I get his argument but it is irrelevant to the reval conversation. The Reval is revenue neutral to JC. JC won't get anymore money post reval.
Property tax is nothing more than a fixed percentage of the fair market value of one's home. Plain and simple: Home value x .019 = property tax.
Do you think Paulus Hook can make the case that they pay more than Van Vorst park and that is unfair? It is irrelevant.
It blows me away that such a simple concept like percentage is being made into such an existential argument.
DTJC owners- count your lucky stars that you have had a massive run up in value all the while enjoying an unfair tax advantage...
I don't disagree, I just think that it's useful to understand the anti-reval perspective and not simply dismiss it as "people can't do math, and also they're entitled jerks." (I am strongly pro-reval, if that matters.)
There are homeowners who believe that the property taxes collected from the neighborhood they live in already constitute the lion's share of the City's property tax revenues, so asking them to pay more strikes them as very unfair. (And, hyperbole aside, some of them, particularly older residents living on fixed incomes, will suffer real hardship when their tax bills increase.)
Again, I disagree with the anti-reval perspective and think there are both private (reverse mortgages, selling and using increased value to fund retirement in a cheaper area) and public (phasing in increases for seniors, legislating a better system for ongoing reval) solutions to alleviate any actual hardship caused by allowing the situation to get this bad in the first place.
But trying to understand that perspective makes it easier to understand why the opposition to such a simple and logical procedure is so vehemently felt. I think that understanding is important b/c without it we aren't as able to craft compelling arguments in our favor and run the risk of a vocal anti-reval group swinging the political pendulum back in the direction of ignoring revals for decades.
My deeper concern is that dismissing the reval opponents misses the opportunity to engage them on more important issues - like, for example, planning for the day when the Abbot designation goes away or the funding formula changes or NJ simply runs out of money to do anything but pay pensions (I hope I'm joking about that last one) and we need to come up with a way to replace lost state revenue. Making enemies on the reval seems short-sighted when we have a much broader and deeper discussion about property taxes and other sources of city revenue coming down the pipeline.