Way to go Sweeney!

He calls for a criminal investigation of the NJEA:

Did Senate President Steve Sweeney just commit political suicide? Sweeney (D-Gloucester) is the highest-ranking Democrat in Trenton, and wants to be governor. But he just called for a criminal investigation of the state's largest teachers' union, ...
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/08/sweeney.html

Meanwhile thanks to its union lots of casino workers are going to be permanently out of their job. 

Here is a link for a HuffPost article on Norcross and Sweeney from a few months back:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-law/the-untold-tragedy-of-cam_b_9401640.html

Really an eye-opening article.  I especially "like" the scheme where corporations don't pay property taxes for twenty years because a NFP owns the property.  And then the NFP is obligated to sell the property back to the corporation after twenty ("20") years for one dollar.  My next favorite is the cost of jobs created under special Camden legislation.  Apparently the cost of these job in Camden ranged from $100k to $500k per job "created".  

I would think Moran isn't as naive as he seems in that op-ed. He's been around Trenton a long time so he shouldn't be. But the idea that Sweeney is showing courage here is pretty dubious. He's picking a fight with a couple of unions that are very likely to support his primary opponents next year. If there was a chance they'd be supporting him, then this might be showing "courage."

Caution, bramzzoinks. We wouldn't want criticism and scrutiny to make the job of being a teacher one that only the unstable would want.

RealityForAll said:

Here is a link for a HuffPost article on Norcross and Sweeney from a few months back:




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-law/the-untold-tragedy-of-cam_b_9401640.html





Really an eye-opening article.  I especially "like" the scheme where corporations don't pay property taxes for twenty years because a NFP owns the property.  And then the NFP is obligated to sell the property back to the corporation after twenty ("20") years for one dollar.  My next favorite is the cost of jobs created under special Camden legislation.  Apparently the cost of these job in Camden ranged from $100k to $500k per job "created".  

@RealityForAll

The Alex Law article about Camden tax subsidies is really incomplete and misleading.

Like many other pieces on tax subsidies, it makes a mistake in confusing approved tax credits with the money actually paid out.  The tax credits cited in the article have only been approved by the Economic Development Authority and then will paid out over the course of a decade after certain investment benchmarks are met.  In the long term the tax subsidies might cost their sticker price, but the amounts cited aren't the amount the NJ Treasury has given up yet.

What's more misleading is how the Huff Post attempts to calculate the cost per job.  

For instance, the Huff Post gives the Holtec subsidy at $215,000 per job, but doesn't explain its methodology.

The subsidy is $260 million over ten years.  The EDA approved this for 235 new jobs, 160 retained jobs, and 1,140 construction jobs.  You can't give a straightforward cost per job.

If you count new jobs only, the cost is $110k per job. If you count new and retained jobs, it's $68k per job. I don't think there's a way to factor in construction jobs, but if you divided the construction jobs out over the ten year life of the tax credit, the cost per job would be like $49k per job.

Also, Holtec is making a $260 million investment in Camden. How likely is it to give up a brand new building after only ten years?  I don't think it would.  The 235 new jobs number is also a floor, not a ceiling.  The real number of jobs created could be higher.  If the number of jobs created is less than 235, then the state gets to claw back some of the subsidy deal.

Is the subsidy worth it?  No one can say for sure, because we don't know if Holtec was bluffing when it threatened to move to Charlestown, SC.  If Holtec had indeed moved to SC the NJ Treasury would have gotten a grand total of $0 from then.  

Also, the article doesn't discuss that Camden is one of many cities that are eligible for tax subsidies.  Practically all the businesses that are relocating to Jersey City are doing so with the help of state tax subsidies.  

This is also wrong:

"The relief did not address some of the main problems that plague Camden. None of it has gone towards addressing the fact that the city is a food desert. None of it went to small, Camden resident owned businesses."

This is wrong.  It's true that Camden small businesses don't get EDA subsidies, but they often get UEZ subsidies.  Alex Law is looking at the wrong subsidy program.  People, anecdotally, say that more small businesses are getting EDA subsidies since the 2013 reform/expansion.

Honestly, there aren't a lot of small businesses in Camden anyway and resolving the food desert issue is really tough.  It took years of effort, new residential development, and megasubsidies to get Whole Foods and ShopRite to invest again in Newark, for instance. 

http://www.njeda.com/pdfs/reports/Approved_GrowNJ_EOA.aspx

http://www.njeda.com/web/pdf/eda/7102014agenda.pdf#page=102

http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?statesum=NJ

And please excuse me if I link to posts I've written on how subsidies are misunderstood.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-phantom-budgetary-salvation-cutting.html

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2016/07/steve-fulop-flippant-and-thankless-again.html

What are your thoughts on the scheme where corporations don't pay property taxes for twenty years because a NFP "owns"1 the property?  

1-  But after twenty ("20") years, the NFP is obligated to sell the property back to the corporation  for one dollar ("$1.00").

Runner_Guy said:

RealityForAll said:

Here is a link for a HuffPost article on Norcross and Sweeney from a few months back:




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-law/the-untold-tragedy-of-cam_b_9401640.html





Really an eye-opening article.  I especially "like" the scheme where corporations don't pay property taxes for twenty years because a NFP owns the property.  And then the NFP is obligated to sell the property back to the corporation after twenty ("20") years for one dollar.  My next favorite is the cost of jobs created under special Camden legislation.  Apparently the cost of these job in Camden ranged from $100k to $500k per job "created".  

@RealityForAll

The Alex Law article about Camden tax subsidies is really incomplete and misleading.

Like many other pieces on tax subsidies, it makes a mistake in confusing approved tax credits with the money actually paid out.  The tax credits cited in the article have only been approved by the Economic Development Authority and then will paid out over the course of a decade after certain investment benchmarks are met.  In the long term the tax subsidies might cost their sticker price, but the amounts cited aren't the amount the NJ Treasury has given up yet.

What's more misleading is how the Huff Post attempts to calculate the cost per job.  



For instance, the Huff Post gives the Holtec subsidy at $215,000 per job, but doesn't explain its methodology.

The subsidy is $260 million over ten years.  The EDA approved this for 235 new jobs, 160 retained jobs, and 1,140 construction jobs.  You can't give a straightforward cost per job.


If you count new jobs only, the cost is $110k per job. If you count new and retained jobs, it's $68k per job. I don't think there's a way to factor in construction jobs, but if you divided the construction jobs out over the ten year life of the tax credit, the cost per job would be like $49k per job.

Also, Holtec is making a $260 million investment in Camden. How likely is it to give up a brand new building after only ten years?  I don't think it would.  The 235 new jobs number is also a floor, not a ceiling.  The real number of jobs created could be higher.  If the number of jobs created is less than 235, then the state gets to claw back some of the subsidy deal.


Is the subsidy worth it?  No one can say for sure, because we don't know if Holtec was bluffing when it threatened to move to Charlestown, SC.  If Holtec had indeed moved to SC the NJ Treasury would have gotten a grand total of $0 from then.  


Also, the article doesn't discuss that Camden is one of many cities that are eligible for tax subsidies.  Practically all the businesses that are relocating to Jersey City are doing so with the help of state tax subsidies.  


This is also wrong:

"The relief did not address some of the main problems that plague Camden. None of it has gone towards addressing the fact that the city is a food desert. None of it went to small, Camden resident owned businesses."


This is wrong.  It's true that Camden small businesses don't get EDA subsidies, but they often get UEZ subsidies.  Alex Law is looking at the wrong subsidy program.  People, anecdotally, say that more small businesses are getting EDA subsidies since the 2013 reform/expansion.

Honestly, there aren't a lot of small businesses in Camden anyway and resolving the food desert issue is really tough.  It took years of effort, new residential development, and megasubsidies to get Whole Foods and ShopRite to invest again in Newark, for instance. 

http://www.njeda.com/pdfs/reports/Approved_GrowNJ_EOA.aspx


http://www.njeda.com/web/pdf/eda/7102014agenda.pdf#page=102


http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?statesum=NJ



And please excuse me if I link to posts I've written on how subsidies are misunderstood.


http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-phantom-budgetary-salvation-cutting.html


http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2016/07/steve-fulop-flippant-and-thankless-again.html

@RealityForAll

I don't know very much about the Cooper's Ferry Partnership, but it could be a bona fide redevelopment NFP.  HANDS Inc in Orange owns a lot of real estate (eg Hat City Kitchen) and I think they do very good work.   

Camden's mayor is the co-chair of the Cooper's Ferry Board of Directors. I have to assume that she believes that Cooper's Ferry works in the interest of Camden.

---

Also, this section of Alex Law's editorial is FLAT OUT WRONG.

One of the more pernicious effects of the EOA has been to cause a dramatic rise in land prices in Camden. Since the State gave exorbitant sums of money to corporations to develop the city, a vacant lot in Camden that might have been worth $20,000 five years ago is now worth millions. Because of this rise in land value, property taxes and also rising. But, the property taxes aren’t going up for the corporations.

Camden's land prices aren't rising in any real sense and if they were, it wouldn't cause anything other than county taxes to rise.

Camden's Equalized Valuation in 2011 was $1.75 billion.  Now it's $1.7 billion.  I suppose there are some parcels that have appreciated, but the city as a whole is still losing market value.  

Yet, a rising Equalized Valuation doesn't directly affect muni and school taxes.  Muni and school taxes only increase when a town council or BOE raises them.  The Equalized Valuation could double and it wouldn't necessarily increase muni and school taxes (unless the municipality and school district lost state aid, but that hasn't happened in NJ in a few years and it's technically illegal.)  

As an example, Jersey City's Equalized Valuation is skyrocketing, but Jersey City hasn't had to raise taxes in a few years.  

If a town's share of a county's total Equalized Valuation increases then it would automatically pay higher taxes (even if the total county tax levy were constant).  Apparently by a trivial, trivial amount Camden has gained a slightly larger share of Camden County's EV (4.3% to 4.6%), but the larger reason for the increase in county taxes is that Camden County's total levy has increased by $27 million (almost 10%)  

Camden's muni taxes are increasing because the cost of government is increasing and these have been bad years for municipal aid. 

Camden's school tax levy is only $7.2 million.  That amount hasn't increased in many years.  I have tax levy records going back to 1989 and back then Camden's school levy was $10 million.  I have no idea when the last time Camden increase its school tax levy.

RealityForAll said:

What are your thoughts on the scheme where corporations don't pay property taxes for twenty years because a NFP "owns"1 the property?  

1-  But after twenty ("20") years, the NFP is obligated to sell the property back to the corporation  for one dollar ("$1.00").

Runner_Guy said:

RealityForAll said:

Here is a link for a HuffPost article on Norcross and Sweeney from a few months back:




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-law/the-untold-tragedy-of-cam_b_9401640.html





Really an eye-opening article.  I especially "like" the scheme where corporations don't pay property taxes for twenty years because a NFP owns the property.  And then the NFP is obligated to sell the property back to the corporation after twenty ("20") years for one dollar.  My next favorite is the cost of jobs created under special Camden legislation.  Apparently the cost of these job in Camden ranged from $100k to $500k per job "created".  

@RealityForAll

The Alex Law article about Camden tax subsidies is really incomplete and misleading.

FYI, this is a good editorial from the Record commending Sweeney for his stance on the Pension Prioritization Amendment.

The Office of Legislative Services put the cost of the amendment at $20 billion over five years. 

http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-editorials/still-no-ttf-fix-1.1640777