neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Mmmm wrote:
Looks like it closed again in November 2019... any one know if there are any plans to reopen or is it gone for good? At least the Hudson mall is still going ..

I thought it closed before November 2019 maybe not. I looked at the HM property management website it shows that space is available for lease. I used to go to the Bayonne South Cove movie theater until it closed. Now it is off to Secaucus or Clifton to see a movie. I am surprised no one is jumping on it and opening it again seeing that they are building thousands of new apartments right down the street on the MOT property. I guess the same could be said for the HM theater with the new modern apartment buildings going up on the other side of rt 440.

This is a pretty good website to get information on old theaters. I remember the HM theater looking like that. The entrance was on the side. Notice the number of screen's history. As I mentioned in other posts the HM was the place to go to in the 70?s always packed. Parking spots in front and rear of the mall were full most of the time.

Cinema Treasures

http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/1616

.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
It would have been a lot easier if you admit what you originally wrote, that is PILOT owners would pay less on property taxes than the payment in lieu. That is what I responded to. It is on you to correct what you have written.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
You wrote:

"Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! "

"Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218"

The 1st paragraph is wrong. The second paragraph is correct. Take a deep breath. Do you understand the problem?

Now, back to the original thread title. If all PILOTS were to expire overnight, yes indeed there would be less (tax) revenue for the municipal government** and more for the school district. However, all other things remain equal, Jersey City would still remain an Abbott school district.

Collectively, there is not enough revenue among the municipality and the school district. The district has a big budget deficit. That redistribution of tax revenue would only go towards plugging the district deficit, while creating a deficit in the municipal budget (short term)

I'll let you do the math, i sure am not going to do so on my phone - but the MUNICIPAL property tax rate would increase dramatically on the 100% PILOT overnight expiry. That will create great economic harm to many JC residents. There is a very good reason why JC was designated as an Abbott district.

Also it would be counterproductive to NJS, despite all their school aid doled out to the district, the City does generate a lot of tax revenue for the State, much like NYC overwhelmingly does for NYS. How much that is above my pay grade, but I bet it is very significant. The folks in Trenton should realize that. That shock in residents and commercial property taxes would hurt the local economy. Leas economic activity means less revenue for the State.

Overtime, as PILOTs do expire and RE development activity drops off, then I could see JC losing its Abbott status. That is less shocking - fiscally, economically, and the thought itself.

Losing such status - it is not quite there, yet. **In part, with emphasis on "in part" due to what you meant to write originally - a big drop in revenue for the municipality.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

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

As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.

You still write a lot of nonsense.

Here is what you do. Go to the city's website, finance section. Click on a link for the "User Friendly Budget" in that budget, there is a sheet that lists all PILOTS - what they currently pay and what they would/will be paying if it is not an abatement. Compare the two lists. You will see that you are wrong.

It is really as simple as that. There is no mystery. It's a simple fact.

Alternatively you can simply look up the definition of "abatement". It will be time better spent than typing out ignorant comments.

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

azsrz wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.

Look at the numbers it will probably be around 2%, not too bad. And many of the abatements are going to expire soon. IMO they should put the rate at 1.8% like many people expected and start increasing from there so there wouldn't be another outcry like the reval.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:


"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

Well that's the argument of the state, not necessarily the law.

The argument simply begs the question - whether the SFRA, as amended by S2, is constitutional. One way the legislature was able to convince the court it was, was that it provided for the hold harmless/adjustment aid. The aid that Jersey City and other Abbott districts received was based on prior court findings and mandates.

SFRA tried to cobble that all into a one size fits all formula. If they had not included the hold harmless/adjustment aid, the court may very well have rejected the formula entirely, because it would be ignoring the needs that had been demonstrated and the remedies that had been ordered.

SFRA used anodyne terms such as "local fair share" and "adequacy budget" in order to sell the SFRA as equitable. It doesn't mean one way or another that those terms have meaning as applied to the NJ Constitution's requirement for the state to provide a thorough and efficient education.

MDM wrote:
With just a quarter inch of snow the roads were as slippery as dog snot. I don't recall seeing any brine trucks overnight or this morning spraying the roads with brine. JC had this issue last winter with the salt trucks getting very late on the roads.

JCGuys wrote:
We need a new slate that will defund the school board and keep taxes low.

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.

K-Lo2 wrote:
Unless most of those millionaires were renters, someone (other than Dixon Leasing in one city) is buying all of that real estate. Odds are most of them are millionaires too. What don't I get?

JC_Man wrote:
Almost four SIX years on and STILL not complete. Amazing - your tax dollars hard at work.

NO accountability for the government.

brewster wrote:
So we have a problem, we have a shitty system with some of the best paid teachers in the country. Go figure.

biggoron wrote:
The house looks like it is for sale and/or up for a foreclosure auction. Taxes are $18,265 which does not seem right for a home that :
Quote:

One of the two two bathrooms in the story-home had no running water and had corroded sinks and bathtubs, the source said. The entire second floor, where the dogs were kept, was covered with feces.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/54- ... y-NJ-07302/38888459_zpid/

On_The_3rd wrote:
That's a difficult location that really only seems to cater to the after-work, #crispyboys crowd. I still can't believe that Greene Hook, which is only a few blocks away, is still in business. Their food has always been ok-to-decent but I've never seen the space filled.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I really hope that last post is a joke. But, if it isn't... why would anyone think/assume/believe that Animal Control can and should locate, trap, and dispose of random wildlife making its way into private property?

[sarcasm]
Ill be sure to call Animal Control the next time a bird flies into my place!
[/sarcasm]

Actually, yes, that is within their mission. But it seems like their primary job is being non-responsive so as to make whatever it is the citizens problem. They will not even return a call. Even the nice workers at LHS admit as much. Lord help you if instead of calling them 10 times till they send someone with a trap you rescue a cat yourself but are unable to keep it. You might as well put it out on the street again, even the cat rescues won't take it. Ask me how I know, the kitten is making our elderly cat miserable.

http://www.libertyhumane.org/animal_response_team
Quote:

The Animal Response Team serves Jersey City, Hoboken and Bayonne. If you live outside of these areas you need to contact your municipal Health Department or Police Department for assistance in reaching your animal services provider.

Contact the Animal Response Team Anytime If:

-You have found an injured or sick stray animal (this includes wildlife)

-You have found and confined a stray domestic animal

-You are witnessing possible animal cruelty or neglect

-There is a stray animal who appears to be dangerous

-There is a wild animal in your living space that cannot escape

JC_Man wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Taphaus as well.

https://jerseydigs.com/jersey-city-talde-and-taphaus-close/

Well-deserved - service sucked and the food was worse.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Bread wrote:
If this new place is looking to draw it's clientele from NYC, then they should stay in NYC. Who needs them here?

Shouldn't a city that's going through a financial crisis and is increasingly forced to raise taxes be accepting of anybody that wants to come here and spend money and contribute to the local economy? If you want to live in some insular community, there are plenty of shit suburbs in NJ where you'll never have to worry about anyone coming to visit.

D_Nasir_McClain wrote:
Quote:

sullyx wrote:
Quote:

D_Nasir_McClain wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Hey Cuomo today just signed a bill designed to give scum like this a drivers license. With a drivers license undocumented people can vote in NY. Further the bill limits the dentention time allowed to hold criminal illegals. I'm sure that dope Murphy will be on board soon.

This simply isn't true, undocumented persons will not be able to vote as the requirements to register are:

- Be a United States citizen;
- Be 18 years old by December 31 of the year in which you file this form (note: you must be 18 years old by the date of the general, primary or other election in which you want to vote);
- Resident of this state and the county, city or village for at least 30 days before the election;
- Not be in prison or on parole for a felony conviction (unless parolee pardoned or restored rights of citizenship);
- Not be adjudged mentally incompetent by a court;
- Not claim the right to vote elsewhere.

And the bill has no provisions regarding detention, incarceration or any other form of detainment.

The point is the animal that killed Ms. Carolina was a bad dude and his citizenship status has nothing to do with that.

1. if they are already here illegally what's to stop them from checking the box claiming they are a US citizen and registering to vote? --- NOTHING
2. he was here illegally after being deported twice, his status has everything to do with her being dead at his hands.

What? Checking a box is not how we prove our citizenship in this country. We have these things called Social Security Cards and Birth Certificates.

...at voting polls you're typically required to bring two forms of ID one of which is those documents that "undocumented" people wouldn't have.

K-Lo2 wrote:
https://www.ny.gov/services/register-vote

Social Security number required

D_Nasir_McClain wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Here is a link to what NY requires someone to possess in order to vote.


https://www.voteriders.org/ufaqs/new-york-voter-id-information/

You should probably try getting your voter registration requirements from the state in question and not some non-profit from Santa Monica, California. Notice the .gov... that's official

https://www.elections.ny.gov/VotingRegister.html

T-Bird wrote:
What the hell is wrong with people?

dcourts1984 wrote:
Cant wait for this Dixon era to come to an end. Never healthy to have one institution own such a large share and concentration of properties in one area.

Cutting your dividend to 1% from 5% spells significant issues at the investor/master fund level. As that fund winds down or massive redemptions, the forced liquidation of their assets in downtown JC will be interesting to watch. As a resident, what you don't want is them making the market and having a massive downfall where they have to sell a significant amount of their properties in a short amount of time.

Either way, not healthy for the market. They have ability to control and move market on way up and same could be said for the way down.

val7101 wrote:
The issue is that if you are living in a building where lots of units are Air Bnb then they need to let you know up front so you can decide if you want to live with that.
If you have a building that's completely AirBnb then it needs to have signage indicating that so once again, people can decide if they want to live there.
I wouldn't live in a building with strangers constantly coming in and out, and neither would a lot of other people.
Second, how do people not see what this does to the housing market? Not to mention neighborhoods.
There is a big difference between people renting their house here and there or even a room, particularly if it's owner occupied.