Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

The_Nomadic_Nerd t1_iy9znl5 wrote

People need to start taking elections more seriously. I genuinely hate the people that voted for those "education Matters" candidates. They vote for a bigger budget, yet the schools continue to be shit.

Edit: I accidentally wrote “Change for Children” before when that was the good voting block. My bad.

43

Scoochiez t1_iya1jw4 wrote

I have no idea how they got elected? It blows my mind that $33k per child is not enough for this administration

13

doglywolf t1_iyaaw36 wrote

What !! is it really that much??? It can't be

so for a class of 20 that $660,000 lets say there are 8 classes of 20 for a "group that they break them into " that requires 9 teachers ..lets say 10 teachers plus 2 admins per group all costing 200k including benefits. That 2million . Leaving 3.28 million per group. Most grades have multiple groups.

​

No taxes on city own buildings - littler over a million a year in maintenance needed per building that that's a sample size of 160 students and there are far more then that per grade. let say 1.28 in maintenance fees and greenkeeping .

Leaving 2 million - take into account security and other admins and where the hell does the rest of that go if the building , programs and staff is paid for with that already.

​

I understand there is construction cost and student program cost like sports and such .

I would love to see an indepth look at their budget and see where all the money is going. Isnt a large part of the new construction city funded from separate pot?

​

If that number is true that is nuts.

9

Scoochiez t1_iyad91p wrote

Sorry i was wrong, it's $38,280 per child.

$976M BOE budget and 25496 JC students.

Talk about corruption

15

EyesOnImprovement t1_iyaiqhh wrote

Can any of you geniuses tell me where that number comes from. Not where you read it, but how that number is arrived at?

−2

Scoochiez t1_iyakj0l wrote

Are you suggesting the two numbers I provided are incorrect or that you don't know simple math?

6

fastAFguy t1_iyami9z wrote

It’s more students than that since charter schools are not included in the totals. For charters, they educate students at about $17,000 per capita. A good thing when compared to Jersey City schools.

2

Scoochiez t1_iyaquy2 wrote

Even if you add the 6000 charter school students, the average cost is still ridiculous

6

VanWorst t1_iyanmxl wrote 

            38280
       __________
25496 ) 976000000
       -76488
        -----
        211120
       -203968
        ------
          71520
         -50992
          -----
          205280
         -203968
          ------
            13120
3

doglywolf t1_iyedy4u wrote

these numbers are meaningless without context of all your deductions.

Your asking for context but then just throwing numbers out as a point with no context .

What point are you trying to make there?

2

mooseLimbsCatLicks t1_iya9s5m wrote

Pretty sure they all lost. Education matters slate wins every time.

13

The_Nomadic_Nerd t1_iyaywb5 wrote

Oh my bad. I forgot which one was which. I just knew to vote for the group with Alexander Hamilton

4

robin_tern t1_iyb0wi7 wrote

It was the Education Matters slate who mostly voted for the the bigger budget, not Change for Children.

Robin.

5

red__what t1_iyaleht wrote

change for THEIR children

0

robin_tern t1_iyb1c74 wrote

Change for Children were the ones against the tax rises. Education Matters is the teacher's union backed slate who voted to increase your taxes.

How can you hope to get the outcome you want if you can't even keep straight which side is which?

Robin.

4

SyndicalistCPA t1_iyd0jr9 wrote

Yeah, man, let's demonize the teacher's union. Dork.

−4

robin_tern t1_iyd1ifa wrote

While I do think they are demons, my above post was a dispassionate statement of facts, no demonization there.

Robin.

6

SyndicalistCPA t1_iyd3z8g wrote

You deadass sign-off your comments with Robin? You absolute dork.

−6

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_iy9v3cq wrote

Yes, that's what we voted for. More taxes and more corruption.

32

Downtown-Prompt-6499 t1_iyafxzi wrote

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2022/10/why-i-voted-no-on-jersey-city-budget-opinion.html

“The delay was completely unnecessary, and it raised your taxes by an additional $10 million. The city failed to submit its Annual Financial Statement by the statutory March deadline, instead turning it in in August. That document revealed a $36 million cash deficit that was previously unaccounted for — further delaying the budget vote so the city could address that deficit.

Ultimately, this delay is the reason that the city was unable to collect $10 million from its annual tax sale, and, as a result, Jersey City residents are being forced to shoulder that $10 million burden. This tax increase will fall entirely on your fourth-quarter taxes.”

17

driftingwood2018 t1_iyamo1z wrote

Yes. PILOT program and tax abatements of the past have screwed us for the future. Of course elections matter but Unfortunatley no matter who you vote in, you can’t undue past mistakes that will plague this city for many years

9

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iyanb2t wrote

People who pay PILOTs in some cases pay a higher rate than non tax abated homes. If it wasn’t for Pilots, the city portion of the tax levy would be even higher for non tax abated homes. Sort of ruins the narrative.

−5

driftingwood2018 t1_iyavgf4 wrote

Wrong. PILOT payment is generally lower than the property tax amounts, helping to improve the net operating income of the developer and, in turn, encouraging them to enhance the property and raise its fair value. The municipalities also benefit as these payments received go directly to the municipality and do not have to be shared with other local taxes (school, local, etc.), although 5% of the payments received go directly to the county budgets. You’ve diverted tax dollars away from school tax revenues. And lower payment as a whole.

6

driftingwood2018 t1_iyavrz9 wrote

And if you use PILOT program for pretty much any other development other than residential multi family properties, offices, industrial or retail tax revenues not going to school budget really has no impact since they aren’t creating additional costs by sending kids to the school like Multifamily properties. That’s unless you fall for ever developers pitch that no kids live in apartment buildings and they are just millennials wanting studio apartments

3

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iyawjxv wrote

Drifting wood… not sure where you got your facts from. 10% of Pilot payments go to schools not 0%. https://www.nj.com/hudson/2017/04/jersey_city_will_share_tax_abatement_revenue_with.html The reason that Pilot payments were sometimes higher than what would be paid normally was because JC maintained a low regular property tax rate. (Other than the last two years.)

1

driftingwood2018 t1_iyax36z wrote

Fulops executive order only applies to future abatements. Hence my comments about us paying the price for years (decades really) of financial mismanagement. For school tax revenues that is. Not the municipal budget which receives the PILOT revenues

5

fastAFguy t1_iyao8n6 wrote

People aren’t smart enough to understand this.

1

Onlytheonethatlived t1_iyacue9 wrote

Move to an area with less corrupt and absolute asshat local politicians. They literally don't use the money for what they say. It's what I'm in the process of doing. Challenging to find the right area but I'll be damned if I'm gonna stay in this shit hole paying out the ass for nothing

6

fastAFguy t1_iyanw07 wrote

If you think it’s bad now, just wait until next year. JCBOE is to blame, but Fulop should lead by example and introduce an austerity budget.

6

micmaher99 t1_iyartt2 wrote

Yea, the state will continue to have Jersey City taxpayers pay a larger portion of the school bill. I'd guess it's another 2 years of $1000/year increases, at least. By some estimates JC is still $100 mill short of paying it's "fair share" for schools. It's unfortunately not going to get better.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nj.com/hudson/2022/03/jersey-city-slams-1600-school-tax-hike-but-education-group-says-sides-need-to-figure-how-to-make-that-work.html%3foutputType=amp

6

activeForce t1_iyasein wrote

There is a difference between between mismanagement/waste and corruption. Most people in this thread try to point out at how much we spend per student and call it corruption.

5

JCwhatimsayin t1_iyadzwu wrote

Lots of moaning about "corruption" in these threads about the BOE, but nobody seems to ever be able to point to examples of the kind of large scale corruption that is supposedly behind this increase in our taxes.

4

Vertigo963 t1_iyatwit wrote

It's a hard situation for JC property owners. On the one hand, being human, I'm sure most of them want children in the public schools to receive a fair education. On the other hand, it's pretty clear JC public schools suck ass and the large amounts of money being levied are not being spent well.

6

diaperbuyer t1_iyenxln wrote

Why is it pretty clear they suck??? We are one of the only districts in NJ with free universal prek 3 prek 4 and kindergarten. So all these people living in those tax abated condos in downtown have for YEARS gotten free daycare. Then when the kid hits 6 years old off and they need more room off to the suburbs they move. I know plenty of adults who have moved to jc for the idea of free preschool daycare. We also provide some of the best special education resources that are free to families. Head out to the suburbs who get MORE MONEY to educate children and see what services are available.

2

dreggers t1_iydku5l wrote

It's always like this, local politicians want to increase taxes and use education as hostage to get citizens to agree to pull out their checkbooks

1

JCwhatimsayin t1_iyao0h4 wrote

Plenty of "free market" and "vouchers" and "charters" ideology though. No corruption at all in those projects!

0

fastAFguy t1_iyams96 wrote

Instead of paying $34,000 per student, they should give that to families for homeschooling.

−3

DirectorBeneficial48 t1_iy9wftp wrote

As costs rise (in no small part to the greater number of people using the services I'm about to mention), so too must the amount that people who benefit from the services pay in. This is how society works. If you want to see individual taxes lower, increase the taxes that corporate entities pay.

−1

oldnewspaperguy2 t1_iyalx0t wrote

Wouldn’t it be the opposite? There’s fixed costs that get diluted with more students.

I agree that corporations need to pay more, but the cost per pupil isn’t justifiable given the product JC school systems is putting out.

9

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iya6k8f wrote

If there are a greater number of people, that should mean, presumably, the new people are paying taxes to cover the use of services. Why do the original people have to pay more in taxes?

4

[deleted] t1_iya6t5s wrote

Exactly. Fulop wants you to blame the teachers and not the property taxes the wealthy don't pay.

−6

wasting_-my-_time t1_iyaerwl wrote

And you want us to believe the wealthy don't pay property taxes. Neither of you seems to have much proof.

5

[deleted] t1_iya72fu wrote

Or the failure of the payroll tax.

−3