Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
54 user(s) are online (50 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 1
Guests: 53

yorkster, more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 (2)


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#11
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/3/15 17:13
Last Login :
2011/4/26 13:40
Group:
Banned
Posts: 125
Offline
Abatements, hardly. That is still *additional* revenue for the city. Most of those abatements are PIOLTS, which means the city pockets more money than it normally would (at the expense of cheating the county).

The immediate problem is that the financial markets have tanked and as a result so have pension funds which fund current and future retirees. Pension funds everywhere will be severely underfunded as a result.

The real, longstanding problem is that the pension plans (entitlement programs) are too generous. This is so at the city, state and federal level. The biggest proponent for your taxes being raised over the past decade or two are entitlement programs including pensions.

Back to the local level, there are plenty of double-dippers working at the municipal level, working multiple jobs (including multiple full-time positions), essentially earning two pensions. If you need evidence of such, look to the leaders in city hall.

Why a municipal worker should be entitled to a full pension after 20 years of service is beyond me. Sure that was a novel idea 50 years ago, when folks did not live as long (or pay as much % of their income in taxes).

For the majority of folks who work in the private sector, and in turn fund such generosity through our hard earned tax dollars, that's practically criminal.

Well maybe you'll take exception to JCPD and JCFD. Such retirement benefit is a fair argument given the risky nature of their work. That said, JCPD should not be padding their pensions for time worked as hired help for private security work. That sort of shenanigans is going on with the help of City Hall taking a cut for their employment outsourcing. For us taxpayers, that is one more costly wrinkle that is anything but transparent.

Posted on: 2009/3/27 14:26
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/30 22:23
Last Login :
2019/3/8 17:09
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 688
Offline
don't all thees abated condo owners have to start paying full taxes after a few years? So if that's the case the bigger concern needs to be how many people are going to bail on their condos because they can't afford the mortgage plus full property tax burden. I'd bet most of the 2005-2007 buyers were banking on quick RE price gains/refi to offset any tax increases. And as we can see that ain't a happening...

Posted on: 2009/3/27 13:58
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/1/18 14:10
Last Login :
2016/6/11 16:43
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 230
Offline
Ratables or abated probably makes little difference. The city gets revenue from ratables AND it gets revenue from abated properties. Assuming money isn't sitting in an account in some offshore bank, the city uses that revenue to pay for its obligations.

Rather I am interested in whether ALL residents share the burden fairly which cannot happen without a revaluation.

My understanding of the benefits of abatements is that they help to spur development and the city gets to keep ALL the revenue of abated properties instead of having to share with the county. Assuming that both are correct, whether the city still needs to offer abatements to spur development is a question I dont know enough to answer.

However, if by abating properties the city gets to keep more of that revenue and in turn use those funds to offset the tax rate, that act should be applauded.

Abated vs. non-abated properties has little if anything to do with equitable taxation because if all the abated properties are converted to non-abated properties and nothing else changes, the current tax policty would still be unfair to many residents.

Although residents care about how much they pay in taxes, I think they care more about the tax burden being distributed fairly. The city simply cannot have million dollar properties assessed at half the amount of a property that is half its size and purchased for half the value of the million dollar property but assessed at TWICE the value of the million dollar property.

Dont know if the city can withdraw abatement deals, but it can certainly do something about a citywide revaluation.

Posted on: 2009/3/27 13:17
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#8
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/1/30 14:45
Last Login :
2009/5/12 9:14
From Jersey City,nj
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 94
Offline
Yvonne,

What is the benefit if any for the City in granting these abatements?

Are there any situations ,generally speaking, in your opinion where it would be beneficial for the City to grant an abatement?

How can the benefit to the "City" be separated from the benefit to the current "Administration" or any administration for that matter?

Posted on: 2009/3/27 3:52
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5001
Offline
That money is used for operating expense. Normally, the city ask the developer to pre-pay tax abatements, which means there is a whole in next year's budget. Starting July 1, 2009 there is a $25 million hole in the budget. The city cannot defer pension next year and the city is short $10 million from Honeywell. Honeywell in my opinion bought the city off by not totally removing tainted soil. The city received $15 million last year and $10 million this year. That money will not be around next year. The city is busy giving out contracts and hiring their friends. It doesn't bother with cutting out the fat.
Please remember, JC would have less of a problem if those properties were ratables and not abated.
Yvonne

Posted on: 2009/3/27 3:34
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/11/28 3:26
Last Login :
2014/10/27 13:13
From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 980
Offline
Tax-abated doesn't mean tax-exempt, though, right? Where does the money that a Trump or Athena or Gull's Cove homeowner pays in PILOT money go?

Posted on: 2009/3/26 21:13
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 1:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5001
Offline
The city is struggling because new construction is tax-abated. I explained this many times. Regular properties are ratables which means their value is added to the tax rolls. Tax abated properties are non-ratables. Their values are not added to the tax rolls. When the county strikes the budget only ratable properties are added. There is $2 billion worth of properties that are not added to the tax rolls. We, the property owner who live in non tax abated properties is supporting everyone else.
Yvonne

Posted on: 2009/3/26 19:47
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/11/28 3:26
Last Login :
2014/10/27 13:13
From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 980
Offline
It is beyond me how this city can be struggling so badly amidst the influx of jobs and relatively high net worth residents who have moved here over the last few years.

Ok, maybe its not beyond me, since I have some guesses as to why, but still.

What is that giant sucking sound?

Posted on: 2009/3/26 19:07
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/1/18 14:10
Last Login :
2016/6/11 16:43
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 230
Offline
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments

by Amy Sara Clark / The Jersey Journal
Wednesday March 25, 2009

"The pension program was unfunded for years during the Whitman and McGreevey administrations, and now in the time of the new Great Depression we're deferring only 50 percent," he said. "We fully-funded the pension program for the past three years. For every dollar we contribute to the plan, we only get back 70 cents. This is something that mayors and county leaders across the state have asked for and feel is critical due to the current economic situation our state and our nation face."


So let me see if I understand this, basically what he is saying is that they are funding only 50% because of the current economic situation/"new Great Depression" YET the city paid NOTHING toward pensions in the Whitman and McGreevey administration? I could be wrong, but wasn't the economy booming during the majority of both those administrations? So exactly what was happening that 'forced" the city to not fund its pension obligations during those years?

This is going to get really bad...the more I learn the more concerned I become.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 18:53
 Top 


Re: Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#2
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/1/30 14:45
Last Login :
2009/5/12 9:14
From Jersey City,nj
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 94
Offline
Gee-whiz!

What a novel idea.Can any one tell me what is unique about this year 2009 compared to the last few years.The money is going to have to be paid back either way because it is a deferral.

IMO the analysis of this move by one city official as a election year gimmick and also by Yvonne as causing a future problem are right on the money.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 18:04
 Top 


Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/9/15 19:03
Last Login :
2020/8/25 18:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 9098
Offline
Council moves to defer $14.8 million in pension payments

by Amy Sara Clark / The Jersey Journal
Wednesday March 25, 2009

The Jersey City Council passed a resolution tonight to ask the Local Finance Board to let Jersey City defer $14.8 million in pension payments by a vote of 8-1.

Councilman Steve Fulop cast the dissenting vote, calling the request for the deferral "the height of irresponsibility" and an election-year gimmick that pushes the burden onto future residents.

Resident Yvonne Balcer also spoke against the resolution during the public portion of tonight's meeting.

"It's still borrowing and it's debt piled upon debt," she said. "It's going to come down and crash on people as it's crashing down on people in Hoboken in West New York."

The option to request a 50 percent deferral of this year's pension payments became an option for the city after Gov. Jon Corzine signed the pension-deferral bill into law on March 17.

Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy released a statement earlier today defending the proposed deferral.

"The pension program was unfunded for years during the Whitman and McGreevey administrations, and now in the time of the new Great Depression we're deferring only 50 percent," he said. "We fully-funded the pension program for the past three years. For every dollar we contribute to the plan, we only get back 70 cents. This is something that mayors and county leaders across the state have asked for and feel is critical due to the current economic situation our state and our nation face."

Posted on: 2009/3/26 14:28
 Top 




« 1 (2)




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017