Re: 'What is this, Russia?' Jersey City property owners fight developer

Posted by JCGuys on 2018/7/10 18:00:18
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.


No abatement for 99 Hudson. And I agree with you that there really should only be 5 year abatement going forward for downtown. Other areas of the city still need a little help, but not 30 years.


This argument against abatements is forgetting one major point. The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.


I believe this is true. There was that once case downtown where the developer asked the city to rescind the abatement it received because it would pay less under normal taxation.

This Post was from: http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=432987