Re: WAY SHORT, FULOP TOLD
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Based solely on a read of the JJ article, nowhere does it state that the City Clerk has refused to certify the petitions.
There is still time for the City Clerk to certify the petitions. To refuse to certify the petitions at this stage, based on a legal opinion of the City's Corporation Counsel, would compromise the integrity and tenured independence of the Office of the City Clerk. My understanding of the correct process is that, if the City Clerk has previously determined that the Faulkner Act standard for initiative petitions applies - which he has - then he must certify the petitions. Then, and only then, if the City believes that the certification was based on an incorrect standard or reading of the law, then it's their burden to file a challenge in court. The City (not the petitioners) would have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Municipal's Clerk's application of the Faulkner Act was incorrect. I would hope that the City Clerk, chooses to maintain the integrity and fairness of the office by doing the right thing -- and that is to to certify the petitions based on his prior determination that the Faulkner Act standard applies. The rest would be in the hands of the courts if the City chooses to file a challenge. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/7/31 22:06
|
|||
|
Re: Frank, the pizza man is running for city council ( Frank's Famous Italian Pizzeria on Monmouth )
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Frank's got my vote! I've known him for years and he'd make a fine independent Ward E council person. He should run.
Btw... as far as I recall, Frank at some point had sold his store on Monmouth to open one in the Heights. Eventually he sold that store and rebought his old one -- hence the welcome back signs. As for the rumor, you'd have to ask Frank, but his name doesn't come up as having any criminal convictions on the NJ Superior Court Convictions database. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/7/28 0:30
|
|||
|
NJDOT Traffic Control Device Procedures
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Here is the copy of the NJ State DOT Regulations and Standards for the installation of traffic control devices.
The procedures are outlined here and are pretty extensive. Needless to say it's time consuming. The sooner it's started the earlier a light will be installed at 9th & Marin. Whether the process has been started should be an easy Yes or No response from the city or our Councilman. All the best and Happy Reading. Geoff Quote: NOTE: This is a courtesy copy of this rule. The official version can be found in the New Jersey
Posted on: 2008/7/27 14:26
|
|||
|
Re: 9th & Marin crosswalk
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
It's clear a more permanent solution (definitely a traffic light) is required at this intersection.
The state NJDOT site link (www.state.nj.us/transportation ... t/rules/pdf/chapter27.pdf ) contains the NJ's Traffic Regulations and Standards under NJAC 16:27. It may be heavy reading but the procedures for traffic light approval should be contained here. (At the moment, the site appears to be down.) Rutgers performed an interesting study in 2002, which cites some of the basic standards warranting a traffic light. See p. 14, "Review and Comparison of NJ Traffic Signal Standards and Striping Schemes for Pedestrian Crossings" for some of the applicable standards and other useful information related to crosswalk issues. See www.policy.rutgers.edu/vtc/doc ... dBike.Traffic_Signals.pdf For those interested in "Speed Humps" (not bumps, really), the state legislature recently adopted legislation authorizing their use. Unfortunately, the law has certain limitations as to speed (posted speed not more than 30 mph) and traffic volume (less than 300 vehicles per day), which may restrict their use on Marin. They may be more appropriate for Erie Street, however. See http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/speedhumps/ All the best. Geoff Quote: Speed Humps
Posted on: 2008/7/26 15:16
|
|||
|
Re: With loft sales stalled, Journal Squares' Canco seeks sweeter tax abatement deal
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Back to the core of the thread.
The issue has nothing to do really with hiring JC construction workers (which should be an automatic conditionality for any abatement, if one should ever be granted in the first instance). The question is "Whether the city should essentially become a guarantor of any developer's profitability by renegotiating an already agreed upon abatement?" The answer to that question should be an automatic "No" -- and especially at this phase of the project when it's essentially a post-construction exercise. Although Councilman Fulop is correct to challenge a paulty "pay-to-play" quid pro quo of $150K in return for a renegotiated abatement, it's still not a shakedown. It's more accurately characterized as a "sell-out," for which the correct answer should be "NO RENEGOTIATION." It's also sad to say that the Councilman's pay-to-play ballot initiative (although well intentioned) will not ban this most pernicious type of pay-to-play variant. This is where pay-to-play is most visible, and this is the type of practice which JC residents should be most outraged about, as it hits everyone in the wallet. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/6/12 22:38
|
|||
|
Re: With loft sales stalled, Journal Squares' Canco seeks sweeter tax abatement deal
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
The abatement process should not be used to insure or guarantee the profitability of any developer's project.
It's just plain wrong to do this off the backs of the residential taxpayer. While promises to hire Jersey City construction workers should always be a condition for the grant of any abatement, it's a grossly insufficient trade off to justify revisiting the already agreed upon abatement. In this context, it's not a "shakedown," but more accurately, it's a cheap "give away" that the developer might willingly pay -- as the value of any renegotiated abatement is worth millions more to them. In essence, it's another variant form of pay-to-play. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/6/11 13:23
|
|||
|
Re: Mysterious Wooden Thingy on Erie St....
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
The artwork is attached to the building owned by Vladimir Dremlyuga, although I wouldn't call him mad. That would make him mad.
Is he a tough cookie? Yes, and you would be too if you spent six years in a Soviet prison. He was an activist in the Soviet dissident movement of the 1960's and one of seven Russian dissidents to be jailed for protesting the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 right in the middle of Red Square and in front of the entrance to the Kremlin. He was released as a direct result of the intervention of President Richard Nixon at the beginning of the Detente Era in the 1970's and has lived in Jersey City since that time. http://psi.ece.jhu.edu/~kaplan/IRUSS/coord.html If you see him in the empty restaurant space next to Basic's on 8th Street, ask him about the artwork. He's not scary, just very Russian to the core. All the best. G
Posted on: 2008/6/4 22:47
|
|||
|
Re: DOWNTOWN: Wheelchair-bound Puerto Rican parade president brutally assaulted, robbed
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
I met Tony in 2001 when we were both campaigning for the Ward E Council seat. Even though we were campaigning for the same position we often would meet at various campaigning hotspots and campaign together. He has always been community oriented as his accomplishments well demonstrate. Outgoing and well-known to many in Jersey City, I am sorry he had to endure this indignity, but knowing Tony, he will bounce back from this too.
We all look forward to his swift and speedy recovery, and hope the JCPD will swifty apprehend the assailants. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/5/10 23:09
|
|||
|
Re: Toll Brother\'s Travesty in the PAD
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
btw, it is not a straight forward effort, reports are filed late, many names/businesses are used/family members, it not stored in a data base, the states searchable site come up with nothing. it is anything but transparent. DanL: For the most part you are right, however, in most all cases, a significant benefit would be conferred just by simply posting the files (by office / candidate and filing period) as pdf files (exactly as filed), as the state site is pretty difficult to access even by the internet literati. I'm never gonna hold my breath for the searchable state site to work. ... and before I forget, does CivicJC have an active project / commitment to analyze the Elec Reports, and what might we expect from it? (I might even consider volunteering.) All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/5/5 15:12
|
|||
|
Re: Sharpton NYC Protests Planned for Wednesday
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
The fact that the incident occurred at all is the real crime.
It's hard to say that the prosecution put in its best performance in this case based upon the judge's written opinion; however, there most certainly will be appeals of the decision, and most likely a subsequent civil proceeding, which may have an entirely different outcome. Below is the relevant section from the NY Criminal Procedure Code regarding waivers of jury trials. Quote: ? 320.10 Non-jury trial; when authorized.
Posted on: 2008/5/4 16:58
|
|||
|
Re: Toll Brother\'s Travesty in the PAD
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Xerxes is partially correct.
We'll forgive his opinion on aesthetics, as he's entitled to that, and there's no accounting for taste. His take away conclusion that people should not waste their time is something else. Taxpaying residents can, do and should stand up for their positions on development. They have been historically successful in influencing development outcomes, albeit not everytime, and not always to the degree wished for -- which is to be expected. The old guard in the JC political scene have yet to come to grips with the fact that Downtown has changed and that people are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Time will tell and we'll see how the PADNA law suit against the city develops. The folks who have worked hard to preserve the Embankment know that it's not nearly enough to bring people to City Council meetings, and the outcome is still not assured. I personally hope the city council and the mayor's administration keep their word, on this issue. DanL: The perennial problem with JC is that, for other than the Parking Authority, it remains enforcement challenged. I am absolutely certain that the Mayor meant exactly what he said, like other mayors before him, and other council persons - current and past. They all intend to enforce the law as it is written ... and this is perhaps where Xerxes is 100% correct. This city has never seen a redevelopment plan that they could ever keep their hands off of. In making these promises, they never promised not to amend or not to change the law, as it is written -- and every mayoral administration at least in the past 30 years+ has more or less taken extreme liberties when it comes to satisfying developers in amending redevelopment plans in whole or in part and often against community interests. This practice would be considered illegal spot zoning if these properties were part of regular zoning. While it may or may not be legally proper to spot 'amend' redevelopment plans, one thing is for certain -- the impact is exactly the same as spot zoning. Nobody can count on finality or certainty with respect to development, especially as the process appears to be driven by a steady stream of campaign contributions, directly or indirectly funded by developers, by or through even their attorneys. It's unfortunate, but I don't even see how the upcoming pay-to-pay initiative will stem this problem. As much as I would love to see true reform, this will remain a problem even if the initiative is passed in November. DanL, CivicJC would really live up to its founding principles if it undertook to review and analyze all the Elec Reports of each and every current councilperson and the Mayor and post the same on your web site. The same for candidates who declare themselves for these same positions in the run up to next year's municipal elections. Now this would really be revolutionary and bring a degree of openess and transparency to the voters on development issues affecting everyone in Jersey City. Just my two cents. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/5/4 16:33
|
|||
|
Re: Jersey City Municipal Court sucks!!!
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Actually, all you need is your license plate to pull up all outstanding violations. I have to agree with Ross all around, but don't confuse incompetence for corruption, or just plain limited personnel resources for incompetent administration.
The shift to online payments is an amazingly efficient mechanism, and based on personal experience, it works. You'll be paid up in less time than you may have spent waiting on the phone line previously. http://njcourts.judiciary.state.nj.us/njmcdirect/atswepr2/home.do All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/5/2 21:56
|
|||
|
Re: Abatement revise to be approved for two downtown towers (Washington Boulevard and Sixth Street)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Jersey City has at last count 29,536 students in 41 schools.
If we're going to get into a discussion of JC schools we should consider starting a new thread. Cheers. G
Posted on: 2008/4/24 13:07
|
|||
|
Typo Correction
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
The proposed 5% from abatements would not have helped our school system at all. Even if we could have magically snapped our fingers and renegotiated a 5% for schools from all existing abatements, the amount raised would only be about $4 million out of that $80 million -- a mere pittance. We we would have left people thinking that we did something good for the school system, yet when held in context of a $600+ million school budget, the $5 million is something less than a 1% contribution. A quick correction... the reference above to $5 million (from post #12) should have been typed as $4 million. Either way, the conclusion in order of magnitude remains the same. All the best. Geoff P.S. Parkman: Thanks for the vote.
Posted on: 2008/4/24 5:46
|
|||
|
Re: Abatement revise to be approved for two downtown towers (Washington Boulevard and Sixth Street)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Hi Alb:
Although school funding and budget awareness deserves an independent thread all its own, here are a few answers, which may help you. 1. Again, at the risk of oversimplifying a complex budgetary process and series of formulas, the rough amount of yearly revenue which is diverted from schools to the Jersey City general budget by virtue of the abatement process is about $20 million or 25% of the annual abatement revenue. (I am heavily caveating the numbers and percentages here to illustrate the magnitude of what we are dealing with. The actual numbers and percentages are slightly different but the magnitude is not.) 2. I don't know if you are a property owner, but if you are, you should take a few minutes to examine the breakdown on your tax bills. Your total tax payments are distributed in varying percentages to the city, county, and schools, but the total amount of local school taxes collected from JC taxpayers is not enough to cover 100% of the JC School Budget. Where does the balance come from? Well, it comes from a reallocation State collected income taxes and comes back in a variety of offsets and equalizations under State Law, not all of which can be counted going forward into the future. For now, the State has got us covered, but given the serious budgetary ills at the State level and looming budget cuts to school spending proposed by Corzine, we should all be seriously concerned about how we spend our school budget and how we raise the necessary funding should a worse case scenario materialize. I am no big fan of abatements, but the $20 million diverted annually by the abatement process is actually only about 3% of the total school budget, which is (after I checked) actually $627.4 million for 2007. Even if we could cancel the $80 million in abatements previously approved (which is most likely not legally possible), the amount of revenue generated would not begin to address the real school finance issue to any significant degree. If we're to guarantee a quality education for our children, there will have to be some significant changes at the Board of Education and a real analysis of how efficient a job our school system and its management is doing -- especially if Corzine's cuts really do go through in the coming years. Changes to the abatement process (much less a pitiful 5% proposal for education) won't help. By the way, the actual amount raised in local JC taxes for schools is only $86.12 million in accordance with another mind numbing formula with the balance being provided from State Aid -- and those number are really big numbers; bigger even than the JC Budget. Time for dinner! All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/4/24 0:48
|
|||
|
Re: Abatement revise to be approved for two downtown towers (Washington Boulevard and Sixth Street)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I have no problem steering money away from the county, but it certainly seems abatements are more addictive than crack-cocaine. Finally, something on which we both can agree! +1
Posted on: 2008/4/23 20:57
|
|||
|
Re: Abatement revise to be approved for two downtown towers (Washington Boulevard and Sixth Street)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
[by btone88 on 2008/4/23 13:53:13 The abatement process is a matter of NJ State Statute, so there's no further approval process involving the county and school system. A further note regarding school funding. The proposed 5% from abatements would not have helped our school system at all. Even if we could have magically snapped our fingers and renegotiated a 5% for schools from all existing abatements, the amount raised would only be about $4 million out of that $80 million -- a mere pittance. We we would have left people thinking that we did something good for the school system, yet when held in context of a $600+ million school budget, the $5 million is something less than a 1% contribution. In reality, 5% for schools would be applied to future abatements, yielding neglible amounts for schools, and leaving in place what has become an abused and flawed system in need of reform at the state level. At the county level, other Hudson county municipalities from time to time have complained (and in some cases sued) about the amount of abatements coming out of Jersey City and it's impact on the county budget, but we'll this aspect for future discussion. Bottom-line: It's the 100% revenue flow that's got the city hooked on abatements. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/4/23 18:12
|
|||
|
Re: Abatement revise to be approved for two downtown towers (Washington Boulevard and Sixth Street)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
JCLaw almost got it right.
Let's try to put some real numbers around the issue. At the risk of oversimplification for illustrative purposes, here's the revenue impact from a PILOT: 1. The developer gets a fixed tax rate for a defined term. Frankly, the trend towards shorter rather than longer terms is better. 2. From the developer perspective: Payments, initially, at the beginning of the PILOT period are slightly higher than if directly compared to ordinary taxed property; however, by the end of the term, PILOT payments have historically turned out to be less than what they would pay under ordinary taxation. This is due to the inexorable rise over time in the various tax rates all around (City, School & County). In the few cases, where properties have come off the PILOT process (most all of them condos), the condo owners (not the developers who have long since been out of the picture) experienced large increases in tax payments. A rather unpleasant surprise.) 3. From the City perspective: What does the City get from a PILOT? 100% of the entire revenue from the PILOT revenue during the term of the abatement. In oversimplified form for ease of understanding, the components which would ordinarily be paid to the School and County (about 50% of the regular tax bill) are redirected to the City. In very rough terms the city is getting a 100% boost in annual revenue over the amount it might ordinarily receive from regular property taxation. 4. The City currently generates about $80 million in annual revenue from existing pilots. If you go to the city's approved budget, you can find the revenue generated from each and every abated property. If these pilots did not exist, the city would have had to search for about $40 million in alternative revenue sources to fill the gap. Definitely a very addictive practice. 5. Why does the city love pilots even more? As new projects and abatements come on line, they city loves to negotiate pre-payment of the first year payment in advance of construction to help fill whatever immediate budgetary gap they are facing. Hence, in the case of this thread, the city was faced with either a collapsed project and a return of a substantial amount of the advanced monies or to renegotiate the abatement. The city gets to keep the up front payment rather than have to go digging for another $1 million from somewhere else (such upping your tax rate) Frankly, it's about time the city began adjusting the terms of its abatements down to shorter time frames. The city could actually go cold turkey on abatements if it choose to. They would still receive payments from the $80 million or so existing and performing abatements, but that would require the city to focus on hard choices on how to be more efficient in its spending and where else to squeeze revenue dollars from other than the backs of local taxpayers. 6. Who loses? The school system and the county... and to a large degree the local taxpayer loses as these properties are not considered part of the ratable tax base for local taxes during the term of the abatement, forcing our tax rates up to compensate, especially in the latter years of extended abatements. The real addiction is that abatements have become too easy and attractive as a short-term, stop-gap to fill the annual budget shortfalls both in the short-term and the long-term. Abatements have their uses as an incentive device, but the city has gotten far away from this policy objective, instead making abatements almost a matter of right. More for another time. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/4/23 17:14
|
|||
|
Re: Stop Signs on Erie Street - Steven FUlop
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
The traffic situation on Erie is fairly unique Nice arm chair reply. If you actually spent time observing Monmouth Street traffic during the morning and evening rush hours, reasonable people would conclude otherwise.
Posted on: 2008/4/4 2:45
|
|||
|
Re: Stop Signs on Erie Street - Steven FUlop
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
At the next City Council meeting the council will un-table an ordinance that I sponsored to put stop signs all along Erie Street in order to slow the cut through traffic headed the Holland Tunnel. I've been reading the responses to this thread with great interest. Many posters have made very astute observations and proposals (other than a stop sign at every corner) for addressing the cause of accidents on Erie Street. I've got a few thoughts to share and a question to add to the conversation for what its worth. 1. Addressing traffic safety issues on streets like Erie Street is extremely important. Doing so in isolation without addressing the same or similar traffic safety problems, which exist also on adjacent and other nearby downtown North/South streets (especially Monmouth Street), comes across as myopic. Traffic safety downtown is a systemic downtown problem, and requires a more comprehensive approach -- not a band aid. If you focus a solution solely on Erie Street to the exclusion of the other adjacent and nearby streets, you will quite literally, move the problem around. A solution has to start somewhere, and starting on Erie Street is a good a place as any, but if the solution stops essentially where it started, then the real problem will remain unaddressed. 2. The Councilman started this thread with a statement about dueling opinions -- his (slowing via stop signs on every corner ) and traffic engineering's (no slowing required), but we haven't been provided with traffic engineering's "explanation" for the position they are taking. Who isn't for traffic safety? Exactly what was Traffic Engineering's "explanation" for taking a position, which sounds so "anti-safety" as characterized by the Councilman? It's certainly not in character with the Joao d'Souza (Director of Traffic Engineering) I know to summarily dismiss a proposed traffic safety ordinance without providing a clear, well-reasoned explanation or without offering professional alternatives. Knowing Traffic Engineering's side of the story would be a useful addition to this thread. All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2008/4/3 20:34
|
|||
|
Re: Let the Mayoral Campaigning Begin (I've been Push Polled)
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
The only connection between the words "push" and "polling" is that they appear in one sentence.
What's going on here is that the local pols now have access to cheap, computerized dialling technology. It's going to be the push poll wars, instead of naked photos on the telephone polls. There's no real polling going on at all. It's all just a smokescreen to smear opponents cheaply without having the cost of sending all those direct mailing pieces. Bottom-line, the purpose of "push polls" is to spread rumours and even outright lies about opponents. (Fits right in with our local style.) These efforts are not polls, but political manipulation trying to hide behind the smokescreen of a public opinion survey. In a "push poll," a large number of people are called by telephone and asked to participate in a purported survey. The survey "questions" are really thinly-veiled accusations against an opponent or repetitions of rumours about a candidate's personal or professional behaviour. The focus here is on making certain the respondent hears and understands the accusation in the question, not in gathering the respondent's opinions. All the best. G
Posted on: 2008/2/27 15:49
|
|||
|
Re: Toll Brother's Travesty in the PAD
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
If you think the PATH commute will be fun, wait until the full impact of the added cars on the streets materializes. It's already a traffic nightmare! All the best. G
Posted on: 2008/1/22 22:45
|
|||
|
Re: landlord blackmailing to sue, for vacting as lease come to end -help!!
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Raj:
You've been given excellent advice previously in this thread, which you do not appear to understand. You really do need to speak to a lawyer at this point. One last final restatement of the law. Based on the portions of the lease you posted, you appear to have a lease for a defined "term" with no notice clause obligations whatsoever on the tenant. The length of your term could have been 10 years or 1 year or 6 months or 6 weeks or six days, and no notice would be required as the notice of termination is essentially already agreed upon and written into the agreement. I would leave on or before the termination date before you get yourself into any more trouble with this landlord. Interestingly enough, the landlord appears to have cut and pasted numerous clauses from a variety of places permitting her to cancel the lease... including a curious one in case of condemnation(?) No more advice, time to speak to a legal specialist. Good luck. G P.S. AvantiGroup... any more Super Bowl tickets?
Posted on: 2008/1/21 23:44
|
|||
|
Re: JC Real Estate Market Recent Activity
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
Recovery in the real estate depends almost solely on the availability of liquidity and credit in the market. The sources of both appear to be drying up world-wide in the nearest term. Time will tell how deep the pause will be.
Posted on: 2008/1/21 20:26
|
|||
|
Re: Led by former mayor Gerald McCann Ed board votes 8-0 for Fulop $$ plan
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
5% from PILOTS for the BOE Budget is nothing more than cosmetic eye-candy.
Let's get back to the real core issues -- there are two of them: 1. Abatements distort our tax base, unfairly shifting the real year-on-year tax burden to residential taxpers. Although I don't agree with Mayor Healey's characterization, placing two BoE members on the PILOT panel really accomplishes nothing, and sounds more like a traditional Jersey City "business-as-usual" solution. If anything, it extends the behind the door negotiating process for approval of proposed PILOTs to yet another group of stakeholders. If the BoE budget is to receive a paltry fixed 5% of each PILOT, the need for BoE representation is puzzling at best. Unfortunately, Jersey City is addicted to the quick fixes PILOT payments contribute to the city general treasury, and this remains as a problem. 2. The school system budget is a financial accident waiting to happen, with a budget that far exceeds Jersey City's. What's wrong with this picture? There are no performance management accountability processes in place to ensure that the monies flowing through the school system budget are efficiently and effectively used. If we truly care about providing our children with quality education into the future, taxpayers are going to have to face the looming budgetary reality. That 5% certainly isn't going to reduce our property taxes, and that 5% will in no way offset the reductions which are coming with the pending changes in the State's school funding formula for urban schools. Jersey City has been sheltered from the true cost of running the school system as a result of the many years of state control. The pending return of local control is a fiscal nightmare looming on the horizon. The time may be fast approaching when we will not be able to afford sheltering abated properties from participating in the year-to-year cost of running our school system. Forget the 5%, new developments should participate equally in their fair share of school taxes just like the rest of us. Now that would be real abatement reform. There are perhaps multiple ways to accomplish and implement this result, but what it means is that significantly way more than 5% (or even 10%) of PILOT payments should be flowing through to the school budget. If we don't start doing this soon, the residential taxpayer will bear the brunt of the school system's fiscal inefficiencies when the State gladly hands back the mess to us. What ever happened to rationalizing or eliminating the distortions the abatement process has created? Let's get back to real abatement reform. Over to you Mayor Healy and Councilman Fulop. All the best. Geoff Elkind
Posted on: 2008/1/19 21:08
|
|||
|
Re: landlord blackmailing to sue, for vacting as lease come to end -help!!
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
There's just too much arm-chair lawyering going on here.
Based on the limited information provided in this thread, Avanti Group, Brewster, BrightMoment, Shoshin and others appear to be correct. Absent, the presence of some other written provision requiring notice, a written lease for a specific period of time, ends naturally at the end of the term -- and no legal notice is required to be provided to the landlord. All that being said, there are some peculiarities with your logic in this entire thread: 1. If the landlord is attempting to improperly stick you with another month's rent or holding your security deposit hostage, I would welcome being sued under these circumstances -- and especially because of #2 below. 2. If I were the landlord of what sounds like possibly illegal SRO housing, I wouldn't want to threaten hauling you into court, because then all the gory details might spill out. Check the legal resources cited by BrightMoment and RPinky, and check with a lawyer by all means. If it all checks out, do yourself a favor, move out on or before the last day of the term. Tell your landlord to "bring it on". Btw, how much rent are your paying and what amount of security did you deposit with the landlord? Good Luck! G
Posted on: 2008/1/19 14:28
|
|||
|
Re: non paying non communicating tenant - advice needed
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
If you're really smart, this would be the time to decide on a course of action you wish to take with the tenant -- this is a business decision... and I'm sure many on this board will freely give you more advice in this regard.
From my perspective, either you choose to keep the tenant and under what terms and conditions, or take further action to remove the tenant or not-renew the lease at the end of its natural termination. Whatever your choice of course of action turns out to be, you're actually at a stage where you should spend a few bucks to consult a good landlord tenant attorney to best determine how to implement your business decision. All the best and good luck. G
Posted on: 2008/1/7 22:32
|
|||
|
Re: Merry Christmas Steve Hyman - but the city will still try to lose
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
In my opinion, our Ward E Councilman needs to be a more visible and vocal advocate on behalf of the EPC and the creation of Embankment Park -- and against the Hyman proposal.
Although he has been on the right side of the issue, his advocacy and communications of support from my perspective appear luke warm -- perhaps a bit too politically cautious, when a clear declaration of a stand is required. To Councilman Fulop: Nothing else is more important to Downtown Ward E, Harsimus Cove and Hamilton Park than preventing Hyman and his investors from gaining control of the Embankment. Their proposal is a not so transparent smokescreen to build high density towers in clear violation of the Master Plan and current zoning. To the rest of City Council, Office of the Mayor, and future Mayoral Candidates: The outcome of this process will be closely watched. A worst case outcome for us will have political consequences for you. It's time to stand up and do the right thing for Downtown Jersey City and not solely for a well-healed group of outsiders. Mr. Hyman already made out well at the expense of Jersey City by flipping the Flintkote property back in 2004. Don't let him do this again at the expense of established neighborhoods and the residential taxpayer. History buffs can read more here... http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?ne ... =461&dept_id=523586&rfi=6 All the best. Geoff
Posted on: 2007/12/21 23:04
|
|||
|
Re: Embankment- Update Thread
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Just can't stay away
|
From what I can tell from a quick read of this decision, the petitioners did not file a timely appeal from the original decision in August, and were left with a "hail mary" petition for reconsideration of the original decision in a vain attempt to keep the proceeding alive.
The STB sent them packing. They could attempt to appeal this later decision, however, the grounds for granting such an appeal are so extremely narrow that it would be highly unlikely to be granted. The city shouldn't even be talking to these people from this point forward... and take their lead from the STB -- send them packing! All the best. G
Posted on: 2007/12/19 23:48
|
|||
|