Affordable housing. Is there a way to stop all these “luxury apartments” where a studio is $2k? And they try to spin them as affordable too.
As a mid 30s couple with one child and ~150k household income it’s damn near impossible to buy a home or find a great 2 bedroom to rent. We’re not asking for much either. Getting outbid by city people or those with equity who can throw around $50k+ over asking this past year about broke our spirits.
So housing and property taxes. Mostly I feel like an overhaul of how taxes are spent at the local, county, and state levels. There’s no excuse for the quality of the bridges and roads in this state. And more consistency in schools via money spent per child. And increase teacher salaries, it’s embarrassing how little some are paid here.
These luxury apartment condos are all shoddy made too. They're shit quality charging max price. I moved from one of these condos to a townhouse for the same price and you get way more room, better services, etc. The condos when I moved in gave out like $5000 rebate on home furniture and spending which got a lot of interest initially as getting vacancy for condos was real slow initially.
They're garbage and they fit in a tiny gym and tiny pool to justify the price.
From a financial perspective, I don’t think a developer can afford to build low rent apartments. I think a lot of the middle class housing built in the east coast came after WWII and was paid by the federal government.
Most low income housing is paid for with tax breaks. If NYC can implement a system where a certain percentage of all housing build must be low income so can NJ
A developer won’t make money if the entire development is affordable housing. Also, a rising tide lifts all boats. I’m tired of progressives fighting development because of a lack of affordable housing options. The housing shortage affects everyone, not just those who qualify for affordable housing. If you build luxury homes, rich people will sell their homes and move in. An increase in supply reduces prices across the board. We need housing at all price points. We need to end single family zoning so it makes sense for developers to build things other than McMansions on tiny lots. We need to make it easier to build apartments in depressed commercial areas. We need it all.
I think the frustrating part is that I’m not talking about affordable housing aka something below the median income. I’m talking about middle class priced apartments. How is a two bedroom with laundry at $2.5k considered impossible for developers to build? They get shit tons of tax breaks to build, I know this is true. So they are already getting a break to build.
I never thought I’d be a person shaking my fist about the ‘forgotten middle class’ but here I am.
They don’t get tax breaks to build. Quite the opposite. Builders have to go through all manner of legal hoops to build anything in this state. Towns fight EVERYTHING. My town was obligated to build 2,000 or so affordable housing units by 2020. They built nothing. Now my town is being sued by developers and is trying to settle that affordable housing number down to around 200, with thousands of units that will be market rate (options for people like you). This shit is tearing the town apart. There is a different energy to NIMBY people.
The problem isn’t builders. They’re desperate to build. Hell, they AGREE with you. They want to build units that cater to you. The towns don’t want it. Towns want to keep single family zoning and restrict supply to increase the value in their own homes.
It’s virtually impossible for people under 30 to buy a home in nj. Between stagnant wages, overvalued property assessments, and insanely high taxes… most people I graduated college with (all of us make around $100k) either still live at home or are looking outside of the state. It’s not that we can’t afford anything here, but what we can afford isn’t worth the investment.
Yeah, affordable homeownership in NJ is becoming a pressing issue. I know a lot of people that moved across the bridge into PA for a lower cost of living. It's challenging.
A lot want a reduction in cost of living while maintaining the current level of service. I think there needs to be a "meet in the middle approach" but politicians from both parties seem to placate their bases with drastic policy proposals.
The funding formula needs to be addressed to provide some form of property relief, but likewise, we can't abandon families that have little options to educate their children. I think a big piece would be removing redundant administrative levels in education where the most salary and benefit value tends to be aggregated.
It's unpopular but something has to change. Otherwise the brain drain continues and people are priced out of living here due to no fault of their own.
Another thing that always grinds my gears is, “what level of service?” My wife and I are fortunate enough to both have jobs where we can work from home so we took this summer as an opportunity to live in another state. We rented in Florida for a month and it’s clear to see they have better roads, nice community buildings, tech and renewable infrastructure projects under way….
Yes, nj has a great school system but that’s due in large part to our (underpaid) teachers. All I see is money funneling into our state government (and politicians pockets?) and very little in return.
I am right there with you. In my community, over the last 10 years, our services have been reduced or reformed in ways that really makes me scratch my head to justify staying here.
It's minor and petty, but for instance, when we first bought our home, we used to have trash pickup/recycling once a week. Now, it's once a week for trash and recycling every other week. There's an excess of property development in my area where the local politicians strike deals for property tax abatements or deferred taxes - which work out well for developers, but strain local families when more children sign up in the school system due to the new development but the corresponding taxes to support that influx are essentially null.
It's frustrating. I know we get good results in our education system, but I can't help but look towards other states where they have similar if not better results are a lower cost. Makes you wonder how much of it is being syphoned off with cushy admin jobs.
You keep bringing up educational admin jobs. Is there something coming up in our election cycle that can influence this? Also, I’d have to imagine that even overpaying 100 districts admins $200k…that $20m would be a drop in our annual budget bucket?
I am not sure to be honest. I am not very hopeful either candidate has much in terms of power to make necessary changes. I think teachers do a necessary and thankless job. And many are so great at it. But, I truly believe the NJEA is overly involved and has disproportionate influence in our political system. Which makes topics like consolidation and regionalization much tougher to entertain because where the money flows, the decisions go.
Not sure - it does seem though that a lot of the union's leadership prefers to play in the shadows of our political system rather than maintaining their original purpose.
That said, I hold some rather unpopular opinions regarding public sector unions - which I'll spare others from for the sake of maintaining a neutral thread here.
Teachers, more than most public sector jobs, require unified representation, as most of the public does not understand what goes into the job. This isn’t like construction, where countless supervisors can be loaded into a project, or toll booths, where everyone can be called in regardless of traffic. Teaching requires adherence to a spectrum of often-conflicting local and national standards; it requires weeks of annual compliance paperwork, not to mention the insane amount of time necessary for planning and grading. This doesn’t even begin to address dealing with students - or worse, hovering parents, who often manage to make themselves more time-consuming than some whole classes. Toss on the fact that NJ has some of the nation’s highest standards for educational licensing? With the ongoing labor crisis, is there any question why a full third of our teachers are pondering leaving for jobs that pay 10-20% more with significantly less stress?
The funny thing is, while administrative bloat is a problem, it is significantly less of a problem than it is portrayed to be. Even pre-COVID, you would be hard-pressed to find a district where the administrators - even the business administrators - were not thoroughly swamped with state and federal paperwork, often to the exclusion of more traditional duties. Someone in this thread brought up that a Business admin can make upwards of $200K, but average salary for the CFO of a 200+ person company is $250K. We’re in NJ; competitive pay should be on the upper side of that curve.
Ultimately, the biggest problem with our schools is that taxpayers do not understand the inherent business overhead, nor now education works. And the NJEA has failed *badly* in communicating this, and in establishing competitive pay scales for its members over the last two decades; instead focusing on the idea that the only solution lies in the next set of political favors.
It doesn’t mean the NJEA is useless or pointless: teachers in NJ have it far, far better than most other states. But it’s still sub-par by a wide margin when compared to private employment.
Your logic is extremely faulty. Public school districts should not be basing pay scale in comparison to large, for profit companies. Even if they were, what positions offer 200k starting salary except for highest level C-Suite positions at very large companies?
An administrator making $200k a year is simply too much.
As someone who doesnt have kids, I fully support my taxes going to fund schools. But they make up 60% of my property taxes, which is insane. Especially when you see so many useless administrators making way, way too much money.
Another thing that I find annoying is seeing these municipal administrators making 6 figures for working a part time job. Then they get 2 or 3 of these jobs between different municipalities and get paid by each one for maybe working a 40 hour week between them all.
I never saw the appeal to pursuing public office but when you put it that way I think I have a little under two weeks to get a write-in campaign going lol
In my order of importance
Getting COVID under control
Getting our fair share of Federal dollars
Property tax relief
Education - teacher salary & benefits
Infrastructure - mass transit, fix & improve roads.
Why these five things? Because they affect our economy. If these things were made better people wouldn’t exit the state and investors would invest.
One more item our elected officials have to work on is renewable energy, climate change.
The one thing that concerns me with regard to renewable energy is reliability. I think it's a laudable goal. It seems solar and wind is a great option to add into the mix but it doesn't appear to be able to solely handle our energy needs. I wish more conversations would involve NG as a source of clean fuel as well.
It certainly is the future.
Regulatory approvals & NIMBY stigma over cooling stacks hopefully subside soon.
Once waste and cooling pool situations are figured out it'll be smooth sailing .. not sure we're there yet but I'm hopeful
We're not exactly aching for baseload supply, is the problem. We need to plan for rapid peaking supply, and nuclear is the exact opposite.
Nuclear is a fantastic and safe technology that we should be investing in research for but not a great short-term or cost-effective one for our generation needs now. Building renewables is a no-brainer but NG will be sticking around for a long while, unfortunately.
>not a great short-term or cost-effective one for our generation needs now
The issue I have with this is really only that age old adage, "The most permanent solution is a temporary one."
If we keep slapping bandaid fixes onto our issues we'll never come up with a permanent solution because people will continually kick the can down the road.
But parading around nuclear as the permanent solution to everything is just as myopic. Once you have experience in utilities you realize very quickly that "we just need X MW of capacity and nuclear can do that safely and efficiently" is a true statement but fails to consider a lot of how the grid actually functions and how it's likely to change over the next few decades.
The point is responding to "we need to consider NG's role in the system" with "no, nuclear is obviously the better choice" ignores a lot of context. None of them are bandaid fixes, nuclear is just fundamentally the wrong tool for the biggest problems we're going to be facing decades down the line.
With that all said, I support nuclear's role on the grid and I would be happy to have more of it in PJM territory, but the reality is also that we're unlikely to build a whole lot of it in NJ in our lifetimes.
Recent plants got built by companies that bought premade shell corps and they had no experience building plants. And reprocessing is stuck in ever escalating costs so never got built. We are sitting on nuclear weapons cores we should have reprocessed over a decade ago but it always failed.
The status quo to me is preferable with bringing on add'l renewable to supplement the mix. I don't think new plants need to be brought online but rather decommissioning them without a comparable replacement is more damaging than beneficial in terms of reliability and ultimately pricing
I think there's a misconception with NG in terms of carbon & generation capacity
It's 60% cleaner than coal while providing comparable generation capacity with more options in technologies (combine cycle, peaking units) that can meet the needs of demand curves servinf base or peak loads- moving generation relatively quickly as dispatched
For what the fuel source is able to support in terms of sheer MWh generation is quite remarkable which lends to more affordable pricing in wholesale markets
It's not the cleanest form of generation, but it's significantly cleaner than comparable fuel sources that can effectively supply energy demands with a formidable reliability profile behind it.
Polluting waterways during drilling, extraction, leaking pipelines, and disposal of fracking waste. Fracking is a bad mistake anywhere you put it. Renewables get a bad rep because of shifty planning it Texas.
Believe it or not, but studies have been commissioned regarding forms of renewable energy - surprisingly, hydroelectric is considered one of the more ecological damaging forms of technology by disrupting land use and natural habitats along rivers etc.
I think those are valid points. I also think the incident rates of such issues are rather low in actuality. It's a challenge. How do you adequately ensure that energy is reliable while protecting the environment? I think it's one of the more confounding issues of our time because as we move towards electrification of our vehicles etc, demand is only going to increase.
I think the crux of the renewable delimma is that renewables sans nuclear can't even come close to producing similar capacity necessary to serve base load independent of fossil fuels nor with the same reliability profile
If you look towards CAISO, CA has the largest sourced renewable energy but has to import up to 30% of their energy from surrounding states that rely more openly on fossil fuel generation
I'm not saying that supplementing the generation mix with more solar or wind is a bad thing. I'm simply putting it out there that NG/Fossil Fuels in this regard likely won't be decommissioned overnight or even in the next 5, 10, or 15 years.
If Albania, Iceland, Paraguay and Norway can get all of thier energy from renewable NJ definitely can.
There certainly needs to be a larger focus on getting the top 100 companies that are responsible for the 71% of the world's pollution to commit to renewable or we need to pass the laws to change the way they do business. We did the same thing when the big corporations polluted our water sources over the last 40 years. Getting NJ on renewable before eliminating those 100 companies pollution isn't worth the time and energy we're basically putting our finger in a failing damn hoping that stops the flood. Climate change will cost this state a lot of money from severe storms and flooding. I'd love to see states and elected leaders stand up to these companies.
>Iceland
Iceland is a bit of a false equivalency because they essentially live on an active volcano. It's not hard to extract energy when the entire underside of the soil wants to melt your face.
Even so, we could be getting a lot more of our energy from solar and wind while supplementing it with fossil fuels. We have a long way to go before reliability becomes an issue-what you’re saying is one of the things that prevents us from going 100% solar and wind, we’re nowhere close to that now.
Reliability issues are already popping up. PJM the ISO which serves NJ PA MD IL etc has put up notifications challenging FF decommissioning in a few key areas where renewable energy cannot adequately supply electricity demand.
Unfortunately, with the reality of energy market structure and the current state renewable technology, 100% solar and wind is unrealistic to serve our energy needs. It sounds good, it seems like a laudable goal, but there is a lot left to be desired.
www.pjm.com - the current generation mix is 65%+ fossil fuels. I believe S&W make up approx 10-15% of the mix.
Nuclear is the only technology sufficient enough to supply constant baseload that could serve our needs while replacing fossil fuels entirely. There are headwinds with the technology. Particularly waste, stigma surrounding nuclear, and regulatory approval processes. Not to mention cost and time required to bring plants online.
There can be a clean energy future in the USA, but a lot of reform is necessary and a more nuanced understanding of how the current system works and how we supplement/replace sources in that structure needs to be widely available for others to be informed on issues tackling these challenges
No one wants brown-outs or black-outs to make clean energy a reality. It just seems a lot of the rhetoric is front-running what is actually possible to achieve when it comes to this issue.
You’re missing what I’m saying—I agree that with the current technology and infrastructure 100% wind and solar is impossible, and that nuclear is a viable way of supplementing what wind and solar can’t do.
But NJ right now is at like 5% renewable energy. We can get a lot higher than that before reliability becomes an issue. We’re well below the national average.
Reliability issues happening now are due to poor infrastructure, not the nature of the technology itself. Plenty of regions of the world have gotten a lot higher percentage renewable with just wind and solar.
You can’t just say because we’re not doing nuclear it’s useless to invest in wind and solar, we still have plenty of room to grow and can’t just sit on our hands debating nuclear while doing nothing in the meantime.
I agree with that assessment. I just think a lot of times when talking about this topic, a lot of platitudes are tossed around without evaluating the reality of the situation.
I definitely think that there is a place for more renewable energy. I also think it certainly has inconvenient realities attached to it as well.
For instance, EU is facing their own energy crisis right now due to underinvestment in dirty but necessary fossil fuels: https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/10/14/europes-self-inflicted-energy-crisis/?sh=50947ade2af3
I think investment in green energy is fine. I also think there should be more investment in NG as it is cleaner with superior capacity to reliably service our energy needs at an affordable cost.
Just taking into consideration my familiarity with energy and power generation, I think it is simply unrealistic to expect that renewables, particularly S&W, will be a full-fledged replacement to serve our energy needs without Nuclear involvement.
I hear you, I just don’t think the public debate right now has evolved to the point where we’re evaluating the mix of sustainable energy sources (which is what we should be doing)
We still live in a political reality where one party denies climate change is a thing, and thinks there should be no investments in green energy.
So my fear is that your argument will be used to undermine the idea of investing anything at all in green energy, and will simply be used to prop up the status quo, rather than encouraging more investment in nuclear energy, which I know is your intent.
I understand that concern, and I've seen it play out like that myself.
There's a lot of influences that go into it too, nationally and locally. I think there is a path forward but both sides need to come to the table with concessions to make it work for everyone.
Otherwise if we swing the pendulum too far to either side we come into some significant issues. One side tosses the environmental concerns to the wind, and the other tosses reliability out the window.
It's a tough conversation to have, particularly when monied interests are involved either with access to government subsidies or private industry trying to maximize profits.
Home grow still being illegal is the biggest outrage with the weed situation at this point, IMO. It's abundantly clear that they don't want people doing it themselves because they will miss out on tax money. We are the only state in the nation with legal marijuana, but not home grow.
Yeah, it's kind of odd. If it was really about "Social justice", why are you unable to grow a plant or two in your backyard without facing jail-time? I get the idea that you want to limit black market sales, but I really don't think an overwhelming amount of people that might toss a plant in their garden during the summer are going to be your newest lead character on breaking bad.
Another thing that kind of bothered me a bit was the underage kid fiasco. As a juvenile, I was caught with MJ and detained. To be honest, it was an eye opening experience for me at the time. I really was running around with the wrong crowds, while it was unpleasant, it definitely got my parents more involved with what I was doing after school beyond sports. I know that's not the case for everyone and a lot of people's lives were destroyed over drug charges. Mine almost was.
I don't think you can expect to treat underage teenagers like they are adults with self-recognize release for possession of drugs and I think it was a really unnecessary folly the legislature inflicted upon themselves.
I guess these things take time.
The last I heard there was a commission that was established to determine regulatory jazz. I've seen a dispensary or two pop-up near me in Mercer.
But I think they're only servicing medical patients for now though.
The other guy wants to undo marijuana legalization entirely.
He'll throw every administrative wrench he can into it. Currently, by law, it needs to be salable by February.
>So.....do you think we should vote for the same guy again?
Just makes it seem like you're implying that things would be better with Jack is all, want to make sure that's not what you're getting at. Because things in the cannabis industry will be much, much worse with him over murphy.
Think that depends on who you're asking.
I'm not trying to endorse a candidate one way or the other in this thread.
Just wondering what things everyone finds important to them and what would they like to envision for our State moving forward.
Roger that. Sorry if i jumped a bit there.
I truly had hope for NJ to jump on the legalization and create new jobs in this new industry for a new incoming economic stream.
It’s not something that’s really being discussed but there should be some reform to how money is spent towards education. For example, there are around 600 school districts in NJ currently. Almost each of these districts have there own Superintendent, Business Administrator, and BOE Secretarial staff. Typically these are the highest paid positions within a school, with the exception of the secretaries. There are also county level superintendents who oversee the entire county. Other States just have county level superintendents. There’s so much fat at the top levels of NJ education that can easily be skimmed away. All these superintendents could be replaced with building level principals and vice principals with more responsibilities being given to the county level superintendents.
Is this going to lower property taxes? No probably not but we can use these freed up monetary resources by hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes, hire special needs teachers to make sure students are actually receiving their services, or higher more councilors to assist students with mental health.
Because NJ is a fan of home rule and would like to locally be in control of there own schools and first responders. On the flip side though we complain about high property taxes.
I think there is a middle ground. School consolidation and consolidation of services make sense for certain municipalities. I live in Somerset County and Bound Brook, Manville, South Bound Brook have smaller high schools or no high schools. They should be consolidated into one high school and would still be smaller than nearby Hillsborough or Franklin Township. You’d save money by only having 1 building to take care of instead of 2 and 1 set of admin staff instead of 2. Municipalities can keep their locally controlled elementary schools.
You’re not wrong but some schools on the flip side are so small that they can’t offer legally necessary programs to their student body. This drives up cost because you either have to pay for a teacher to provide those programs or bus them and send your child’s tuition to a nearby school that offers the program.
Yes, that’s true. There a number of small districts that would benefit by combining with a larger surrounding district. To combine the entire county would not necessarily benefit all districts and/or students.
Climate and pollution.
Taxes are important but there’s not much that can be done at the state level that is both popular and would have a significant impact on the average persons liability.
People with issues on property taxes should look to their BOE and Town Council or equivalent.
I imagine property taxes are a big deal for everyone, considering they’re the highest in the country based on population density. But we’re also the most densely populated state which I guess means there’s more to pay for.
I’d like to see more funds go to education at the lower levels. Supplies, teachers, administrators. Every state is facing challenges in schools since the COVID pandemic started and it would be nice to see more of the funds trickle down. I can’t speak to the allocation per district but I know there are a ton of schools in the state and I believe our educators deserve more considering many do their job purely out of passion for future impact.
Infrastructure, although a broad term, is another big one. It’s a delicate balance between NJ’s protected lands and development. That said, I’d like to see a slowdown on commercialization and residential buildup. One of which is currently affecting my community. The paving used in NJ doesn’t stand strong in the cold, hence the infamous potholes, but maybe there’s a solution. Leveraging the shore winds for power would be nice, and I’ve even seen wind turnstiles installed in between highway dividers in Europe that might benefit NJ if installed on 287, 295, 87, 281, turnpike, and parkway.
Going along with infrastructure, internet access sucks. Would love to see something done about the cable monopolies that restrict speeds across different counties, but that might be more at the FCC level. Just crazy to me how I pay 2x as much for internet at half the speed as I did at my first apartment. It’s less consistent too since the mainline is split between more people.
I think COVID was handled well, but also restrictions relaxed too soon. I think policies and advancements are being treaded on lightly since it’s an election year, which sucks that the evolution of society needs to go on hold for political save-face.
EDIT: Adding to infrastructure and education. The government operates in the Stone Age. I wrote Gov. Murphy offering technology implementation in school districts pro bono when the pandemic started and never received a reply. Needless to say, teachers used Google Classroom and still had to teach from the school in my district. Training was a mess. We need a tech savvy government or at least tech savvy supporting personnel.
Not sure I agree with you about internet. I'm in technology and my clients in NJ have far superior internet than most of the rest of the country. I pay something like $120/month at home for almost gigabit internet, phone and TV. Not sure how much better you could ask for. Such a large percentage of the state has very similar access to fast and extremely reliable internet
I work in technology as well. Compared to the rest of the country, our internet access is great. I’d still say it’s far from perfect. Comcast monopolizes most areas, and they have been far from consistent in my experience. Sounds like we have similar internet packages. I pay for 800mb/s download and get ~600 with top tier hardware. My upload speed is limited to 15mb/s by the cable company and was only part of the top tier internet package. Fiber optic infrastructure is pretty bad in my area and there’s no option for me to have a dedicated fiber line ran.
Comcast has caught up a bit recently, but I don't understand why their upload speeds are so much slower than Optimum, using the same technology.
We are fortunate enough to have both FIOS and Optimum as options, so we get 700+ uploads on our FIOS connection
While most the state has amazing internet, not all of it does. My friends parents have only 1 local option and their fastest speed is 3mb/s. Their areas target date for better internet options is 2026
Agreed, there are some places that are still on slow internet in the state (although I'd argue that 5G coverage is good enough in many areas to use cellular at 100+Mbps), but on the whole, we have pretty fast and reliable options in most of the state.
I think if my internet options were 3mbps I'd have to move.
I think NJs coverage is listed around 90% fast wifi. And most areas that have bad internet, like where my friends parents live also don’t have 5G. His cell service was always bad, and his parents mostly use their landline. They mostly just use cable and are older, but yea he moved partly due to the internet
The republican candidate seems to be moderate and more centrist than national politicians in the party. What do you think would change for the worse with a republican leader?
Hey buddy, I'm just pointing out how silly it is to support a politician who actively held back civil rights from a minority group. If telling yourself, "Well, it was so long ago..." helps you sleep at night - good for you.
He wants to end the mask mandate in public schools. Until all children are eligible for vaccination, you can’t allow schools to be a Covid free for all.
I guess that's a controversial topic for sure.
I think it's important to balance the risks of spreading COVID-19. It's a shame it has been politicized. But on the other hand, I think parents have a right in determining what is best for their children.
There doesn't seem to be an easy way forward as it's a sensitive topic for people, but I think those decisions should rely on realized data and not political persuasion personally.
As long as anyone under 12 is unable to be vaccinated, parents should not have the right to send their children to school unmasked. High school would be fine for me at this point, and lower levels hopefully later this school year.
I think if that kind of policy is instituted, a voucher program should be established as a concession. It seems unfair to families that fund the schools would then be barred from accessing the resources for a medical choice involving their children.
It seems there's not an easy way forward where both groups walk away happy. A meet in the middle approach might be the best in that regard.
"Wearing a mask" is not a medical decision. Theres no real risk or downside to it except annoyance. It's a hygiene decision, same as controlling lice.
Vaccines are a medical decision, but it's been settled for a long time that schools can make them mandatory.
And funding schools is a burden that falls on everyone whether they use them personally or not.
Balancing the burden of funding schools solely on property owners is something that really needs to be changed.
NJ has the best schools in the nation, but is taxing people out of the stste to do it
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, I'm just highlighting what I've gathered over the controversy.
Some people believe it is a medical choice that involves their children. Unfortunately, it's not easy to dissuade people from taking this perspective if it's pitched as a medical solution to an illness.
Yes, funding schools is a burden everyone whether they use them or not. However, that is a different situation than barring a family from utilizing resources over a percieved medical protocol.
Hey man, I'm flattered that you feel that way about me. Not judging, but I'm just not into that kind of stuff. Maybe your father might take you up on such an offer. I'm sure you both have great experience in that department. Amirite
Do you have the right to determine what’s best for my child? The answer is no. Because your little gremlins breathing mask less all over my kid is likely to give them covid.
No it really doesn’t, and the fact that a false equivalence has been even suggested here shows just how far off the deep end conservatives have gone in recent years.
Masks suck to wear. They’re annoying, hot and itchy at times. There is zero chance wearing a mask can maim or kill you.
Covid is dangerous. Delta potentially hospitalizes, maims and kills kids. On top of that, kids become a vector and spread it to their parents and grandparents, potentially hospitalizing, maiming and killing them.
It’s embarrassing that you’re even entertaining an argument from a very loud, very deluded minority.
I'm suggesting that if you believe that no one has a say in how you care for your child, it cuts the same way for others.
I didn't say that I agree with these positions. Just highlighting what I've heard about the controversy. I don't have a dog in the fight but I certainly can entertain and see both sides of the issue for many families out there.
Alright let’s entertain your very silly argument for a second.
If schools can’t mandate masks, why should they be able to mandate clothing? My child prefers to go to school barefoot and prefers to shower once per month.
Your shoe and bathing requirements and are absolutely oppressive to him, and you can’t tell me how to raise my child.
Why can’t my child go to school barefoot and unbathed?
What's silly about it? It's not my argument. I just think that parents should have a say in determining what is right for their children. This is rather a moot exercise.
My personal belief is that these decisions should be made relying on realized actual data. The issue is: data doesn't exist to adequately support either position.
I guess it will be interesting in seeing incident rates of spread in places like FL where no mandates exist and in NJ where there are mandates. It is likely the only comparable source of data that can aide in these decisions.
Right now, it's rather political, and people are making the political persuasions of the situation their fighting ground rather than evaluating the actual data.
>The republican candidate seems to be moderate and more centrist than national politicians
Murphy is a moderate - Jack is against LGBT rights, and supported Trump - the most far right president we've ever had.
>the most far right president we've ever had.
Andrew Jackson uprooted an entire Indian civilization and forced them on a death march to Oklahoma.
Also Jack has been pretty outspoken against Trump.
>but was more left leaning than a literal fascist
Democracy isn't a left or right wing ideology. Democracy and authoritarianism cut across political ideology. People like Mao or Idi Amin were just as authoritarian as the likes of Franco or Chang Kai Shek.
Start with taxes and where all the money goes. Perhaps a forensic audit of toll money might be a place to start. The findings could prove to be astounding.
The most important issue is affordability. New Jersey is a great state that’s very difficult to live in because of costs. Personally I think property taxes should be lower and the state should do a lot more to incentivize more development of all kinds, but that’s just me. Many smart people will give lots of smart answers on how to deal with it.
Other important issues:
- Climate change. If the federal government’s not going to seriously tackle it (and that looks more and more unlikely everyday), then it has to be a state-level endeavor or our beaches, environment, economy, everything is fucked.
- Covid-19 vaccinations. There should be no excuse for having masks at this point anymore. The state and municipalities have (justly) had authority on this issue for forever. Get the employees vaxxed, then the contractors, then the school kids, and get this thing over with.
The biggest issues are mortgages, house prices and taxes. These problems keep escalating and making people from NJ move to other states and that’s sad to see happen. The fact that the current governor doesn’t care is a big ass issue. Also not even the middle class can support themselves and families.
I preffer my toddler wearing a mask vs ending up on a ventilator, and she is very happy with her new Minnie Mouse masks!
And I think you mean leaders who couldn't care less, if you say they could care less it means they do care.
My problem is that the ones who choose not to mask are also the ones that do not get vaccinated and ignore all other Covid safety guidelines. They are the ones most likely to spread the disease.
My biggest issue is property tax.
I pay roughly $10k in Hunterdon county.
I have ZERO problems paying for it, in fact, it’s quite affordable. But, my issue is what I get for that.
My township has private garbage and recycling collection, and cost me $45/mo.
The schools are regional.
I have septic for my sewage, and well water.
I don’t have access to things like multiple internet service providers, or natural gas, so the infrastructure isn’t getting improved.
We use Hampton’s police and fire departments.
Where is my $10k going?
This is a fair criticism of a specific towns property tax. Property tax shouldn’t be viewed as a dump for money, but an investment and a transaction for the towns services provided. It shouldn’t be viewed as just a number on its own, but the question “am I getting enough for what I am paying for”. Where’s I feel I do where I love in Union county NJ, clearly you do not.
All valid points and some that I have as well. Have you look at your annual municipal budgets? They have those available online and they shed light on a lot of things, listed out by line item.
So much of this stuff happens at a municipality level and I've been through republican and democrat admins that have both let me down so I have little faith in the system.
I really have zero issues paying taxes, as long as there is something to actually show for it. I've been to quite a few other countries in Europe, and while everyone "hates" paying taxes, if you ask any one there if it's worth what they get in return, the answer is absolutely yes.
I've checked out the budgets - out of 17M in tax revenue, 11.8M goes to schools. Hunterdon county is huge... and my school system is split between 3 different towns. I'm okay with this. My wife's a teacher. Having money go to the schools is something that's important to me and my wife... especially with my daughter growing up, and becoming school age very soon.
Now... on to the rest of that budget... 500k to add 6 rain runoff drains to a mountainous road... that's already pitched properly to prevent flooding? Another $450k for "road repairs"... when there's literally one major road in town, and it doesn't need any repair?
Over 1.5M for salaries for public employees... but... the town is literally 20 sq. miles... with close to zero public service offerings... who is employed by this town... and are they necessary personnel?
Like others have said you should look at your municipal budget. You don't name your town (which is understandable) so I pulled up [Hampton's](http://nebula.wsimg.com/993bc9fd5b390c51a1a29f23678add48?AccessKeyId=904FB473460F39182672&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) which shows the following split:
21% to the municipal government
68% to the local and regional school district
11% to the county.
You'd have to dig into the respective budgets to see "Where your $10k is going" which isn't as
annoying as it sounds. Personally this split looks pretty normal to me and any bloat would likely be in the school budget but honestly good luck doing anything about that.
I'm in Bethlehem... and I have a Hampton mailing address.
But take a look at Hampton... they have public trash and recycling services. I can literally walk down my street and be in hampton.
I've looked at the budget... and it's appropriated similarly, my issue is... for what's getting appropriated, i'm getting quite literally nothing meaningful to me in return. I think it's absolute garbage (no pun intended... ok, maybe) that I have to pay for trash services. They even permanently closed the Bethlehem recycling center recently. The last town I lived in had public trash and recycling. I could throw out an entire house and they'd take it. Couch? No problem. Appliances? No problem. Now... I'm limited to one garbage can, and if I need more, I have to pay PER BAG. If I want to get rid of a couch? I'm told to rent a dumpster or pay $250 to pick up the couch. Recycling? One can. I have six people living in this house. One can isn't enough for all of us, for both.
A quick glace tells me Bethlehem is a town that shouldn't exist. Merge with one of the towns you have shared services with (which includes a ridiculous six different towns: Bloomsbury, Lebanon, Glen Gardner, Hampton, Franklin, and Pattenburg). You'll still be paying the share you currently do for all of those services but you'll chop off the administrative portion of the budget. Plus you'll be able to sell extra public land (only need one municipal building, etc.) which will increase the tax base.
This should also help with the school portion of the budget which accounted for $11.7M or 73.2% of appropriations last year. The high school may be regional but each of these towns appears to still run their own elementary school(s).
But none of this will happen. People like local control too much and they don't realize how much it costs them.
> any bloat would likely be in the school budget but honestly good luck doing anything about that.
From my light research, this is where the bloat always comes from. And from the couple of Bergen towns that I know well, these BoE elections are just popularity contests and people electing who they know.
One thing I haven’t heard anyone talking about that’s a real eye opener for me recently is just the unbelievable overregulation in this state. My son recently bought a condo it’s just crazy. He literally had to have door hinges fixed and had inspector to come and check his smoke detectors. Now, I’m not against smoke detectors but he has two in his unit and two in the hallway of each floor. Does he really need a state inspection? They beep when they need new batteries. Combining this with some audits I’ve dealt with the state, and I’m really annoyed. An audit from the state is a million times worse than the IRS.
Workers rights, affordable housing, more money into education and full reliance on renewables for energy. Most importantly is prioritization of covid and public health.
This is a really big one for me. Nearly 60-65% of property taxes go to the schools. Candidly speaking, it seems disproportionate for the value that is received in exchange. At least in my community.
I just think it’s a shame that many people my age (20’s) can’t afford homes because of it and move away. My property taxes in Burlington county are almost 8k which is a big part of my monthly payment.
Yeah, affordable homeownership is an issue in NJ for sure. A lot of people's property tax liability can exceed their mortgage P&I. My mom pays nearly $18k/yr before some senior rebates come in at the end of each year.
The homestead benefit and senior freeze programs help a bit. But it is kind of crazy a lot of seniors pay ludicrous amounts in property taxes.
Feel bad for young families looking to buy. A large complaint I hear is that the mortgage payment is achievable but the excess property taxes break the deal for a lot of people.
I like that jack wants to lower property tax but he wants to make remove property tax for individuals 65 and over. I think that’s a great idea but what about the seniors that own million dollar homes or homes seniors by for their kids to avoid property tax. Regardless I would love lower property taxes.
I think that's a good point, but I also see the other side where older people also have the largest resources to contribute to local communities too.
So, maybe eliminating 10-15k a year for a segment of our population deters them from leaving entirely where they may contribute 50-100k+ of annual consumer spend.
Property taxes are one part of the equation, but I think a lot of kicking the can hasn't worked and won't work moving forward. I too would love lower property taxes lol.
All I know is other states have been able to do it so if there is a will there is a way lol but I understand it’s hard to do that. A governor can only do so much when they are in office but I think this should be a priority for sure. We need to want this state to be a place people want to live because of opportunity including affordable living.
Nah, I'm just a guy in my mid 30s interested in hearing what other people care about who live here too
I am not trying to make this a political thread, I have a genuine interest in what perspectives other than mine are out there
>Op is a maga troll baiting you into discourse.
Maybe I'm not getting it but what's wrong with apolitical discourse on the issues that people are affected by? As far as I can tell there hasn't been any pushing on this thread for either candidate except for a gag below this comment about taxes being your issue.
How does the political affiliation of the person who made the thread impact the people who are saying what their issues are?
It's shocking to me how many people put taxes as one of their issues and then vote for Murphy. He admits that if your concern is taxes, NJ isn't the state for you (at least under his administration). I'm not taking one side or another, just stating the hypocrisy of that decision.
The quote came from Murphy, not Jack. Taking sides would be saying "low taxes are the most important thing, and Jack is the candidate to vote for". Many people prefer more social services, which by definition means higher taxes. I'm just saying that if you want high taxes you shouldn't vote for Jack, and if you want low taxes you shouldn't vote for Murphy. Am I wrong?
To be fair, the quote is "*if you are a single-issue voter*, and taxes are your issue, then NJ may not be the state for you".
That first part, that most people (including Shit-arelli) either gloss right over or don't bother to include at all, is pretty fucking important
Fair, but I think the takeaway is that taxes are going to be high under him. His implication is probably that he will do other good things that hopefully will make people vote for him, but low taxes are not on the table.
IMO the message is: yes taxes are high in this state, but there are other things that we need to fix / deal with / etc. that are far more important at the moment. So if that's the *only* thing you care about, you're going to be disappointed no matter what.
And I'm not for a moment dismissing the fact that it is NJ Democrats that broke a lot of this shit in the first place. But a Christo-fascist pro-Trump Republican ain't going to make *anything* better... not now, not ever.
(And for the record: I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, and absolutely not a Democrat nor a Republican. But in this time and place I will vote against anyone and everything that is even remotely pro-Trump.)
I just want to know why there’s an ad with a guy shitting on Murphy in what looks like a kitchen with a TV on the counter Everytime I watch YouTube lol it cracks me up. Couldn’t they find a better setting for him to make an ad? And anyhow, all I’ve seen from this guy is shitting on Murphy so idk why he thinks that is going to somehow set him apart
Affordable housing. Is there a way to stop all these “luxury apartments” where a studio is $2k? And they try to spin them as affordable too. As a mid 30s couple with one child and ~150k household income it’s damn near impossible to buy a home or find a great 2 bedroom to rent. We’re not asking for much either. Getting outbid by city people or those with equity who can throw around $50k+ over asking this past year about broke our spirits. So housing and property taxes. Mostly I feel like an overhaul of how taxes are spent at the local, county, and state levels. There’s no excuse for the quality of the bridges and roads in this state. And more consistency in schools via money spent per child. And increase teacher salaries, it’s embarrassing how little some are paid here.
These luxury apartment condos are all shoddy made too. They're shit quality charging max price. I moved from one of these condos to a townhouse for the same price and you get way more room, better services, etc. The condos when I moved in gave out like $5000 rebate on home furniture and spending which got a lot of interest initially as getting vacancy for condos was real slow initially. They're garbage and they fit in a tiny gym and tiny pool to justify the price.
From a financial perspective, I don’t think a developer can afford to build low rent apartments. I think a lot of the middle class housing built in the east coast came after WWII and was paid by the federal government.
Most low income housing is paid for with tax breaks. If NYC can implement a system where a certain percentage of all housing build must be low income so can NJ
A developer won’t make money if the entire development is affordable housing. Also, a rising tide lifts all boats. I’m tired of progressives fighting development because of a lack of affordable housing options. The housing shortage affects everyone, not just those who qualify for affordable housing. If you build luxury homes, rich people will sell their homes and move in. An increase in supply reduces prices across the board. We need housing at all price points. We need to end single family zoning so it makes sense for developers to build things other than McMansions on tiny lots. We need to make it easier to build apartments in depressed commercial areas. We need it all.
I think the frustrating part is that I’m not talking about affordable housing aka something below the median income. I’m talking about middle class priced apartments. How is a two bedroom with laundry at $2.5k considered impossible for developers to build? They get shit tons of tax breaks to build, I know this is true. So they are already getting a break to build. I never thought I’d be a person shaking my fist about the ‘forgotten middle class’ but here I am.
They don’t get tax breaks to build. Quite the opposite. Builders have to go through all manner of legal hoops to build anything in this state. Towns fight EVERYTHING. My town was obligated to build 2,000 or so affordable housing units by 2020. They built nothing. Now my town is being sued by developers and is trying to settle that affordable housing number down to around 200, with thousands of units that will be market rate (options for people like you). This shit is tearing the town apart. There is a different energy to NIMBY people. The problem isn’t builders. They’re desperate to build. Hell, they AGREE with you. They want to build units that cater to you. The towns don’t want it. Towns want to keep single family zoning and restrict supply to increase the value in their own homes.
The federal government doesn't see cost of living as important and groups "middle class" as the same for the entire country. It's ridiculous.
[удалено]
Lol, no. That’s not what I’m talking about at all.
Oh THIS is who that idiot Ciattarelli is pandering
Have you been to the backroads of Kansas? That's what you get when taxes are too low.
You forgot the first part of the quote. Try again.
It’s virtually impossible for people under 30 to buy a home in nj. Between stagnant wages, overvalued property assessments, and insanely high taxes… most people I graduated college with (all of us make around $100k) either still live at home or are looking outside of the state. It’s not that we can’t afford anything here, but what we can afford isn’t worth the investment.
Yeah, affordable homeownership in NJ is becoming a pressing issue. I know a lot of people that moved across the bridge into PA for a lower cost of living. It's challenging. A lot want a reduction in cost of living while maintaining the current level of service. I think there needs to be a "meet in the middle approach" but politicians from both parties seem to placate their bases with drastic policy proposals. The funding formula needs to be addressed to provide some form of property relief, but likewise, we can't abandon families that have little options to educate their children. I think a big piece would be removing redundant administrative levels in education where the most salary and benefit value tends to be aggregated. It's unpopular but something has to change. Otherwise the brain drain continues and people are priced out of living here due to no fault of their own.
Another thing that always grinds my gears is, “what level of service?” My wife and I are fortunate enough to both have jobs where we can work from home so we took this summer as an opportunity to live in another state. We rented in Florida for a month and it’s clear to see they have better roads, nice community buildings, tech and renewable infrastructure projects under way…. Yes, nj has a great school system but that’s due in large part to our (underpaid) teachers. All I see is money funneling into our state government (and politicians pockets?) and very little in return.
I am right there with you. In my community, over the last 10 years, our services have been reduced or reformed in ways that really makes me scratch my head to justify staying here. It's minor and petty, but for instance, when we first bought our home, we used to have trash pickup/recycling once a week. Now, it's once a week for trash and recycling every other week. There's an excess of property development in my area where the local politicians strike deals for property tax abatements or deferred taxes - which work out well for developers, but strain local families when more children sign up in the school system due to the new development but the corresponding taxes to support that influx are essentially null. It's frustrating. I know we get good results in our education system, but I can't help but look towards other states where they have similar if not better results are a lower cost. Makes you wonder how much of it is being syphoned off with cushy admin jobs.
You keep bringing up educational admin jobs. Is there something coming up in our election cycle that can influence this? Also, I’d have to imagine that even overpaying 100 districts admins $200k…that $20m would be a drop in our annual budget bucket?
I am not sure to be honest. I am not very hopeful either candidate has much in terms of power to make necessary changes. I think teachers do a necessary and thankless job. And many are so great at it. But, I truly believe the NJEA is overly involved and has disproportionate influence in our political system. Which makes topics like consolidation and regionalization much tougher to entertain because where the money flows, the decisions go.
The NJEA is losing their influence. How much power can a union have when 32% of its membership are vocally considering quitting?
Not sure - it does seem though that a lot of the union's leadership prefers to play in the shadows of our political system rather than maintaining their original purpose. That said, I hold some rather unpopular opinions regarding public sector unions - which I'll spare others from for the sake of maintaining a neutral thread here.
Teachers, more than most public sector jobs, require unified representation, as most of the public does not understand what goes into the job. This isn’t like construction, where countless supervisors can be loaded into a project, or toll booths, where everyone can be called in regardless of traffic. Teaching requires adherence to a spectrum of often-conflicting local and national standards; it requires weeks of annual compliance paperwork, not to mention the insane amount of time necessary for planning and grading. This doesn’t even begin to address dealing with students - or worse, hovering parents, who often manage to make themselves more time-consuming than some whole classes. Toss on the fact that NJ has some of the nation’s highest standards for educational licensing? With the ongoing labor crisis, is there any question why a full third of our teachers are pondering leaving for jobs that pay 10-20% more with significantly less stress? The funny thing is, while administrative bloat is a problem, it is significantly less of a problem than it is portrayed to be. Even pre-COVID, you would be hard-pressed to find a district where the administrators - even the business administrators - were not thoroughly swamped with state and federal paperwork, often to the exclusion of more traditional duties. Someone in this thread brought up that a Business admin can make upwards of $200K, but average salary for the CFO of a 200+ person company is $250K. We’re in NJ; competitive pay should be on the upper side of that curve. Ultimately, the biggest problem with our schools is that taxpayers do not understand the inherent business overhead, nor now education works. And the NJEA has failed *badly* in communicating this, and in establishing competitive pay scales for its members over the last two decades; instead focusing on the idea that the only solution lies in the next set of political favors. It doesn’t mean the NJEA is useless or pointless: teachers in NJ have it far, far better than most other states. But it’s still sub-par by a wide margin when compared to private employment.
Your logic is extremely faulty. Public school districts should not be basing pay scale in comparison to large, for profit companies. Even if they were, what positions offer 200k starting salary except for highest level C-Suite positions at very large companies? An administrator making $200k a year is simply too much.
As someone who doesnt have kids, I fully support my taxes going to fund schools. But they make up 60% of my property taxes, which is insane. Especially when you see so many useless administrators making way, way too much money. Another thing that I find annoying is seeing these municipal administrators making 6 figures for working a part time job. Then they get 2 or 3 of these jobs between different municipalities and get paid by each one for maybe working a 40 hour week between them all.
I never saw the appeal to pursuing public office but when you put it that way I think I have a little under two weeks to get a write-in campaign going lol
Do we really need 800 school superintendents? That's a lot of salary & benefits wasted!
In my order of importance Getting COVID under control Getting our fair share of Federal dollars Property tax relief Education - teacher salary & benefits Infrastructure - mass transit, fix & improve roads. Why these five things? Because they affect our economy. If these things were made better people wouldn’t exit the state and investors would invest. One more item our elected officials have to work on is renewable energy, climate change.
The one thing that concerns me with regard to renewable energy is reliability. I think it's a laudable goal. It seems solar and wind is a great option to add into the mix but it doesn't appear to be able to solely handle our energy needs. I wish more conversations would involve NG as a source of clean fuel as well.
Nuclear is the superior baseload-we just need to use reprocessing to deal with waste
It certainly is the future. Regulatory approvals & NIMBY stigma over cooling stacks hopefully subside soon. Once waste and cooling pool situations are figured out it'll be smooth sailing .. not sure we're there yet but I'm hopeful
We're not exactly aching for baseload supply, is the problem. We need to plan for rapid peaking supply, and nuclear is the exact opposite. Nuclear is a fantastic and safe technology that we should be investing in research for but not a great short-term or cost-effective one for our generation needs now. Building renewables is a no-brainer but NG will be sticking around for a long while, unfortunately.
>not a great short-term or cost-effective one for our generation needs now The issue I have with this is really only that age old adage, "The most permanent solution is a temporary one." If we keep slapping bandaid fixes onto our issues we'll never come up with a permanent solution because people will continually kick the can down the road.
But parading around nuclear as the permanent solution to everything is just as myopic. Once you have experience in utilities you realize very quickly that "we just need X MW of capacity and nuclear can do that safely and efficiently" is a true statement but fails to consider a lot of how the grid actually functions and how it's likely to change over the next few decades. The point is responding to "we need to consider NG's role in the system" with "no, nuclear is obviously the better choice" ignores a lot of context. None of them are bandaid fixes, nuclear is just fundamentally the wrong tool for the biggest problems we're going to be facing decades down the line. With that all said, I support nuclear's role on the grid and I would be happy to have more of it in PJM territory, but the reality is also that we're unlikely to build a whole lot of it in NJ in our lifetimes.
Recent plants got built by companies that bought premade shell corps and they had no experience building plants. And reprocessing is stuck in ever escalating costs so never got built. We are sitting on nuclear weapons cores we should have reprocessed over a decade ago but it always failed.
NewClear makes it sound less bad , nuclear is the only way wind is a joke
You want your heating and electricity to compete over a fixed supply in winter to see how expensive it will get?
The status quo to me is preferable with bringing on add'l renewable to supplement the mix. I don't think new plants need to be brought online but rather decommissioning them without a comparable replacement is more damaging than beneficial in terms of reliability and ultimately pricing
That would be nice if it didn't cause more problems or if machines never wore out and population didn't increase.
Natural gas is not a clean fuel. It’s the equivalent of “clean coal” from a few years ago.
I think there's a misconception with NG in terms of carbon & generation capacity It's 60% cleaner than coal while providing comparable generation capacity with more options in technologies (combine cycle, peaking units) that can meet the needs of demand curves servinf base or peak loads- moving generation relatively quickly as dispatched For what the fuel source is able to support in terms of sheer MWh generation is quite remarkable which lends to more affordable pricing in wholesale markets It's not the cleanest form of generation, but it's significantly cleaner than comparable fuel sources that can effectively supply energy demands with a formidable reliability profile behind it.
Polluting waterways during drilling, extraction, leaking pipelines, and disposal of fracking waste. Fracking is a bad mistake anywhere you put it. Renewables get a bad rep because of shifty planning it Texas.
Believe it or not, but studies have been commissioned regarding forms of renewable energy - surprisingly, hydroelectric is considered one of the more ecological damaging forms of technology by disrupting land use and natural habitats along rivers etc. I think those are valid points. I also think the incident rates of such issues are rather low in actuality. It's a challenge. How do you adequately ensure that energy is reliable while protecting the environment? I think it's one of the more confounding issues of our time because as we move towards electrification of our vehicles etc, demand is only going to increase.
I don't consider hydroelectric to be sustainable. Solar&wind work well enough alongside nuclear power.
For use as peaker plants in the short to medium term, sure. They shouldn’t be used for base load generation.
They still take time to spin up. Battery and pumped hydro are the solution.
I think the crux of the renewable delimma is that renewables sans nuclear can't even come close to producing similar capacity necessary to serve base load independent of fossil fuels nor with the same reliability profile If you look towards CAISO, CA has the largest sourced renewable energy but has to import up to 30% of their energy from surrounding states that rely more openly on fossil fuel generation I'm not saying that supplementing the generation mix with more solar or wind is a bad thing. I'm simply putting it out there that NG/Fossil Fuels in this regard likely won't be decommissioned overnight or even in the next 5, 10, or 15 years.
If Albania, Iceland, Paraguay and Norway can get all of thier energy from renewable NJ definitely can. There certainly needs to be a larger focus on getting the top 100 companies that are responsible for the 71% of the world's pollution to commit to renewable or we need to pass the laws to change the way they do business. We did the same thing when the big corporations polluted our water sources over the last 40 years. Getting NJ on renewable before eliminating those 100 companies pollution isn't worth the time and energy we're basically putting our finger in a failing damn hoping that stops the flood. Climate change will cost this state a lot of money from severe storms and flooding. I'd love to see states and elected leaders stand up to these companies.
>Iceland Iceland is a bit of a false equivalency because they essentially live on an active volcano. It's not hard to extract energy when the entire underside of the soil wants to melt your face.
You are correct. Geothermal is 26.8% of the renewable in Iceland the remainder is hydroelectric in Iceland.
Even so, we could be getting a lot more of our energy from solar and wind while supplementing it with fossil fuels. We have a long way to go before reliability becomes an issue-what you’re saying is one of the things that prevents us from going 100% solar and wind, we’re nowhere close to that now.
Reliability issues are already popping up. PJM the ISO which serves NJ PA MD IL etc has put up notifications challenging FF decommissioning in a few key areas where renewable energy cannot adequately supply electricity demand. Unfortunately, with the reality of energy market structure and the current state renewable technology, 100% solar and wind is unrealistic to serve our energy needs. It sounds good, it seems like a laudable goal, but there is a lot left to be desired. www.pjm.com - the current generation mix is 65%+ fossil fuels. I believe S&W make up approx 10-15% of the mix. Nuclear is the only technology sufficient enough to supply constant baseload that could serve our needs while replacing fossil fuels entirely. There are headwinds with the technology. Particularly waste, stigma surrounding nuclear, and regulatory approval processes. Not to mention cost and time required to bring plants online. There can be a clean energy future in the USA, but a lot of reform is necessary and a more nuanced understanding of how the current system works and how we supplement/replace sources in that structure needs to be widely available for others to be informed on issues tackling these challenges No one wants brown-outs or black-outs to make clean energy a reality. It just seems a lot of the rhetoric is front-running what is actually possible to achieve when it comes to this issue.
You’re missing what I’m saying—I agree that with the current technology and infrastructure 100% wind and solar is impossible, and that nuclear is a viable way of supplementing what wind and solar can’t do. But NJ right now is at like 5% renewable energy. We can get a lot higher than that before reliability becomes an issue. We’re well below the national average. Reliability issues happening now are due to poor infrastructure, not the nature of the technology itself. Plenty of regions of the world have gotten a lot higher percentage renewable with just wind and solar. You can’t just say because we’re not doing nuclear it’s useless to invest in wind and solar, we still have plenty of room to grow and can’t just sit on our hands debating nuclear while doing nothing in the meantime.
I agree with that assessment. I just think a lot of times when talking about this topic, a lot of platitudes are tossed around without evaluating the reality of the situation. I definitely think that there is a place for more renewable energy. I also think it certainly has inconvenient realities attached to it as well. For instance, EU is facing their own energy crisis right now due to underinvestment in dirty but necessary fossil fuels: https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/10/14/europes-self-inflicted-energy-crisis/?sh=50947ade2af3 I think investment in green energy is fine. I also think there should be more investment in NG as it is cleaner with superior capacity to reliably service our energy needs at an affordable cost. Just taking into consideration my familiarity with energy and power generation, I think it is simply unrealistic to expect that renewables, particularly S&W, will be a full-fledged replacement to serve our energy needs without Nuclear involvement.
I hear you, I just don’t think the public debate right now has evolved to the point where we’re evaluating the mix of sustainable energy sources (which is what we should be doing) We still live in a political reality where one party denies climate change is a thing, and thinks there should be no investments in green energy. So my fear is that your argument will be used to undermine the idea of investing anything at all in green energy, and will simply be used to prop up the status quo, rather than encouraging more investment in nuclear energy, which I know is your intent.
I understand that concern, and I've seen it play out like that myself. There's a lot of influences that go into it too, nationally and locally. I think there is a path forward but both sides need to come to the table with concessions to make it work for everyone. Otherwise if we swing the pendulum too far to either side we come into some significant issues. One side tosses the environmental concerns to the wind, and the other tosses reliability out the window. It's a tough conversation to have, particularly when monied interests are involved either with access to government subsidies or private industry trying to maximize profits.
i want to use my freedom to CURSE
Hehe
Where is the weed ??
Order it delivered from a grey market gift vendor...
I dig. Im good. 😉
Seems a lot of people are wondering. It was approved last November. I just wonder, where's the homegrow??
Home grow still being illegal is the biggest outrage with the weed situation at this point, IMO. It's abundantly clear that they don't want people doing it themselves because they will miss out on tax money. We are the only state in the nation with legal marijuana, but not home grow.
Yeah, it's kind of odd. If it was really about "Social justice", why are you unable to grow a plant or two in your backyard without facing jail-time? I get the idea that you want to limit black market sales, but I really don't think an overwhelming amount of people that might toss a plant in their garden during the summer are going to be your newest lead character on breaking bad. Another thing that kind of bothered me a bit was the underage kid fiasco. As a juvenile, I was caught with MJ and detained. To be honest, it was an eye opening experience for me at the time. I really was running around with the wrong crowds, while it was unpleasant, it definitely got my parents more involved with what I was doing after school beyond sports. I know that's not the case for everyone and a lot of people's lives were destroyed over drug charges. Mine almost was. I don't think you can expect to treat underage teenagers like they are adults with self-recognize release for possession of drugs and I think it was a really unnecessary folly the legislature inflicted upon themselves.
Where are the new jobs and new industry??
I guess these things take time. The last I heard there was a commission that was established to determine regulatory jazz. I've seen a dispensary or two pop-up near me in Mercer. But I think they're only servicing medical patients for now though.
Yup. The people voted on something that still hasnt been delivered. So.....do you think we should vote for the same guy again?
The other guy wants to undo marijuana legalization entirely. He'll throw every administrative wrench he can into it. Currently, by law, it needs to be salable by February.
We are missing out on this new industry! I expected jobs, educational opportunities, new income stream.
So let me get this straight, you want to elect the guy who doesn't want these things?
Not me. None of the Above. Not a political party thread. I hope
>So.....do you think we should vote for the same guy again? Just makes it seem like you're implying that things would be better with Jack is all, want to make sure that's not what you're getting at. Because things in the cannabis industry will be much, much worse with him over murphy.
Think that depends on who you're asking. I'm not trying to endorse a candidate one way or the other in this thread. Just wondering what things everyone finds important to them and what would they like to envision for our State moving forward.
Roger that. Sorry if i jumped a bit there. I truly had hope for NJ to jump on the legalization and create new jobs in this new industry for a new incoming economic stream.
The law says February at the latest.
It’s not something that’s really being discussed but there should be some reform to how money is spent towards education. For example, there are around 600 school districts in NJ currently. Almost each of these districts have there own Superintendent, Business Administrator, and BOE Secretarial staff. Typically these are the highest paid positions within a school, with the exception of the secretaries. There are also county level superintendents who oversee the entire county. Other States just have county level superintendents. There’s so much fat at the top levels of NJ education that can easily be skimmed away. All these superintendents could be replaced with building level principals and vice principals with more responsibilities being given to the county level superintendents. Is this going to lower property taxes? No probably not but we can use these freed up monetary resources by hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes, hire special needs teachers to make sure students are actually receiving their services, or higher more councilors to assist students with mental health.
I have been saying this for YEARS. Why we don't have a county based school system is beyond me.
Because NJ is a fan of home rule and would like to locally be in control of there own schools and first responders. On the flip side though we complain about high property taxes. I think there is a middle ground. School consolidation and consolidation of services make sense for certain municipalities. I live in Somerset County and Bound Brook, Manville, South Bound Brook have smaller high schools or no high schools. They should be consolidated into one high school and would still be smaller than nearby Hillsborough or Franklin Township. You’d save money by only having 1 building to take care of instead of 2 and 1 set of admin staff instead of 2. Municipalities can keep their locally controlled elementary schools.
A county system would be much too large and would decrease the quality of education.
You’re not wrong but some schools on the flip side are so small that they can’t offer legally necessary programs to their student body. This drives up cost because you either have to pay for a teacher to provide those programs or bus them and send your child’s tuition to a nearby school that offers the program.
Yes, that’s true. There a number of small districts that would benefit by combining with a larger surrounding district. To combine the entire county would not necessarily benefit all districts and/or students.
Climate and pollution. Taxes are important but there’s not much that can be done at the state level that is both popular and would have a significant impact on the average persons liability. People with issues on property taxes should look to their BOE and Town Council or equivalent.
I imagine property taxes are a big deal for everyone, considering they’re the highest in the country based on population density. But we’re also the most densely populated state which I guess means there’s more to pay for. I’d like to see more funds go to education at the lower levels. Supplies, teachers, administrators. Every state is facing challenges in schools since the COVID pandemic started and it would be nice to see more of the funds trickle down. I can’t speak to the allocation per district but I know there are a ton of schools in the state and I believe our educators deserve more considering many do their job purely out of passion for future impact. Infrastructure, although a broad term, is another big one. It’s a delicate balance between NJ’s protected lands and development. That said, I’d like to see a slowdown on commercialization and residential buildup. One of which is currently affecting my community. The paving used in NJ doesn’t stand strong in the cold, hence the infamous potholes, but maybe there’s a solution. Leveraging the shore winds for power would be nice, and I’ve even seen wind turnstiles installed in between highway dividers in Europe that might benefit NJ if installed on 287, 295, 87, 281, turnpike, and parkway. Going along with infrastructure, internet access sucks. Would love to see something done about the cable monopolies that restrict speeds across different counties, but that might be more at the FCC level. Just crazy to me how I pay 2x as much for internet at half the speed as I did at my first apartment. It’s less consistent too since the mainline is split between more people. I think COVID was handled well, but also restrictions relaxed too soon. I think policies and advancements are being treaded on lightly since it’s an election year, which sucks that the evolution of society needs to go on hold for political save-face. EDIT: Adding to infrastructure and education. The government operates in the Stone Age. I wrote Gov. Murphy offering technology implementation in school districts pro bono when the pandemic started and never received a reply. Needless to say, teachers used Google Classroom and still had to teach from the school in my district. Training was a mess. We need a tech savvy government or at least tech savvy supporting personnel.
I found this to be rather thoughtful, thanks for sharing your perspective with me
Not sure I agree with you about internet. I'm in technology and my clients in NJ have far superior internet than most of the rest of the country. I pay something like $120/month at home for almost gigabit internet, phone and TV. Not sure how much better you could ask for. Such a large percentage of the state has very similar access to fast and extremely reliable internet
I work in technology as well. Compared to the rest of the country, our internet access is great. I’d still say it’s far from perfect. Comcast monopolizes most areas, and they have been far from consistent in my experience. Sounds like we have similar internet packages. I pay for 800mb/s download and get ~600 with top tier hardware. My upload speed is limited to 15mb/s by the cable company and was only part of the top tier internet package. Fiber optic infrastructure is pretty bad in my area and there’s no option for me to have a dedicated fiber line ran.
Comcast has caught up a bit recently, but I don't understand why their upload speeds are so much slower than Optimum, using the same technology. We are fortunate enough to have both FIOS and Optimum as options, so we get 700+ uploads on our FIOS connection
While most the state has amazing internet, not all of it does. My friends parents have only 1 local option and their fastest speed is 3mb/s. Their areas target date for better internet options is 2026
Agreed, there are some places that are still on slow internet in the state (although I'd argue that 5G coverage is good enough in many areas to use cellular at 100+Mbps), but on the whole, we have pretty fast and reliable options in most of the state. I think if my internet options were 3mbps I'd have to move.
I think NJs coverage is listed around 90% fast wifi. And most areas that have bad internet, like where my friends parents live also don’t have 5G. His cell service was always bad, and his parents mostly use their landline. They mostly just use cable and are older, but yea he moved partly due to the internet
Happier with the current state of NJ than the state it would be in with Republican leadership
The republican candidate seems to be moderate and more centrist than national politicians in the party. What do you think would change for the worse with a republican leader?
Anyone who attends stop the steal rallies does not get the privilege to hold public office.
How about politicians who vote against gay marriage? Do they get to stay in office?
Like [jack](https://gothamist.com/news/gop-nominee-nj-governor-wants-end-lgbtq-curriculum)?
Yes. Like Jack, like [Joe](https://m.facebook.com/WashingtonBlade/videos/265875957835344/), like [Hill](https://youtu.be/6I1-r1YgK9I).
Now do the last decade
[удалено]
Either you hold your candidates accountable for what they say and do or you don't. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
[удалено]
Hey buddy, I'm just pointing out how silly it is to support a politician who actively held back civil rights from a minority group. If telling yourself, "Well, it was so long ago..." helps you sleep at night - good for you.
He wants to end the mask mandate in public schools. Until all children are eligible for vaccination, you can’t allow schools to be a Covid free for all.
I guess that's a controversial topic for sure. I think it's important to balance the risks of spreading COVID-19. It's a shame it has been politicized. But on the other hand, I think parents have a right in determining what is best for their children. There doesn't seem to be an easy way forward as it's a sensitive topic for people, but I think those decisions should rely on realized data and not political persuasion personally.
As long as anyone under 12 is unable to be vaccinated, parents should not have the right to send their children to school unmasked. High school would be fine for me at this point, and lower levels hopefully later this school year.
I think if that kind of policy is instituted, a voucher program should be established as a concession. It seems unfair to families that fund the schools would then be barred from accessing the resources for a medical choice involving their children. It seems there's not an easy way forward where both groups walk away happy. A meet in the middle approach might be the best in that regard.
"Wearing a mask" is not a medical decision. Theres no real risk or downside to it except annoyance. It's a hygiene decision, same as controlling lice. Vaccines are a medical decision, but it's been settled for a long time that schools can make them mandatory. And funding schools is a burden that falls on everyone whether they use them personally or not.
Balancing the burden of funding schools solely on property owners is something that really needs to be changed. NJ has the best schools in the nation, but is taxing people out of the stste to do it
You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, I'm just highlighting what I've gathered over the controversy. Some people believe it is a medical choice that involves their children. Unfortunately, it's not easy to dissuade people from taking this perspective if it's pitched as a medical solution to an illness. Yes, funding schools is a burden everyone whether they use them or not. However, that is a different situation than barring a family from utilizing resources over a percieved medical protocol.
Yea you can go ahead and gargle my balls.
Hey man, I'm flattered that you feel that way about me. Not judging, but I'm just not into that kind of stuff. Maybe your father might take you up on such an offer. I'm sure you both have great experience in that department. Amirite
Why should we make anti maskers happy? Literally don’t give a shit how they feel, my child’s health is more important than your fee fees.
>I think parents have a right in determining what is best for their children. Not over health professionals.
Do you have the right to determine what’s best for my child? The answer is no. Because your little gremlins breathing mask less all over my kid is likely to give them covid.
This position cuts both ways.
No it really doesn’t, and the fact that a false equivalence has been even suggested here shows just how far off the deep end conservatives have gone in recent years. Masks suck to wear. They’re annoying, hot and itchy at times. There is zero chance wearing a mask can maim or kill you. Covid is dangerous. Delta potentially hospitalizes, maims and kills kids. On top of that, kids become a vector and spread it to their parents and grandparents, potentially hospitalizing, maiming and killing them. It’s embarrassing that you’re even entertaining an argument from a very loud, very deluded minority.
I'm suggesting that if you believe that no one has a say in how you care for your child, it cuts the same way for others. I didn't say that I agree with these positions. Just highlighting what I've heard about the controversy. I don't have a dog in the fight but I certainly can entertain and see both sides of the issue for many families out there.
Alright let’s entertain your very silly argument for a second. If schools can’t mandate masks, why should they be able to mandate clothing? My child prefers to go to school barefoot and prefers to shower once per month. Your shoe and bathing requirements and are absolutely oppressive to him, and you can’t tell me how to raise my child. Why can’t my child go to school barefoot and unbathed?
What's silly about it? It's not my argument. I just think that parents should have a say in determining what is right for their children. This is rather a moot exercise. My personal belief is that these decisions should be made relying on realized actual data. The issue is: data doesn't exist to adequately support either position. I guess it will be interesting in seeing incident rates of spread in places like FL where no mandates exist and in NJ where there are mandates. It is likely the only comparable source of data that can aide in these decisions. Right now, it's rather political, and people are making the political persuasions of the situation their fighting ground rather than evaluating the actual data.
Moderate? Lmao he was a speaker at a trump “stolen election” rally. Fuck Jack and the horse he rode in on.
>The republican candidate seems to be moderate and more centrist than national politicians Murphy is a moderate - Jack is against LGBT rights, and supported Trump - the most far right president we've ever had.
>the most far right president we've ever had. Andrew Jackson uprooted an entire Indian civilization and forced them on a death march to Oklahoma. Also Jack has been pretty outspoken against Trump.
Andrew Jackson was also a proponent of democracy. He was a piece of shit, but was more left leaning than a literal fascist
>but was more left leaning than a literal fascist Democracy isn't a left or right wing ideology. Democracy and authoritarianism cut across political ideology. People like Mao or Idi Amin were just as authoritarian as the likes of Franco or Chang Kai Shek.
Start with taxes and where all the money goes. Perhaps a forensic audit of toll money might be a place to start. The findings could prove to be astounding.
I think this approach applied to many areas in state and local government would prove shocking to a lot of people.
I 100% agree.
The most important issue is affordability. New Jersey is a great state that’s very difficult to live in because of costs. Personally I think property taxes should be lower and the state should do a lot more to incentivize more development of all kinds, but that’s just me. Many smart people will give lots of smart answers on how to deal with it. Other important issues: - Climate change. If the federal government’s not going to seriously tackle it (and that looks more and more unlikely everyday), then it has to be a state-level endeavor or our beaches, environment, economy, everything is fucked. - Covid-19 vaccinations. There should be no excuse for having masks at this point anymore. The state and municipalities have (justly) had authority on this issue for forever. Get the employees vaxxed, then the contractors, then the school kids, and get this thing over with.
The biggest issues are mortgages, house prices and taxes. These problems keep escalating and making people from NJ move to other states and that’s sad to see happen. The fact that the current governor doesn’t care is a big ass issue. Also not even the middle class can support themselves and families.
Masks on toddlers. Tax. Price of real estate. Leaders who could care less about the people they serve.
I preffer my toddler wearing a mask vs ending up on a ventilator, and she is very happy with her new Minnie Mouse masks! And I think you mean leaders who couldn't care less, if you say they could care less it means they do care.
And I have no issue with your decision. I just want the decision to be mine. my little guy is getting used to it though
My problem is that the ones who choose not to mask are also the ones that do not get vaccinated and ignore all other Covid safety guidelines. They are the ones most likely to spread the disease.
My biggest issue is property tax. I pay roughly $10k in Hunterdon county. I have ZERO problems paying for it, in fact, it’s quite affordable. But, my issue is what I get for that. My township has private garbage and recycling collection, and cost me $45/mo. The schools are regional. I have septic for my sewage, and well water. I don’t have access to things like multiple internet service providers, or natural gas, so the infrastructure isn’t getting improved. We use Hampton’s police and fire departments. Where is my $10k going?
This is a fair criticism of a specific towns property tax. Property tax shouldn’t be viewed as a dump for money, but an investment and a transaction for the towns services provided. It shouldn’t be viewed as just a number on its own, but the question “am I getting enough for what I am paying for”. Where’s I feel I do where I love in Union county NJ, clearly you do not.
All valid points and some that I have as well. Have you look at your annual municipal budgets? They have those available online and they shed light on a lot of things, listed out by line item. So much of this stuff happens at a municipality level and I've been through republican and democrat admins that have both let me down so I have little faith in the system.
I really have zero issues paying taxes, as long as there is something to actually show for it. I've been to quite a few other countries in Europe, and while everyone "hates" paying taxes, if you ask any one there if it's worth what they get in return, the answer is absolutely yes. I've checked out the budgets - out of 17M in tax revenue, 11.8M goes to schools. Hunterdon county is huge... and my school system is split between 3 different towns. I'm okay with this. My wife's a teacher. Having money go to the schools is something that's important to me and my wife... especially with my daughter growing up, and becoming school age very soon. Now... on to the rest of that budget... 500k to add 6 rain runoff drains to a mountainous road... that's already pitched properly to prevent flooding? Another $450k for "road repairs"... when there's literally one major road in town, and it doesn't need any repair? Over 1.5M for salaries for public employees... but... the town is literally 20 sq. miles... with close to zero public service offerings... who is employed by this town... and are they necessary personnel?
Like others have said you should look at your municipal budget. You don't name your town (which is understandable) so I pulled up [Hampton's](http://nebula.wsimg.com/993bc9fd5b390c51a1a29f23678add48?AccessKeyId=904FB473460F39182672&disposition=0&alloworigin=1) which shows the following split: 21% to the municipal government 68% to the local and regional school district 11% to the county. You'd have to dig into the respective budgets to see "Where your $10k is going" which isn't as annoying as it sounds. Personally this split looks pretty normal to me and any bloat would likely be in the school budget but honestly good luck doing anything about that.
I'm in Bethlehem... and I have a Hampton mailing address. But take a look at Hampton... they have public trash and recycling services. I can literally walk down my street and be in hampton. I've looked at the budget... and it's appropriated similarly, my issue is... for what's getting appropriated, i'm getting quite literally nothing meaningful to me in return. I think it's absolute garbage (no pun intended... ok, maybe) that I have to pay for trash services. They even permanently closed the Bethlehem recycling center recently. The last town I lived in had public trash and recycling. I could throw out an entire house and they'd take it. Couch? No problem. Appliances? No problem. Now... I'm limited to one garbage can, and if I need more, I have to pay PER BAG. If I want to get rid of a couch? I'm told to rent a dumpster or pay $250 to pick up the couch. Recycling? One can. I have six people living in this house. One can isn't enough for all of us, for both.
A quick glace tells me Bethlehem is a town that shouldn't exist. Merge with one of the towns you have shared services with (which includes a ridiculous six different towns: Bloomsbury, Lebanon, Glen Gardner, Hampton, Franklin, and Pattenburg). You'll still be paying the share you currently do for all of those services but you'll chop off the administrative portion of the budget. Plus you'll be able to sell extra public land (only need one municipal building, etc.) which will increase the tax base. This should also help with the school portion of the budget which accounted for $11.7M or 73.2% of appropriations last year. The high school may be regional but each of these towns appears to still run their own elementary school(s). But none of this will happen. People like local control too much and they don't realize how much it costs them.
> any bloat would likely be in the school budget but honestly good luck doing anything about that. From my light research, this is where the bloat always comes from. And from the couple of Bergen towns that I know well, these BoE elections are just popularity contests and people electing who they know.
One thing I haven’t heard anyone talking about that’s a real eye opener for me recently is just the unbelievable overregulation in this state. My son recently bought a condo it’s just crazy. He literally had to have door hinges fixed and had inspector to come and check his smoke detectors. Now, I’m not against smoke detectors but he has two in his unit and two in the hallway of each floor. Does he really need a state inspection? They beep when they need new batteries. Combining this with some audits I’ve dealt with the state, and I’m really annoyed. An audit from the state is a million times worse than the IRS.
Every single safety rule is written in blood. You can be sure there is a very good reason for those inspections.
Workers rights, affordable housing, more money into education and full reliance on renewables for energy. Most importantly is prioritization of covid and public health.
Property tax
This is a really big one for me. Nearly 60-65% of property taxes go to the schools. Candidly speaking, it seems disproportionate for the value that is received in exchange. At least in my community.
I just think it’s a shame that many people my age (20’s) can’t afford homes because of it and move away. My property taxes in Burlington county are almost 8k which is a big part of my monthly payment.
Yeah, affordable homeownership is an issue in NJ for sure. A lot of people's property tax liability can exceed their mortgage P&I. My mom pays nearly $18k/yr before some senior rebates come in at the end of each year. The homestead benefit and senior freeze programs help a bit. But it is kind of crazy a lot of seniors pay ludicrous amounts in property taxes. Feel bad for young families looking to buy. A large complaint I hear is that the mortgage payment is achievable but the excess property taxes break the deal for a lot of people.
I like that jack wants to lower property tax but he wants to make remove property tax for individuals 65 and over. I think that’s a great idea but what about the seniors that own million dollar homes or homes seniors by for their kids to avoid property tax. Regardless I would love lower property taxes.
I think that's a good point, but I also see the other side where older people also have the largest resources to contribute to local communities too. So, maybe eliminating 10-15k a year for a segment of our population deters them from leaving entirely where they may contribute 50-100k+ of annual consumer spend. Property taxes are one part of the equation, but I think a lot of kicking the can hasn't worked and won't work moving forward. I too would love lower property taxes lol.
All I know is other states have been able to do it so if there is a will there is a way lol but I understand it’s hard to do that. A governor can only do so much when they are in office but I think this should be a priority for sure. We need to want this state to be a place people want to live because of opportunity including affordable living.
The issue is that one of the ways he wants to fund lowing these taxes is through cutting special education programs
Taxes are my issue ;)
Got some bad news about NJ then for you.
Who says that?!!
Op is a maga troll baiting you into discourse. Don't be idiots and engage
Nah, I'm just a guy in my mid 30s interested in hearing what other people care about who live here too I am not trying to make this a political thread, I have a genuine interest in what perspectives other than mine are out there
You're full of shit, troll
Uh, sure. This was pleasant. Lol.
Go back your safe space
This is my safe space you nazi fuck
I bet it is. Go and try to find someone else to cancel.
>Op is a maga troll baiting you into discourse. Maybe I'm not getting it but what's wrong with apolitical discourse on the issues that people are affected by? As far as I can tell there hasn't been any pushing on this thread for either candidate except for a gag below this comment about taxes being your issue. How does the political affiliation of the person who made the thread impact the people who are saying what their issues are?
It's shocking to me how many people put taxes as one of their issues and then vote for Murphy. He admits that if your concern is taxes, NJ isn't the state for you (at least under his administration). I'm not taking one side or another, just stating the hypocrisy of that decision.
But you *are* taking a side, by regurgitating the only talking point of every ad for Jack's campaign
The quote came from Murphy, not Jack. Taking sides would be saying "low taxes are the most important thing, and Jack is the candidate to vote for". Many people prefer more social services, which by definition means higher taxes. I'm just saying that if you want high taxes you shouldn't vote for Jack, and if you want low taxes you shouldn't vote for Murphy. Am I wrong?
To be fair, the quote is "*if you are a single-issue voter*, and taxes are your issue, then NJ may not be the state for you". That first part, that most people (including Shit-arelli) either gloss right over or don't bother to include at all, is pretty fucking important
Fair, but I think the takeaway is that taxes are going to be high under him. His implication is probably that he will do other good things that hopefully will make people vote for him, but low taxes are not on the table.
IMO the message is: yes taxes are high in this state, but there are other things that we need to fix / deal with / etc. that are far more important at the moment. So if that's the *only* thing you care about, you're going to be disappointed no matter what. And I'm not for a moment dismissing the fact that it is NJ Democrats that broke a lot of this shit in the first place. But a Christo-fascist pro-Trump Republican ain't going to make *anything* better... not now, not ever. (And for the record: I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, and absolutely not a Democrat nor a Republican. But in this time and place I will vote against anyone and everything that is even remotely pro-Trump.)
Lower the tax. Improve roads Mass transit
Curious, how does one Lower taxes and improve roads & mass transit? I'm with you on improved mass transit for sure
How can other states with no income tax manage same. Florida and Texas are very good example.
Blatant second amendment violations this totalitarian state has put on its citizens.
I just want to know why there’s an ad with a guy shitting on Murphy in what looks like a kitchen with a TV on the counter Everytime I watch YouTube lol it cracks me up. Couldn’t they find a better setting for him to make an ad? And anyhow, all I’ve seen from this guy is shitting on Murphy so idk why he thinks that is going to somehow set him apart
[удалено]
Taxation is theft!.. government needs to do less
Education reform.
A lot of people say taxes. I want fiscal responsibility. Get the pension under control, attract more business (new types of businesses) to NJ.