Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rockmasterflex t1_j4vinzh wrote

Sure, Murphy can improve the state library system... but chances are all of the libraries you have ever been to were municipal or county ones.

And your local politics are WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more important there.

Start at home and you'll immediately find the dysfunction. Your local government is likely preoccupied with 4 things (assuming you live in a suburb):

  • helping your school board get funding ("wont anybody think of the children!" virtue signaling)

  • NIMBY based rejection of affordable housing, power infrastructure improvements, revenue opportunities (like cannabis stores), and anything else that is generally good for the world and/or your town's budget but the folks in the 800k houses don't want.

  • complaining that the state should give them more money anyway just to exist. begging the state for additional money for deeply local issues. openly blaming the state for their problems if there is a party misalignment between state governor and local partisan govt *unless your local govt is sane enough to be nonpartisan

  • spending as much money on police as possible- despite your suburban crime rate being hilariously small- instead of teaching the residents how to lock their cars, doors, and not leave the keys inside them - but "tough on crime" is the easiest fucking virtue signal in existence

147

metsurf t1_j4vrcxn wrote

We have a line item on our tax bill to support the public library in town. Third rail for local politician getting rid of it.

18

rockmasterflex t1_j4vrr2g wrote

That's great, but chances are everything else in your budget is ballooning while that one stays more or less the same?

14

metsurf t1_j4vs12r wrote

better than nothing right?

6

rockmasterflex t1_j4vtw2a wrote

For sure, but considering it "third rail" if it stagnates when costs constantly grow up is dangerously complacent. In fact, your local taxpayers should be demanding better funding for your local public library, and anyone who doesn't support it should be voted out -> but as youve described it, it just being in the budget means the town has considered it "solved"

7

metsurf t1_j4vum2q wrote

It actually was an item of debate and was increased a little a couple of years back but when cutting it was proposed the motions failed. You know you can only push NJ taxpayers so far. Frankly, I could do with one less overpaid sergeant on the police force but that's me.

10

rockmasterflex t1_j4vvsct wrote

> one less overpaid sergeant on the police force but that's me

oh for sure, but imagine how murdered you'd get politically for even suggesting that.

"uhh does our town of only like 10k really need 4 sergeants?"

9

metsurf t1_j4w9of5 wrote

The thing that gets me is that even supervisory police officers get paid overtime. I mean for chrissakes in private industry you meet the criteria for being an exempt employee you are not getting OT. Highly compensated, supervisory personnel, with educational background requirements. It isn't like you're a shift leader at McDonald's making 45K that the owner is trying to screw out of OT by calling you an exempt employee.

5

Cousinit13 t1_j4wonvz wrote

Suburbs are their own worst enemies and since NJ is largely a state where people go to live it is filthy with them. There are far too many municipalities, school districts, police forces and none of them are willing to give up any control or funding to merge and reduce overhead.

16

Mysticpoisen t1_j4z7ynb wrote

Not to mention suburban towns are infamous for attacking the economic well-being of the cities whose taxes subsidize suburbanite existence.

1

leetnewb2 t1_j4zhncz wrote

Is that really the case in NJ?

1

Mysticpoisen t1_j4zjh2w wrote

Suburbs going out of their way to vote against the interests of the cities, or the cities subsidizing suburban living?

Either way, yes.

3

leetnewb2 t1_j4zjm9m wrote

I'll ask a different way. What cities in NJ are subsidizing NJ suburbs?

1

Mysticpoisen t1_j4zk86b wrote

All of them, fundamentally. Cities produce dramatically more taxes, but an outsized portion of their state taxes go towards suburban infrastructure. Suburbs would be exponentially more expensive to develop and live in if not for the insane tax revenues from cities to pave the way. This is how state taxes work. Urban areas are and always have been the economic engine of any state.

2

leetnewb2 t1_j4zklpe wrote

While I acknowledge that generally holds true, I don't think that dynamic is as clean as you claim it to be in NJ.

1

Mysticpoisen t1_j4zkx4d wrote

Anything at all that would make you think that? Are the suburbs of NJ suddenly massive financial or industrial centers? Did their infrastructure suddenly become an order of magnitude cheaper? NJ is the most heavily urbanized state in the country with the highest infrastructure costs, the dynamic holds more true here than anywhere else.

1

leetnewb2 t1_j4zlx8a wrote

NJ, and by virtue its suburbs, subsidize NYS and NYC primarily through tax dynamics. Also, North NJ's population density exceeds most cities in the country, so it isn't clear to me why the suburban/urban labels are even consistent in comparison. NJ's high infrastructure costs (roads in particular) are probably driven more by the population density, hostile seasons, and the heavy truck/freight traffic as the link between the massive container terminals in NYC/North NJ and the rest of the country.

1

Mysticpoisen t1_j4znkan wrote

The labels are relevant because suburban areas are bedroom communities without industry of any kind(and we're not just talking about north jersey), which is why they languish in terms of tax revenue. And the tax dynamics with NYC are complex, but still generate significant revenue for the state, but it's irrelevant to the conversation because we're talking about NJ cities.

While the population density of NJ is quite high, it's because our cities are some of the densest in the world. AND they have significant industry of all kinds, making them produce tax revenue orders of magnitude higher than suburban areas.

1

leetnewb2 t1_j4zorbh wrote

> The labels are relevant because suburban areas are bedroom communities without industry of any kind(and we're not just talking about north jersey), which is why they languish in terms of tax revenue.

That makes less sense in the emerging era of remote work. And it doesn't make much sense to talk about South Jersey when the bulk of the state population is in Central and North.

> And the tax dynamics with NYC are complex, but still generate significant revenue for the state, but it's irrelevant to the conversation because we're talking about NJ cities.

NJ commuters to NYC pay income taxes to NYS. How does that generate significant revenue for NJ? It is relevant to the discussion because such a significant chunk of income to the residents of NJ is generated in NYS and does not result in state taxes paid to NJ. You could argue that NJ suburbs are dependent on NYC for income.

> While the population density of NJ is quite high, it's because our cities are some of the densest in the world. AND they have significant industry of all kinds, making them produce tax revenue orders of magnitude higher than suburban areas.

The population density of NJ is high because Manhattan and the boroughs are extremely dense. And I'll repeat - in the era of remote work and substantial digital work, the concept of urban areas being the drivers of state revenue and productivity gets a little weaker.

0

Mysticpoisen t1_j4zrx3b wrote

NY and NJ have tax revenue sharing systems in place for residents of one who work in the other. The fact that you didn't know that, or understand that income tax is trivial compared to property and corporate and industry make it clear you don't have any idea how the state budget operates.

0

leetnewb2 t1_j4zu928 wrote

> NY and NJ have tax revenue sharing systems in place for residents of one who work in the other.

That is incorrect. I am a NJ resident that works in NYC. I file taxes in both states and take a credit from NJ for taxes paid to NYS, which effectively nullify any individual income tax contribution to NJ. NJ collects no income tax from me while subsidizing services to me. It is a huge part of NJ's funding gap.

> The fact that you didn't know that, or understand that income tax is trivial compared to property and corporate and industry make it clear you don't have any idea how the state budget operates.

Please cite literally anything that supports your position.

1

storm2k t1_j4vxwls wrote

local government being nonpartisan does nothing to help it. you'll still get partisan people running for it and they'll run things as if they were partisan. the only thing it achieves is that they don't have an r or d hanging on the back of their names on the ballot.

nimbyism is a huge hindrance to everything, and yes, it's almost always the wealthier fractions in the big houses that want to vote against anything that would be long term beneficial for the whole of the town. it also boggles me that people really don't understand that you should never leave your car doors unlocked and just leave your wallet and stacks of cash in your unlocked car. like, sheer amazement that this is such a thing in wealthier suburbs.

10

rockmasterflex t1_j4wz5ut wrote

the votes being nonpartisan HUGELY change the way it works.

Instead of being on the ballot as D or R and being in that column, its a random-ish order, with the incumbents called out.

This is beneficial because almost nobody votes in those elections, and of the people who DO, 90% of them have no idea what theyre doing, they just vote down D?R column, which is objectively bad for small scale govt.

Take the ability to do that away, and they have 3 choices:

  • vote for incumbents

  • vote for challengers

  • actually prepare for the election and figure out what you want to do (or remember a few interactions with your town govt and vote the people you hate out)

all 3 of those are smarter voting patterns than "the guy was on the right team"

3

storm2k t1_j4x7sf2 wrote

and 99.9% of people will continue to vote for the incumbents because "eh, they're doing a good enough job". for the smattering of people who vote in municipal elections as it is. jersey really needs to force all of them to be on even years to coincide with national elections, but that will never happen because all parties are happy with the lower turnout keeping incumbents entrenched for as long as they choose to stay basically.

3

BeamStop23 t1_j4wfigh wrote

Police is a big one, if you exclude DC. New jersey has the most police per Capita then the rest of America. We spend billions on them every year.

4