Recent comments in /f/newjersey

JimTheJerseyGuy t1_jadrggu wrote

Ideally, just widen 31 into a proper road. It's already been done between Clinton and Ringoes for the most part. The rest of the road get the same amount of traffic according to NJDOT but it's single lane each way with few, if any, places to pass and few jug handles to separate turning traffic. There have been numerous accidents on it near me in Warren County and it's only getting worse.

1

beowulf92 t1_jadr7xa wrote

People are definitely part of the problem. Adult communities could certainly help too, but without a consistent aging population to continually move in to keep those communities filled, there's now just excess housing stock limited by age that's going to inflate property values, because we didn't build enough housing for everyone, and there's fewer people paying taxes on the necessary budget for the municipality, so taxes across the board will need to rise to make up that difference. The average birth rate continues to fall, so that situation is going to happen sooner or later no matter what, unless there's a massive influx of elderly people relocating to the state, but they typically do the opposite and leave here.

People having fewer kids means people moving into communities aren't having the same strain on schools as they used to. But the more people that move in, the more people that can be taxed to pay for the increase in services. When the density being thrown up is nothing but hundreds and hundreds of units of rentals, yes that hurts in the long run, but increase the density of tax paying citizens in addition to rentals, attract non-residential uses in close proximity that can serve them, and those too get taxed to reduce the tax burden on residents. Infrastructure costs will drastically scale down for the greater the population they are being built/improved for.

Free birth control and vasectomies etc. is definitely an interesting idea that could help some areas of the country/world that don't have the educational infrastructure to sustain the growth. Not this state though I'd argue. We don't have wild rates of unexpected pregnancies driving population growth, and we luckily have ample access to family planning resources including abortions, pills, etc when necessary for an accidental pregnancy. I understand your thought process, but it wouldn't do anything for our state.

Home Rule and awfully managed land use and zoning decisions are what need to change. Anything people based will fail once the demographics it was based on change. A systematic overhaul of how growth/development/redevelopment occurs and adapts to changing demographics here is very much needed for long-term change here.

Thanks for the convo! Always good to hear differing opinions.

−1

SleepyHobo t1_jadqzpw wrote

Only great for people who already own a home and want/have kids. The education you love so much costs so much money that the kids being educated won't even be able to afford to buy a home in the state they were taught in.

3

warrensussex t1_jadq898 wrote

Thank god some one is thinking of the cannabis oligopoly in this state.

​

The amendment they removed should tell you a lot.

>The version from Assembly member Annette Quijano (D) was previously amended in committee in that body, with members agreeing to remove an earlier provision that would’ve made it so only cannabis licensees with gross receipts less than $15 million would be eligible for state tax deductions.

This isn't about helping small cannabis business (have any of them even opened?) It's a way to give away the large companies that are government was kind enough to serve up to them on a silver platter. Every time I see news about the state of the industry in this state, I regret just a little more voting for legalization.

5

lost_in_life_34 t1_jadq60i wrote

if it's anything like long island then 20%-25% is local town and county taxes and the rest school taxes. For nassau I looked up a home one time and they had the exact breakdown of all the taxes line by line a homeowner pays

15

ukcats12 t1_jadpztf wrote

> Yep my town just had their re-evaluations done and my house went up, no joke, 60%

When they do a town wide reassessment the tax rate doesn't stay the same though. The value of your house might have gone up, but the tax rate is then cut to compensate. The town's tax revenue will stay approximately the same. Your taxes might go up, but certainly not by 60%.

6

Mercurydriver t1_jadogyr wrote

One of my friends is the president of the professors/graduate students labor union at NJIT. It’s the same deal over there too. TA’s make about $30,000 a year, which is disgustingly low. Many TA’s can’t even afford to live in the immediate area of the campus. They’re actively campaigning for pay raises, in addition to other benefits that they’d like initiated.

8