Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ahtasva t1_jc8g74w wrote

$100b to Ukraine but we can’t spend 1.7b to give our poorest residents access to decent public transit.

The current yield on the 2yr T note is 3.85%; at that rate, the interest payment on 100b is 3.85b. For that money you could build the extension 2 time over🤦🏾

You get what you vote for.

−2

Nexis4Jersey t1_jc8ixas wrote

This is a PA Project , they have the money...just lack the will to do anything big other than Airport projects..

9

Newarkguy1836 t1_jc8m981 wrote

Correct. I feel Newark is not a priority at all for the port authority. Everything is about New York City and Port Newark and Elizabeth. As well as the Jersey City extension of the port. I believe Helen hook terminal Staten Islands also a satellite of Port Newark. The station is a good start.

I envisioned the hillside branch used as a Newark light rail extension to reach Irvington. This will be part of the Newark Library extension along Broad Street that can go up along Elizabeth Avenue

5

Nexis4Jersey t1_jcao1jf wrote

I don't think the PA cares about NY other then the Airports and Bridges/Tunnels which are its biggest cash cow. The way the GW Bus Terminal rebuild went and the dinosaur like speed of the PABT rebuilding process shows the agency doesn't care...even the way the handled the Lincoln and Holland Tunnel rebuilds shows that compared to the way the MTA rebuild all their tunnels... As for Rail expansions in Newark , my views have changed over the years... I think the PATH at least the WTC line needs to extend West into Newark Branching off via the old Newark Branch making stops at NJ PAC/Military Park , Courthouse , and then every 15 blocks under Springfield Ave to Route 78... I think there needs to be a North-South Line combining the proposed Newark-Paterson LRT with the shoveled Newark-EWR-Elizabethport-Midtown Elizabeth-Cranford LRT as one high capacity line. I think the PATH 33rd Street line should extend right into the Terminal area of the Airport. There should be Bus Rapid Transit with Stations along I-78 from Summit to Downtown Jersey City. The current Newark LRT should extend to West Orange via the abandoned Orange Branch...

5

Jerz2florida t1_jceav52 wrote

The abandoned Orange Branch are those the tracks that cross Bloomfield Ave in Bloomfield?

1

Nexis4Jersey t1_jcek07v wrote

Yes and the Wataseeing Ave Station..

2

Newarkguy1836 t1_jcj5z80 wrote

A major Housing Development was built in the vicinity of Watssessing ave station right along the footprint where the orange Branch used to cross over the m&e. Njt should extend the Newark light rail another three blocks west and building a station platform for these residents. As well as allow for future extension Westward toward West Orange.

2

Nexis4Jersey t1_jcj9adb wrote

I believe that was original plan when they were extending back in the early 2000s...but NIMBYs sunk it..

3

Jimmy_kong253 t1_jc9mwxl wrote

You get the Transit access you ask for then suddenly developers take interest in the area and get their paid off politicians to help with tax breaks then suddenly the poor residents get priced out because now it's all "luxury" housing so they would never truly get to enjoy the station at the end of the day

3

ahtasva t1_jca49db wrote

So what? You talk as if the people who occupy the “luxury” units are all Russian who are taking advantage of our infrastructure. In case you don’t know; those people are tax paying American. Their taxes help pay for the infrastructure in the first place. This is the hard bigotry of anti-gentrification; a policy that demands you hate your neighbor purely on the basis that he is willing or able to pay more then you do in rent.

If housing is not affordable then either build public housing or increase wages. The govt is not willing to do either. It actively works against both objectives.

Here is a prime example of the utter idiocy of modern progressive ideology. Thousands of homeless sleeping rough on the streets. The progressive answer is not to house them; that would be too easy. Instead we are supposed to give over our parks, stations, curbsides and other public spaces to the homeless do as they please. Anyone who dare question the efficacy of this policy is labeled a racist, bigot, fascist etc.

This is the what progressivism is today, a shell game of virtue signaling and manufactured outrage designed to divide the public and keep poor and disenfranchised exactly where they are.

2

Jimmy_kong253 t1_jca74is wrote

Well as far as you saying about Russian owning it. A times article a couple years ago pretty much showed evidence that the majority of Manhattan luxury rentals were owned by shell companies with links to out of the country people or businesses. As far as taxes building owners aren't paying their fair share and just like with the rest of the wealthy that tax burden gets moved on to the average nobody barely getting by. Now as far as you saying people should earn more money well thanks to the pandemic people have been getting paid more and employment has been low. What does that do? the feds scream and cry people are making too much money and unemployment isn't high enough which is why they're raising interest rates now to create that unemployment level that is acceptable to the economy and supposedly will bring down inflation

2

ahtasva t1_jca9ah0 wrote

I said nothing about ownership. I was talking about occupancy. Are the majority of occupants of the luxury rentals Americans? If so, why are they less worthy of enjoying public services (that they pay for through taxes)? That is the crux of your argument. With better transit comes more expensive housing and that in turn causes displacement of existing residents. All points I agree with btw. What I don’t agree with is your solution. You want the luxury apartment to go “elsewhere”. Where will they go? Even if they could; why should they?

The point I make and you willfully sidestep is that i think your solution is wrong. It’s wrong because it divides people. It encourage people who would otherwise have things in common to hate and mistrust each other. I argue that as a result of this we can never have nice things because we can never unite over the things we agree on long enough to get it. That is bad for all of us.

2

Jimmy_kong253 t1_jcaa5sd wrote

I don't want them to go elsewhere I want tax abatements for private companies to be banned outright. If you know your development is going to charge $2k or more for units honestly you don't need a tax break and if you're whole business profit plan depends on those tax breaks in the first place then you shouldn't be in business. I'm against the shifting of taxes on the ones who can't afford it

2

Newarkguy1836 t1_jcj6bek wrote

Banks don't lend money developers based on how much they're going to charge for rent. They lend based on How likely they are to make a return profit & potential risk on the money they loan to developer.

Tax abatements and pilot programs lower the risk to Banks, allowing them to lend more easily in areas they consider high risk and traditionally redlined.

2