richieveal wrote:
Not crazy about the atmosphere, only have been there twice. The first time I wasn't that impressed, the second time was much better but my go to place was always Presto's. Now since they are gone I do like the new place but am open to trying Abbondanza again.

dmark526 wrote:
I will hold my nose and vote for Menendez for one reason. If there is an impeachment trial in the senate, the Dems would have to control the senate to have any chance of getting to the 67 votes required for removal from office. If anyone other then that whacko were in the WH, I would be voting for Hugin.


Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Wow. So you guys would rather vote for a confirmed pedophile and corrupt asswipe in menendez, than a reasonably good GOP moderate candidate simply because he's a Republican. And spare me, I'm not a republican. And I rarely vote for them. But this is beyond the pale.

My bad. You all are the same dopes who gave Booker a seat at the table too. My bad. I forgot who I was dealing with.

So going forward, you tits have no right to complain about anything that goes awry in this state.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Wow. So you guys would rather vote for a confirmed pedophile and corrupt asswipe in menendez, than a reasonably good GOP moderate candidate simply because he's a Republican. And spare me, I'm not a republican. And I rarely vote for them. But this is beyond the pale.

My bad. You all are the same dopes who gave Booker a seat at the table too. My bad. I forgot who I was dealing with.

So going forward, you tits have no right to complain about anything that goes awry in this state.

I'm not a huge fan of Menendez, but those accusations have been thoroughly discredited by legitimate news organizations. Not worth arguing with people that don't care about the truth.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

?Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.?

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here?s what ?Stateaidguy? said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it?s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don?t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You?ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come?.

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world?s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me?.

That said, in my view, it?s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.

Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Unless the state plans to take over prosecuting everyone in JC there's not much they can do about it. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion over how they charge people.

this one reason why i'm frustrated with murphy. how the heck can he talk about legalizing recreational use of marijuana, yet put up obtsacles when fulop wants to decriminalize it

JCGuys wrote:
Yvonne, do you acknowledge the existence of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payments?

If so, do you acknowledge that most tax abated properties still send PILOT payments to the city?

neverleft wrote:
.
New Jersey A.G. to Jersey City: no, you can't decriminalize pot
Updated 2:26 PM; Posted 1:39 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald tmcdonald@jjournal.com

The Jersey Journal

JERSEY CITY ? Jersey City spent one day riding high on its new policy decriminalizing marijuana before state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal told the city's new chief prosecutor on Friday that the policy is void because it violates state criminal laws.

https://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... nt_decriminalize_pot.html

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Final rate is 1.488.

Oh man; once the rest of the state gets a whiff of that rate...

THIS. That's an incredibly low rate, which will only embolden state legislators and other municipalities to lobby for reduced financial support for JC. It's just not possible to claim poverty and inability to support the local schools when you are levying what is likely the lowest property tax rate in the entire state.

K-Lo2 wrote:
Final rate is 1.488.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
July 3rd: "This rapper guy is gonna get people shot! Oh, the humanity!"

July 5th: "He started late! Oh, the humanity!"

Gotta love JCL sometimes.

Why would anybody think a rap concert would start on time @ 8:30? I am sure the producers knew that... an hour late is being very accomodating to a rap audience on a hot night.

I saw Lavarro twitter live.. it wasn't a video of the longest soundcheck ever but it was pretty apparent he was late. Jersey City should be thankful he even showed up.

Adonis wrote:
Funny how nobody is mentioning how this "deal" is going to screw the Jersey City school system. Thanks Murphy.

jerseymom wrote:
N.J. Budget: 5 Things you Need to Know

5. School funding will be revamped.

Murphy said he will sign a bill to overhaul the state's school funding formula. Money will be shifted over seven years from districts considered overfunded under the school funding formula to underfunded districts.

No district will gain or lose more than $3.5 million next year.

More about funding overhaul

"...Jersey City, which stands to lose the most funding, is getting a special reprieve from the state. Under a separate bill, the city could levy a 1 percent payroll tax, with the school district as the sole recipient."

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Yes!! Thank you for posting, dude. This is helping some of us get the state legislature to reduce education state aid to places like JC and make JC pay for its own schools. Keep them coming!

Right I wrote the piece for nj.com. Still staking me after 2 years...how creepy of you.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Toonces wrote:
The PATH seems to be getting worse and worse every day! Emails pointing to "delays" don't really help if they don't include a general estimate on how long the delays are lasting... This morning, my train from JSQ to the WTC was delayed by ~25 minutes - a ride that usually lasts 10-12 minutes was well over half an hour. Obviously they KNOW this, so it'd be nice to be warned ahead of time so we could at least try to plan to leave the house early and account for the extra time!

I am no PATH apologist, but the PA has been issuing alerts hourly (since early this morning) letting people know to expect delays because of ongoing testing of the PTC implementation/system.

JCman24 wrote:
Good *lord* you guys are thirsty for a win, aren't you.

ActionDan wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Time is everything in a fire. Years ago, the fire union, yes union, gave a talk about safety for their men. In that talk, the most important issue was time. After a fire starts burning, it is a matter of time before a fire explodes which is deadly for fire fighters. Removing barrier or a loss of time add to this problem.

I honestly don't understand why you post things like this.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
I nominate myself to buy a round of drinks for Stateaidguy and Monroe, for bringing facts and rationality to the discussion.

I second that nomination, for stateaidguy anyway.

T-Bird wrote:
I guess those vaunted NJ suburban schools failed you. Again, the subject is Sweeney.

Go over to the Abbot thread and rub yourself blind.