mscottc wrote:
He makes a very valid point about media and liberalism, one I've been making to my more conservative friends for quite a while now. Journalism as a career tends to attract liberals. I'm making a very generalized statement, and yes there are some very good conservative journalists. But all in all, most Journalists get into the business to help enlighten the world, to change the world for what they perceive is a better way. These are people who do lean liberal. But, and hear this very carefully, most good journalists realize their only real stock in trade is their reputation for fairness and honesty. They work very hard to report the news as they see it, verifying facts, double or triple sourcing what they put on the air or in print. I don't know the standards at NJ.com, but I know the standards where I work. I'm proud of the work the journalists I support do. And I know they do all they can to present a fair and balanced reporting of the day's news.

Monroe wrote:
JC taxpayers pay such a tiny percentage of the school budget it shouldn?t be much. And JC residents will still be umdertaxed by NJ standards, by the tax assessment per $100,000 of home value.

Yvonne wrote:
First, there are 55,000 other taxpayers in JC besides [me]

but apparently, it went down from the proposed 47% to 39%, so we have something to be happy about.

Secondly, no one living in a tax abatement building will see an increase

nor someone living in rent control since their increase are based on the rent leveling board of one to four percent.

So this is an unfair tax increase since it only affects one group of citizens in JC.

Then you have the fact the Councilman Solomon froze rents including 2 to 4 families, excluding owner occupied during this 39% increase. The frozen rents stops in August but I am sure Solomon will want an extension.

135jc wrote:
Some help all the building and business increase of the last 20 yrs has done to help keep taxes down.

JCGuys wrote:
It will be very interesting to see if Jersey City will be able to break even on this development with the economy catering.

Those bond interest payments still must be made.

brewster wrote:
As for Europe, I assume the construction and operation of those underground is subsidized like most European infrastructure. We don't roll like that in "what's in it for ME" America.

Yvonne wrote:
It is obvious some folks on JClist do not go to public meetings in various neighborhoods, it is not Yvonne, it is hundreds of people complaining about loss parking, especially bikes lanes at the expense of cars. There were hundreds of people at Hudson Catholic School including St. Peter's University, making the same complaint. Not to mention, the businesses that are hurt because shoppers go else. Really, how selfish are some comments. In fact the city should do a survey on the people of people that shop in Bayonne or other towns due to the loss of parking.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
How could such a goal be accomplished? Eliminate the scourge of R1 Housing Zoning in the Heights.

A Bayonne Box can easily rent for around $2,500. If that same plot of land housed four or six units, the property owner could rent for a lot less while still making a very handsome profit.

But what about the PARKING!!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting article in the Times yesterday. It's possible density may finally be getting talked about as a solution to high costs instead of rent control.

Everything You Think You Know About Housing Is Probably Wrong
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/art ... ng-skyscraper-museum.html

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

MikeyTBC wrote:
No chance they're letting all the old residents come back. I'm guessing a lottery to access something like 5% of the new units. Just enough for it to qualify as "mixed-income"

Honestly, I would be surprised if even THAT happens. The cynic in me just thinks or assumes that the developer will agree to some terms, then turn around and petition the council for a variance to have the low-income units replaced with housing built elsewhere, as has been done by so many other developers. I know Fulop is on the record as saying he will not allow for this, but we have seen him go back on his word on other things, and if you have the right connections, I can see a developer pushing for that again, and again.

I agree with JCGuys that we should move away from the concept of "concentration of poverty" but mixed income housing seldom works out as it is billed: some (most) people don't want to live next to others they deem poorer, mixed income housing will often treat their low-income residents differently (sometimes openly, others overtly) and developers and pols have made a mockery of the concept itself by allowing developers to satisfy their commitments by building the approved low-income units in completely different areas of town.

If we are going to institute policies that strive to integrate people more closely, then adhere to those ideals and commitments. Don't just say something and do something else.

JC_Man wrote:
Who is paying for this?

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Then who is buying up all of this real estate? I realize the real estate market in NYC and some areas of NNJ have cooled in part. But that's in part because the numbers had reached super, super stratospheric heights. Still, even with the dip, prices are high and people are still buying expensive real estate. In Asbury Park at least 20 units in the Ocean Club sold for anywhere from $1mm to $5mm. Properties in JC are still moving as are properties in the several million mark in NYC. It seems to me there's plenty of money floating around.

A lot (most?) of the high end real estate in NYC/Manhattan is being snapped up by foreigners who don't have to pay state taxes on income. As the real estate market in NYC has remained hot for so long, people have been pushed out into other areas, such as the ones you point out in your message. In many ways, Jersey City, and much of NJ, has benefitted from the overly-hot NYC real estate market, as people leave NY and relocate here.

The problem with foreigners snapping up real estate (which is also a problem locally in JC, btw) is that it can artificially inflate a local market but those buying properties don't contribute to state coffers much, if at all. They are not subject to state income taxes, and property taxes are super low in NYC.

biggoron wrote:

My presumption is that people are leaving the rural parts of the state for which jobs and the weather (for upstate NY) are much bigger factors then taxes. In the urban areas across the country (NYC, SF, etc) I see housing prices as more of a problem then taxes or other factors, but I doubt cities and towns will allow for sufficient density to meet demand.

Mao wrote:
What did Fr. Quinn say? In the paper I thought he said something like: "THis is painful for us, but that person is welcome here anytime.:

I don't know. Can't one say: that person unless he's criminally insane should be punished and held accountable. Then we can welcome him.