Tax Abatements

[bdlaw]

What the state giveth, the state taketh away.

When you take money you become beholden.  Why would the city want to take money from the state?

[pinky]

On Jan. 23, 2008 Councilman Fulop voted in favor of introducing ordinance #08-11 a 20 year tax abatement for a market rate residential condominium project to be constructed by the Warren and York Urban Renewal Corporation LLC, in the Paulus Hook section of Jersey City.

Jan 23rd Council Agenda:
[url]http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploadedFiles/Public_Notices/Agenda/city_council_agenda/CC%20AGN%202008%2001%2023.pdf[/url]

Ordinance # 08-11:
[url]http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploadedFiles/Public_Notices/Agenda/city_council_agenda/CC%20OR1%202008%2001%2023.pdf[/url]


I don't quite understand how a person who is 100% against tax abatements, votes in favor of introducing one in downtown on Warren and York?

[MCA]

Manzo rips tax abatements at budget hearing

More on this hearing from today's JJ Political Insider column:

IN THE GOLD COAST SHADOW
At Monday's PJ Ryan's celebration, The Insider asked Healy if he planned to attend the state Assembly Budget Committee session scheduled for Wednesday at the Liberty Science Center. Healy said he would not attend. He also did not plan to send someone from the city Finance Department.

Naturally, when the Assembly panel began its session, the first thing asked was whether there was anyone present from the city administration to open the hearings on the state's proposed $33 million budget.

Instead, Liberty Science Center officials and Assemblyman Anthony Chiappone of Bayonne did the honors.

Remember, this is the panel that will review the $8 million special aid (formerly Distressed Cities) that Jersey City is supposed to get to help balance the budget.

An early speaker was former Assemblyman Lou Manzo. Manzo attacked the city's practice of tax abating everything on the waterfront long after the need for the practice disappeared. He said the payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS) force city and state taxpayers to subsidize luxury housing and pick up the remaining tab for local schools.

From the hearing room, the Assembly members from around the state could see Jersey City's gleaming glass and steel Gold Coast skyline when Manzo pointed at it and noted: "There's $2.1 billion in ratables sitting there contributing nothing to your budget."

Can one hear state officials salivate?

[duke_of_earl]

His statements seem totally reasonable to me.

I agree.  Anyone know exactly what specific project he was ripping?

doe

[nikki]

His statements seem totally reasonable to me.

Can some of the longer term residents explain why he was nicknamed Looney Lou?

[MCA]

Manzo rips tax abatements at budget hearing
by Charles Hack
Wednesday March 19, 2008, 11:20 AM

Former state Assemblyman Louis M. Manzo ripped Jersey City this morning for continuing to hand out tax abatements at a hearing of the Assembly Budget Committee still in progress at the Liberty Science Center.

The committee is reviewing aspects of Gov. Jon Corzine's proposed 2009 budget.

Manzo, who has opened an "Office for Public Advocacy," called the way tax abatements are used in Jersey City an "abuse" since developers no longer need incentives to build on the Gold Coast.

Since tax-abated property owners are also the highest income people in the city, they should help pay for schools and county services, Manzo said.

Also signed up to speak at the hearing are Sam Pesin, president of the Friends of Liberty State Park, and representatives of Hoboken University Medical Center.

This hearing is focusing on education and local government and is expected to go well into the afternoon.

Assemblywoman Joan Quigley, D-Jersey City, sits on the committee.

[G_Elkind]

Hi Soshin:

There's no specific way to account for how PILOT payments are spent, as they are treated as general revenue -- just like our municipal taxes -- and they are spent accordingly. Generally speaking, the best way to see how the city spends its revenues is to read the city's approved budget.

The municipal budget does disclose anticipated PILOT revenues and realized PILOT revenues. The PILOT numbers from the FY 2007 budget, approved in April 2007, are:

Anticipated PILOT Revenues $79,069,078   

FY 2006 Realized PILOT Revenues $78,663,177

If one does a back of the envelope calculation, an additional 5% for education from PILOTS is a tad less than $4,000,000. As any such change would most likely only be assessed against new abatements (not retroactively), the actual amounts that might have been realized would be even smaller.

Even in the best light, these 5% contributions would be mere drops in the bucket when viewed against Corzine's proposed funding plan, which places the Jersey City School Budget at risk of losing $111 million, if fully phased in three years hence.

Stated another way, the $111 million represents the plan's calculated shortfall in school tax collections the state believes Jersey City should be collecting from its regular municipal tax levies.

If you're interested in reading more about the impact of the Corznine plan, check out the following link:

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071228/OPINION/712280302/1030/OPINION

If you still have the stomach to read further, those who care about keeping our schools properly funded should become familar with the Jersey City Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

http://www.jcboe.org/businessoffice/files/D0E3913387DB4630982B7BBD53174C2B.pdf

With a school budget in excess of $725+ million in revenues compared to the City's $425+ million budget, we should be paying really close attention to these numbers as well.
 
Looked at from this perspective, you might begin to understand why I had some reason to question the efficacy of the proposed resolutions brought before city counsel this past week. Yes, our schools and our children deserve better than a band aid solution.

All the best.

Geoff

P.S. The "shifting the burden" comment was nothing more than a red herring statement that really makes no sense. In the end, the question of who pays, and who might take it on the chin, if we don't look at the full picture on funding our schools will be Jersey City's regular taxpayers and our city's children.

[Soshin]

Is there some place where we can see how the PILOT money is currently being spent?  Who accounts for this and who exactly would be losing money is some of it is shifted to the schools? 

It seems to be disingenuous to just say "Do we just want to shift the tax burden from one person to another?" if we don't get told where the money is presently..........

Am I missing a bigger picture here?

[MCA]

Council nixes plan to share abatement money with schools
by Ken Thorbourne
Thursday January 24, 2008, 2:54 PM

In 8-1 votes, the Jersey City council quashed proposals by Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop last night to share tax abatement money with local schools and expand the committee that negotiates the tax breaks.

Fulop, who received the tacit endorsement of Mayor Jerramiah Healy for his proposal to give schools 5 percent of the money the city rakes in from tax-abated properties, called the vote "a pretty sad day for Jersey City because they get an idea of how we value or kids."

"Five percent? I would say they're worth it," Fulop added.

Fulop's colleagues argued his 5 percent proposal amounted to robbing Peter to pay Paul, since money taken from the city would have to be replaced through taxes or other fees. Opponents of the measure also said that if more money went to the school district locally, state aid would shrink, meaning no overall increase for the district.

"Do we just want to shift the tax burden from one person to another?," said Ward Councilman Michael Sottolano, as he endorsed City Council President Mariano Vega's move to establish a committee to study the issue.

Ward C City Councilman Steve Lipski called Fulop "noble" for trying to "advance the argument" about school funding, but citing a Dow Jones report, said the city would be in a $19 million budget hole if it weren't for the income from for payments in lieu of taxes.

Fulop's other proposal called for adding two members of the Board of Education to the mayor's seven-member Tax Enhancement Committee, the group of city officials that negotiates the terms of tax abatements.

Council members objected on the grounds that it didn't make sense to give school officials a say in city business when the city has no say over the school district's budget.

One of eight public speakers supporting Fulop, former mayor and current school board member Anthony Cucci, scolded the council for not showing "enough concern" for the school system.

No public speaker spoke against the proposals.

The backdrop to this discussion is a new school funding formula recently adopted by the state, which seeks to shift some state aid from poor, urban districts to more working- and middle-class school districts.

As of one of the state's 31 court-designated "Abbott" districts, the 32,000-student Jersey City school system receives more than $425 million in state aid. Local taxpayers contribute $81.2 million toward the school district's roughly $600 million budget.

[NON]

Haha and if that ain't a statement on the fickle nature of the JC electorate, lord knows what is...

 

You had me at I love you...

dear, sweet thebes. i love you so...

[thebes]

You had me at I love you...

dear, sweet thebes. i love you so...

[jennymayla]

OMG, i just got a PG flashback.  Who's with me? 

I can't even follow half of what this is about, what with all the inuendos and historical reference and my own self-inflicted civic ignorance, but I trust Thebes to do the right thing, based on her own position and instinct.

Rock on, girl.

[NON]

dear, sweet thebes. i love you so, and it's exactly this scenario i feared (and predicted) when I learned you had been hired to be councilman Fulop's aide. I really hope you'll listen to Geoff's advice regarding growing a thicker skin, and pinky's advice regarding learning to separate politics from personal relationships.

i share geoff's desire to bring about real reform to the abatement conundrum, along with his assessment that the 5% proposal is ineffective window-dressing that will have little real world impact, and that could potentially have the negative impact of creating a panacea that appears to correct the problem yet curtails momentum for real reform. McCain-Feingold anyone?

since i don't recall putting words into your mouth, thebes, i would appreciate it if you wouldn't put any into mine. iirc, you yourself have no plans to run for Mayor of JC in 2009 (though lord knows i would vote for you if you did. and i mean that.), and the only person i accused of grandstanding through his legislative efforts is Councilman Fulop.

I applaud you and JCFI for your work, as I have consistently stated, but that doesn't mean I should agree with every initiative of yours, or refrain from voicing criticism of those initiatives, particularly when what i'm criticising is the use of these initiatives for political purposes. I agree with Geoff 100% on the 5% proposal, just as i disagree with jroberts that if such a proposal were to pass, the abatement scheme would somehow hasten its extinction. You can make critics into villains all you want, but it's sad to see that you're only a few months into work at City Hall and already so good at speaking out against the critic and not their criticism.

Since the word 'naive' has already been raised in this thread, i think it is most appropriate to revisit it, in the context of examining the political moves of a politician with stated ambitions toward higher local office. I personally cannot look at anything Councilman Fulop does without looking at it through the prism of his campaign for the Mayor's seat, which though not officially declared, has been underway for some time now.

Where you see Fulop as "the only person willing to listen to our concerns and brave enough to stand up to everyone else", i see a skillful political opportunist who has absolutely nothing to lose in proposing fashionable, popular legislation that has little-to-no chance of success. He's a smart guy (who has benefited from the tutelage of very smart political operatives), who knows that such efforts will motivate vocal, active people who are politically active and frustrated with the status quo to rally around him. And he's doing this brilliantly. The more efforts, the more causes, the more band-aids, the more valiant david v. goliath stands, the more 8 to 1 votes, the more feathers in his cap.

Smart politics, this campaigning by legislative proposal. But i think it's intellectually dishonest. There's only so many times i can hear "sunlight is the best medicine" and so many times that the JJ can find out about proposals before his fellow councilpersons before i see through the politics behind it. That sincere, dedicated folks like yourself get emotionally invested and then disappointed, with everyone else around but the councilman looking like the villain, makes me sad.

This post is in no way an apology, because i never spoke out against you or your work (let alone accuse you of not doing anything to improve this city by default, as you did me), but i really hope it lends some insight into what my position is, which i don't really think you've understood in any of our mexican standoffs about politics and fulop.

On a side note, i also think it was very politically wise of Fulop to hire you. You're a dedicated member of a community outside his ward, who has already involved herself in the present Jersey City political landscape on hot-button issues. That'll sure come in handy in 2009 as he scrambles to get the city outside of ward E to consider voting for him. 



Edit: Geoff, i didn't mean to put words or positions into your mouth regarding the grandstanding issue. i read that into your post all by myself, probably because of my own feelings on the subject. i still share your position, and will try to refrain from ascribing views to you that you haven't explicitly stated.

[jcpeace]

   It seems like the statement of someone who would like this situation to change, but hasn’t been involved in any attempt to enact that change, so has no clue as to how it is to be done.

 

first time post and you're copying and pasting hillary clinton debate rhetoric?

pathetic.

thanks for the enlightening posts, G_Elkind

[G_Elkind]

Those folks who do know me, know that I've been around the block more than just a few times in Jersey City downtown political circles.

If I have to say something, I say it straight, and do so with no screen names or avatars to hide behind -- and it's never personal. Additionally, I say what I mean, and mean what I say. If I didn't say it, it's not implied; no one has to interpret or read between the lines.

If I meant "grand-standing" you would see those words, but they're not anywhere to be seen. In fact, to the contrary, what I did say was that that I didn't "agree with Mayor Healey's characterization about 'power plays'."  (Soshin take note about nay-saying.)

A non-emotional, objective read of my post is clear about where I stand on abatements, on school funding, and on holding the school system accountable. In that regard, my orientation is perhaps not all that different than the Councilman's. We all want to reach the same outcome and objectives.

Where we really do differ is on the matter of strategy and approach to implementing effective reform and change in a place as politically challenged as Jersey City. In my opinion, while the Councilman's resolutions have a great degree of surface appeal, they would neither address the school funding issue (even for starters), and would actually help perpetuate a fundamentally flawed process.

I would further add that the School Board needs to refocus efforts on getting their own house in order. Establishing policies to hold BoE executive management professionals personally accountable for their own performance (or lack thereof) and for our school system's performance would be a great place to start.

JRoberts: Yes, it would be naive of me to advocate the wholesale obliteration of the abatement system in one stroke, however, that's neither what I said or advocated. There ain't no way, no how that type of result is ever going to happen in Jersey City, absent an Act of God or other natural disaster, like a Supreme Court decision.

On the otherhand, my view is that the resolutions as framed by the Councilman are too timid, didn't go far enough, and weren't fully promoted at the grassroots level in the same way that the pay-to-play / ethics initiatives have been to date.

Althea: If you're going to survive as a councilperson's aide or being on the front lines of effecting change in City Hall, you will need to grow a thicker skin... and please avoid going personal. It just isn't becoming a public facing professional.

I'm sorry that I won't be able to speak at tonight's City Council meeting. If anyone cares, they can read my original post, below, fully into the record. It says exactly what I would say if I had the opportunity to be present in person.

All the best and good luck tonight.

Geoff

[pinky]

A few things on this thread:

Geoff Elkind: has been a resident of Hamilton Park for over 20 years, he has been an one of the most outspoken advocates for Historic Preservation, our poor infrastructure and what this mass development is doing to it, and continues to be front, line and center on most issues that effect this city. While most people burn-out and   walk away, Geoff continues to stay vocal and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him and his efforts. Geoff has never been quiet on his feeling regarding what developers should be giving back to Jersey City and has spoken before council against most abatements and the terms of these abatements. In my opinion our newest member, jroberts has jumped the gun and posted without doing any research on Mr Elkind.

Steven Fulop: is an elected official and is subject to public scrutiny, Non has ever right to voice his opinion. Nuff said!!

In my opinion, at no time did NON, or G_Elkind  ever denounce the organization or it's initiatives that Shelley and Thebes are part of.

One last thing:
Never allow politics or politicians to get in the way of real friendships, people need to separate the two. At the end, when the politicians are gone, your friends are not. Don't allow anyone in business ( and yes, politics is a business) to come between you and your friends or use your friendships for leverage.......just my opinion!!

[Hurtle]

Can I get a pair of that underwear with me on the front?

[thebes]

For all those planning on attending, it looks like the meeting will start closer to 7 p.m. and not the usual 6 p.m.

I hope to see many of you there!

[Soshin]

Wow, this hurts considering how hard Shelley and I have worked on this. I did not realize we were grandstanding along with Councilman Fulop. I thought we were fighting for real change. I guess it is best to assume that big or small steps will not work and we should give up now.

I'm extremely surprised by your words, although maybe I should not be. I'm not really sure what you think those that toil long and hard to improve this city should do when the vote is almost always 8-1 against. Read the transcripts and come to the caucus meetings. This is not grandstanding and I deeply DEEPLY resent you knocking everyone down with one fell swoop by saying the only person willing to listen to our concerns and brave enough to stand up to everyone else is grandstanding.

We've formed grassroots organizations, gone up to the state and back down. Please tell me what more we can do that won't appear to be grandstanding? Please tell me what we can work really hard for that won't instantly get put down by you, dismissed with such hard words? Work better with the rest of the council? Coalition build? What? Seriously what? Because it has been a year of us begging to all the Council people to answer our questions, address our concerns, and help the City prepare for the eventual city take over of the school system.

The mayor told us point blank, that he doesn't want city control back because they can't afford it and it isn't going to happen anyway. The Council said, we hear your concern and we will study this and get back to you... OVER 6 MONTHS later, what are they saying? We need to study this more before passing this resolution.

So you can take your "grandstanding" and shove it where the sun don't shine!

Thebes, please don't be discouraged by naysayers like Non and Elkind, concerned parents like myself appreciate everything you are, and have been trying to do (with Jersey City Families) to make people realise that the school system is in dire trouble and that steps need to be taken NOW in order to try to stem the tsunami of debt that is about to be dumped on the city.

5% may not be much but from little things, big things grow.

Keep up the good work.

[Bobblehead]

Please, folks, lighten up on the name calling and fingerpointing, it gets old fast. No one in this thread seems to favor abatements--start from there and work forward.

[Admin note- edited by request of original poster]