maybe but the section from perth amboy to sandy hook is known as the bay shore as well. if you drive on 36 there's "bay shore deli" and "bay shore ford" and whatnot

I would call that the bay shore

It's not bad. A lot of new development. Public transit is the toughest part. Many new buildings have been put up or are being leased up right now.

I'd love to see the government subsidize the affordable units. I don't think you understand my initial point. IZ reduces the acquisition cost by requiring X amount of affordable. Believe me if I could pass on the costs to my market rate tenants I would but they would just go somewhere else so my market units are at market and the affordable are less thus forcing the buyer to lower their acquisition cost

I'd love to see that, no idea how though

This should be interesting to see how it goes. Having worked with similar style groups to both of these it is good to see that that are acknowledging reality. Density itself will not reduce rent. New buildings are way to expensive to build to have anything but the highest, achievable rents. The key to more affordable housing is some sort of subsidy whether it is a true subsidy like an old Sec 8 deal or modern 4 or 9%'s. I like the inclusionary zoning that some cities are doing because it tends to work for everyone if executed properly. The price of deals is artificially deflated by forcing X amount of units to be available to people below 80% or 60% or whatever % of AMI so the developer can build that rent into the model and adjust acquisition costs respectively.

95 in CT is god awful but looking at the rest of the list how is 495 and 270 in Maryland not on that list?

agreed

No I agree the only two scenarios that make any sense is a roof lease or to buy it outright. Encumbering the house with the debt is silly for what it is. Not to mention pissing off your lender.

most of what you're talking about here is covered in their analysis (assuming they know what the hell they're doing). There is no mention of the TREC's/SREC's which are more valuable than the power itself.

yeah these are the issues to which I'm referring. I looked into it with one solar group and they wanted to do a 20 year loan on it collateralized by the array. In this scenario it would have negated our electric bill but the debt service was only maybe 20 or $30 less so that's not much of a savings. The sale of the TREC's was something but it was still probably less than $100 a month in savings/TREC revenue and a big headache.

Then when I want to sell the house I'd be stuck trying to get the buyer to take over the debt and if they didn't I'd have to remove the array and eat whatever was left on the loan.

Jersey is the second best solar market in the country after DC I don't know why these guys are making it so difficult. On some of my bigger commercial properties I have solar groups renting the roof and giving me the power in exchange for them keeping the TREC's. Not sure why this isn't more common on houses.

would you be owning the array and $90 covers the debt? If so the house is difficult to sell for 20 years

It won't be 600. I'd be surprised if it was 300

agreed

ADU's are allowed in most municipalities in jersey. They're helpful but it's a drop in the bucket as far as housing concerns go

I'm gonna wash it down with a tall cool budweiser

I knew this was going to be in bergen county