stc4blues wrote:
Quote:

kencares wrote:
The embankment park can be 100% funded by private and corporate donations, as long as we preserve it until the funding comes through. Have your sewers and and your fancy parks too.

Yes. There's a lot of big real estate money coming into the City, not to mention the folks who store their art collections at Mana Contemporary. If the citizens of Jersey City say loud and clear "we want this and we'll support it" the money will come. Not automatically, of course, donors will have to be courted, etc. But the money will be there.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

stc4blues wrote:

That's almost 60M tourists right across the river, annually. What would it take to get 1% of them across the Hudson to JC?

a fuckton more than a walking park. now where's that casino thread...

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Wasn't there some chatter about making the space part of a light rail expansion if the park concept doesn't work out?

bodhipooh wrote: Quote:

stc4blues wrote: Quote:

If you're arguing that it wouldn't cost that much though, you're going to lose that argument. Some how, some way, I promise you it would end up costing almost half a billion, if not more.

I don't know what the Embankment project would actually cost, but $500M is an extravagant over-estimate. Chicago's Millennium Park covers 24.5 acres, required considerable construction and landscaping, a starchitect (Frank Gehry), 2 or 3 major artists and it was 'only' $475M (a decade ago). The Embankment isn't on that scale.

Perhaps 500 MM was an exaggeration, but I am fairly confident that EasyGibson is onto something. I would not be at all surprised if such a project would clock in at around 100 MM after all is said and done. The LSP bridge, which is tiny in length, and which didn't require any additional work to the area around it, clocked in at almost 1MM (after more than a year to discuss, plan, and complete) and that was 3 years ago. The embankment will require a TON of time and money to rehabilitate for "safe use" and the collection of bridges, passages, etc will require a lot of approvals and costly designs and construction. I am not saying that the area should be razed or given to a developer, but corybraiterman is not crazy to suggest that a grand level park could at least satisfy the desire for more green spaces without bankrupting a city that is already stretched thin in so many areas. It seems like a lot of the proponents for this Highline-style design are dishonestly portraying this debate as having two choices: elevated park or more development. We could have a ground level park and still enjoy a great many benefits. The Highline idea sounds like a pipe dream to me given the budgetary realities.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

In Berlin on Wednesday, Fred Dixon, the chief executive of New York?s tourism-marketing agency, NYC & Company, plans to announce a forecast of 59.7 million visitors this year. That would exceed last year?s record of 58.3 million visitors by 2.4 percent

Quote:

As of 2010, Atlanta is the seventh-most visited city in the United States, with over 35 million visitors per year.

Quote:

"Last year [2012] we broke a record. We had 42 million people visit the city of Atlanta. We?ve never had that many visitors before," the mayor said.

What are the commonalities again?

stc4blues wrote: A Glorified Sidewalk, and the Path to Transform Atlanta

Planners now say Atlanta?s population, which stands at about 463,000, could double in the next 15 years. Many of the new residents could end up living along the BeltLine. In a study this year, Mr. Leinberger and a colleague, Michael Rodriguez, showed that areas they identified as ?walkable urban places? in the nation?s 30 largest metro areas were gaining market share over car-dependent suburban areas for ?perhaps the first time in 60 years,? and earning higher rental premiums. The High Line in New York, which turned an elevated stretch of Manhattan rail line into a linear park, is perhaps the best known of the nation?s urban infrastructure makeovers. Chicago?s has also converted an old elevated track into a greenway, christening it the 606. Miami?s Underline is reimagining 10 miles of underused land under its elevated Metrorail system as an art-lined ?urban trail.? Still, many say Atlanta?s plans stand out. Private investment along the entire proposed route has surged to $3 billion. Foundations and private donors have given more than $54 million for paths, parks and other amenities. Home prices have risen in formerly overlooked working-class neighborhoods where the BeltLine is set to expand. Candidates in the 2017 mayoral race, meanwhile, are turning BeltLine promises into central elements of their campaigns.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:

Your point is that the city shouldnt spend money on anything but basic shit like parking lots/[quote]

It isn't, but I'm not surprised you're so stupid that you think that's my point.

[quote]and things like the highline which has brought world class attention to nyc

Bullshit. It's a tiny addition to the biggest tourist city in the entire country/hemisphere/world. Good for NYC, it's quite literally one of a thousand things to see and do as a tourist there.

Quote:

are a complete waste of money.

For this city? Yes it is

Quote:

Again the highline aspiration is a bit much for JC and i dont think its necessary for the embankment but theres still room for basic historic conservation especially for public green spaces without blowing obscene amounts of $.

Finally, some sense of reason...

Quote:

Bridges with stairs and fences wont cost millions of dollars and maintenance of the trail itself can be handled by volunteers.

Aaaaaaaand it's gone. You really have zero idea what infrastructure costs, do you. Go look it up. I'll wait.

corybraiterman wrote:
i don't, but keep trying and failing. it's pretty funny when people try and make assumptions and fuck them up full 100. you take what might've been a passable insult and fuck it all up with inapplicable stupidity. that and you stupid fuckers can't even argue the substance of my point so you turn into little kids with the insults. you have no backbone, can't argue the point and can't even make a diss that makes sense.

but hey, keep it up, it makes me look better and you look dumber every time.

corybraiterman wrote:
i don't have any kids or a car, but thanks for playing. also i've been living in jersey city for 30 years, so you can SMD

JPhurst wrote:
The public did not have use of the Embankment when the bridges were there 12-15 years ago. It was abandoned right of way.

With Green Villan's vision for the Bergen Arches, the Embankment has potential to be part of something even larger. It's worth fighting for.

corybraiterman wrote:
rebuilding the bridges and fences along with the upkeep on them is a large cost. razing it and making them ground level parks would be a lot less costly in the long run if you really want another park. personally, i'd just rather sell it to a developer at a real price who has to adhere to current or near-current height restrictions and invest the money into infrastructure upgrades that are a lot more needed but a lot less glamorous than a park.

like the sewers that break every. single. year. and are getting more and more overworked as the city grows. but hey, fck me for a little practicality, ammirite?

07310 wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:

But will the milennials want to buy in high cost areas or gtavitate towards up and coming affordable ones ?

They will buy at whatever level they can afford, they are the same as everyone when buying RE.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
It's also a matter of time before the Snake People (Millennials, for those of you not in the know) start buying homes.

Really? All the millennials I know are lucky to pay their student loans & rent, if they're not living in their parents basement. I've had several tenants with over $100k in loans.

The oldest Millennials are 34, and they won't be stuck in those basements forever. Even if they are just renting, that's still going to put pressure on all housing costs.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
I have talked with a friend on that and we agree. The more ruckus we can do to make people aware the better for the curve adjustment - I intend to stay. What is really puzzling is the aussies that keep buying $2M houses. Regardless of steady income why would one do this right now?

One must assume they think it's a better investment than other options. Might be in the long run. But there's no way they're getting enough rent to justify the cost in strict business terms. Assuming a cash investment they'd have to be NETTING $8,300/mo just to make a 5% cap rate. Any idea what those houses actually rent for?

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
[quote]
thor800 wrote:
Should someone that bought a house 10 years ago for $750K now worth $1.5M with taxes at $10K have to pay an increase in $20K after the reval ? I disagree that this is worth lowering someone in Greenville's taxes $2k as a measure of "fairness" if both are using the same resources.

Value can be extremely subjective indicator and I personally (taxes set to double after the reval depending on assessment) feel that dtjc will be subsidizing other areas JC way more than they are subsidizing us now.

The "resource use" argument is a nonstarter, as already pointed out. Do you really not have any idea how privileged and whiney you sound? You want your high value but don't want to be taxed on it.

Since you apparently value low taxes more than high equity and are probably under 62, you're the perfect customer for the city run lien bonding I propose that would be like reverse mortgage in it's effect.

Privileged and whiney because my taxes are set to skyrocket based on a superficial measure of value ? I guess it doesn't matter because I could just sell and leave ? What about longtime owners that have no desire to leave ? High value appreciation in a short time is great for flippers and investors but can screw regular owners.

Obviously this is a mute point because that's how NJ does things, but again if you had actually read my posts and not just jumped to a brainless conclusion, I was responding in context to the CivicJC article which stated that the reval should occur because it would bring fairness to JC's property taxes and people in areas that have not appreciated are paying slightly too much will see a slight reduction while dtjc's will see a skewed opposite.

I am not opposed to paying my fair share, but what is fair aside from what the state says is law ? Again, most likely mute point if the city has little say in the matter but I still disagree regarding CivicJC's point that the reval should be done based on tax fairness.

Also, Jersey City's prop taxes aren't high. In fact, they are slightly below average for our state.

NJ's average property tax rate is 2.333. Jersey City's is 2.216.

There are hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans who are paying higher rates and getting inferior services. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are paying higher taxes every year while the value of their home is in decline. (NJ has many towns who are still losing Equalized Valuation despite the recovery)

The plight of people who live in properties that have appreciated tremendously should be a low priority for municipal and state sympathy.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/ ... urces/property_tax.html#1

papadage wrote:
That's why the reassessments should be frequent once they are done at all.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:

Thanks for the english lesson. By the way its privileged not privileges.

Dt will be subsidizing rest of the city soon. People whining about paying taxes too high could appeal them now

Meh, that's how society functions. People who have more pay more. Such is life. I say this as someone who is likely to see his bill double.

Frankly, the idea that there is someone Greenville are paying an extra $2k so I can save $10k disgusts me.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
People whining about paying taxes too high could appeal them now

Yes, they could get them reduced...to only twice what you're paying.

papadage wrote:
Some people are paying double what they should to subsidize wealthier people.

You do sound privileges and whiny.

And the word is moot.. not mute.. moot.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Should someone that bought a house 10 years ago for $750K now worth $1.5M with taxes at $10K have to pay an increase in $20K after the reval ? I disagree that this is worth lowering someone in Greenville's taxes $2k as a measure of "fairness" if both are using the same resources.

Value can be extremely subjective indicator and I personally (taxes set to double after the reval depending on assessment) feel that dtjc will be subsidizing other areas JC way more than they are subsidizing us now.

The "resource use" argument is a nonstarter, as already pointed out. Do you really not have any idea how privileged and whiney you sound? You want your high value but don't want to be taxed on it.

Since you apparently value low taxes more than high equity and are probably under 62, you're the perfect customer for the city run lien bonding I propose that would be like reverse mortgage in it's effect.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
[quote]
Taking on a reverse mortgage is a big commitment though depending on the interest rate.

The better thing to do would take an adjusted average of the current market value and a tiered increasing of property taxes so that a scenario where taxes would double or triple is avoided. Simply adding more leverage to the equation isn't necessarily the best answer though it might be the only option if the city has little leeway for the reval terms.

Yes, of course you're right. It WOULD be much better for those homeowners to continue to be subsidized rather than have the bother of borrowing against their large equity. But that's not the way this works.

And what's so scary about the mortgage? you pay it off at sale, or sooner if you decide you no longer need it. The free lunch is over. I'm a little daunted too, I expect my tax to go up $10-15k, but this is inevitable, and I've done very well owning my DT property.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Exactly! I have a friend who purchased a brownstone in 1978 downtown on 3rd and Erie for $38k. Once the reval happens he will no longer be able to afford the tax bill because he is now retired but I don't fell bad for him a bit, because he house is worth 1.7 million its a two family brownstone. He has been looking for a smaller house to buy up the hill (Bergen Lafayette and Greenville) and sell before the reval happens.

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but it bears repeating, NO ONE WITH MASSIVE EQUITY AND LOW INCOME SHOULD LOSE THEIR HOME!! All your friend would need to do to stay is do a reverse mortgage, where the bank loans him the tax money every year to be paid back upon sale, plus interest. His house will likely continue to appreciate every year far more than the tax he is asked to pay out of his house's value. Does anyone seriously think a Downtown home will not appreciate at least 3% annually on average for the next 20 years? There's your tax and interest.

The only people who might have to sell are those who bought recently and stretched themselves thin to do it, and have no reserves to pay more tax, and neither have the equity for a reverse mortgage or do not meet the 62 age requirement. The latter is one reason I advocate the city create a lien bond system more citizen friendly than simply selling off delinquent liens.