property taxes before she sold her place downtown. In a condo. I bought my place at the top of the market in 2007 and the abatement is simply a percentage of the sales price. If I had bought the same condo from the developer three years later, my abatement payment would be 25% lower, at least. Anyone who bought in the run up from probably 2003 through 2008 is likely overpaying. People who bought in 2009 through 2011 might be underpaying. Abatements granted to rental building are, for the most part, tied to rents - so as the rental market rises and falls, so do PILOT receipts.

If I opted out of my abatement, my tax payment would be lower than the PILOT payment. Had I done it in 2010, it would have been a lot lower than my current PILOT. So why haven't I? Because who the hell knows if or when a reval is going to happen and what the result would be?

So while its nice to have a newbie come along asking questions and educating herself on an issue that has been discussed, studied and researched extensively for the past thirty years (at least), it would be even better if the issue could be approached objectively and honestly rather than from a position of bias that is supported by "research" that is sourced to support the bias. I have yet to hear/read an opinion on this topic (for or against) that was honestly objective.

Quote:

So if you were mayor, what would you cut?

Parking is not the issue before the council tonight. A tax giveaway to a developer with a history of failure and fraud is what the council will be voting on - and although the mayor's policy would dictate the developer should apply for a ten-year abatement, the developer is opting to utlitze the "buy-up" provision for a 20-year deal.

That's incorrect, Yvonne. The initial vote was 4-4, but much later in the meeting Danny Rivera changed his vote and it passed. Final vote for adoption is tonight.

The city council will be considering a 20-year tax abatement for a 265-unit project near Journal Square called "25 Senate Place". The developer (an LLC specific to 25 Senate Place) is comprised of common ownership and management of Metro Homes, LLC. Metro Homes is the developer who built Trump in JC (ultimately went bankrupt and never built the second tower), The Esparanza in Asbury Park (bankrupt, partially built), Gulls Cove (failed to build second phase) and the Belmont in Hoboken - for which Metro Homes received a judgment of $6.3 million against it last year for consumer fraud.

Abatements have their place. But should the city be granting incentives to a group that has repeatedly demonstrated it is incapable of completing projects larger than 70 units? As eager as the Ward C councilman is to see this project go forward and spark revitalisation west of the square (which I agree, is needed), isn't it worse if the city ends up with yet another unfinished project in an area that already is horribly blighted? What about the developer's proven questionable business practices? Should the city be subsidizing someone who has been found liable for committing fraud in a related endeavor? And the abatement for Gulls Cove was granted based on the completion of two phases - the developer claims he can't get financing for phase 2 and yet he can get financing to build in a much less desirable area?

Tomorrow night is the second council reading on this ordinance. If you believe that granting an abatement for this project (and to this developer) is inappropriate, come to the meeting and be heard.

1. Everyone thinks they are middle class.
2. Move to Maplewood. You can pay $20,000 a year in property taxes. $8,000 is nothing.
3. I'm sure you can find a pre-K that costs $20,000, but you'd be a fool to pay it. You can go to a quality private high school for a good bit less than that. I'm sure story time and naps at the $10k 3-year old "school" are just as rewarding as at the Harvard of daycare.

I live downtown. I'm not trying to pit anybody against anyone. Just a little tired of the entitled and/or NIMBY bitching. I agree that the city isn't going to fully turn the corner (and even become an "above-average Mid-sized city") until families can stay, but I don't see how subsidizing Pre-K for folks who can comfortably afford it has anything to do with that.

Quote:

It is the law. The law should be changed. Of course not everyone who lives in downtown is wealthy - but those who are doing well (look at median household incomes for the HP, VVP, Liberty Harbor and Newport census tracts - well over $100k per household and at or near the top 5% in the nation threshold) should be paying their way. Yes, something could/should be done in terms of developer contributions to education - but that is a different issue. The amount of entitlement downtown is shocking. The micro units was a great example. This is another one.

Quote:

And then there's this, from the same article: "Barocas noted that New Jersey courts have sided with privacy over transparency, as in a 2005 case concerning the appointment book for a Middlesex County attorney."

Quote:

Interesting you should mention right after the election... you started posting here the day after the election and have racked up something north of 800 posts in about 10 months - the majority of them bitching about Fulop in any way imaginable. What was your job in the old administration? Or your husband's?

Let's be honest.... if "the Jersey" had requested Healy's calendar, Jerry would have chuckled and, after a lot of back and forth, handed the reporter a fistful of balled-up cocktail napkins with scribbles on them.

Quote:

Except for the part about Richardson threatening and menacing board members at BOE meetings. I think that should disqualify him from consideration.

Quote:

Newark Ave. continues on past sixth street?? Huh.

If I'm De Blasio, I shrug my shoulders and ask "who the hell is Steven Fulop"?

Quote:

But man, if you ever want to go see a movie and not have to put up with people texting or having cell phone conversations, Florida is a paradise.

What is special about the Loews aside from the building itself? It certainly isn't the programming. In it's current form, it's not much more than a magnificent cathedral. Okay if you also happen to be a worshipper of that particular religion (in this case, dated films shown a couple times a month to small audiences and small scale community events) but not much more than an upclose look at a wonderful old building if you aren't.

FOTL did a nice job of 1) preventing the Loews from being torn down and 2) restoration on a shoestring. But lets face it - what the Loews needs now isn't elbow grease. It needs money (in the tens of millions) and professional programming. FOTL has demonstrated they have neither - and the city doesn't have the money to spend (or borrow) to do it. And if the money is going to be spent, then why not put programming in there that appeals to the broader population and not a small group of fetishists?

My understanding is that the city has determined the lease was never valid. FOTL knows this and although they bluster in letters on their website to try to curry public sympathy, they know they have no argument if legal push comes to shove.

I think the city's desire to keep FOTL involved in programming is a show of good faith. Maybe the number needs to be more than 20 and a guarantee needs to be put in place for that number, but other than that, much of FOTL's case seems to be misguided.

"not just showing off" is valid criticism? I read it as petulant gibberish.

Don't know whether the state does, but the city does all the time. Makes me think it's possible the state would as well.

Quote:

The embankment depends on getting an irrational person to agree to end a fight that he is emotionally invested in continuing. It's not even really about dollars any more. Short of that person having a prolonged moment of clarity and reason, it will take more years for the thing to wend it's way through the courts.

I don't think he'll resign (or be forced out), but I think if this part has legs, he's out of serious contention for the GOP 2016 Pres. nomination.

Say good night, Chris.