Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ahtasva t1_izh24ow wrote

I attended the public hearing for 55 union. They were required to put in run off mitigation measures that include a green / sedum roof that acts to absorb rain water. By my calculation, the biggest contributor to access runoff in this neighborhood are errant home owners who pave over their back yards in violation of code. Not to mention all the illegal extension that increase the built up area on a standard lot. What are you going to do about that?

As for schools, any shortfall in school taxes at the local level will get partially offset by state subsidies as required by law under the Abbot ruling. Look up any article on spend per head by school district in NJ and you will see Newarks spend match or exceed the wealthiest suburbs that surround us. We have an annual budget in access of a billion dollars yet the performance of our schools is nothing short of abysmal. How much more money must we spend before we finally admit that money is not the problem? Even if the developer were to pay taxes the school board is so corrupt that they would just turn around and give the money away to a different developer(for a cut of the profits of course) Just look at how this deal is structured šŸ¤£šŸ¤£. What a clown world we live in where people are though to blindly hate developers because they make profits while worshiping criminally corrupt politicians who literally get bribed with those profits.

Tax abatements granted to residential properties that are forced by law to offer subsidized housing is in effect an housing subsidy. The developer is acting as a pass through. I personally donā€™t approve of this approach. I would rather public housing be public ally owned and operated. I just donā€™t understand how this simple and basic concept is so difficult for people to comprehend. I guess thatā€™s what happens when have an education system that brainwashes children into being unthinking and uncritical drones; who never question the state sponsored narrative.

2

JerseyFire55 t1_iziwhkg wrote

You use se awfully strong language for being so unaware of waivers being granted for this requirement. You might want to take time and go to some city council meetings. It's not blind hated of developers. You're laughing emojis aren't a valid argument. This is not Facebook.

1

ahtasva t1_izizl1p wrote

Thatā€™s a bad faith attack. I used the emojis twice in a comment of over a hundred words.

If the abatements given to a developer forced by law to rent a portion of his units at a rate that is substantially below market is not in effect a housing subsidy to those who would benefit from those lower rents; then what is it?

What other waivers are being offered to these developers that is not being offered ( either by law or omission ) to any other property owner?

Hereā€™s one that I know about. Increase in density above what the land is zoned for. Literally every ā€œmulti familyā€ unit in this city has a ā€œbonusā€ unit in the basement of attic. Is that not an increase in density above and beyond what is legally permitted? Does the city enforce the law against these property owners?

In effect they are getting exactly what the city is allowing the developers to do but we are supposed to hate the big bad developer and root for ā€œlittle guyā€.

I deal in good faith. Your post implies that you know more than I do on the subject, I take that at face value. Educate me.

1