IIRC, a state pilot in Monmouth County, 20%/yr over 5 years, to be done in perpetuity (no gap between revals).

The best retort to what I have written is "fear mongering", really?

If the 90% Sanders or 10% Cruz tax plan were to take effect tomorrow as in overnight, would that not throw the national economy into chaos?

And how about raising the minimum wage to $15/hr overnight? Oh wait a sec, New York and Cali are doing so, but progressively over a number of years. So why do you think that is so?

If you do not think a redistribution of the tax base, whereby some tax bills will quadruple overnight, will wreck havoc on the local economy (e.g. foreclosures), you are sadly mistaken.

Let's be clear, I am not arguing what is fair or whether or not there should be a revaluation.

Rather, what I am stating is that there should be some flexibility or a middle ground offered by the State Treasury. There should be a *one time* exception for long overdue municipalities like Jersey City to do a reval in stages. I do not propose a specific solution for what stages means; I'll leave that up to others to debate.

However, one thing is clear, if you make large/sweeping tax changes, overnight, whether it be locally or nationally, it will have some rather large unintended and perverse consequences.

The current reval law/dictate is bad for ALL of Jersey City. It is counterproductive. A staged/phased-in reval is the smart thing do.

You do not understand the implication of increasing taxes *radically high* for some overnight.

Those who receive an immediate tax reduction or no reduction from the tax reval, it will be short lived.

In the long run, they will subsequently lose some or all of such savings, permanently, in perpetuity, in the form of a higher tax rate and in turn a larger $ tax bill.

Tax lien sales do not happen over night; they happen once a year. Under collecting taxes even in one quarter can put a lot of fiscal strain on a municipality.

And those tax lien properties will eventually successfully appeal their taxes, lowering their tax bill. When they pay less, the rest pay more. And you will pay for the additional Reval-fallout cost of the city reviewing tax appeals, conducting tax lien sales, borrowing funds, etc.

The reval will *shock* real property values in a negative way. The total assessed value of J.C.properties will decrease. That means to maintain the same budgeted dollar amount of total tax revenue, it will result in an increase in the tax RATE for all. And many residents will lose their home to foreclosure.

http://www.nycc.org/

Transporting the bike via PATH on the weekend is a breeze or often as I did cycle up to the GW Bridge to meetup with group rides. If you really ingrain yourself in the club you will be taking MetroNorth and NJ Transit to cycle in some really interesting places, too.

Post reval, the total city tax BILL will remain the same. However, the total amount of tax revenue COLLECTED will decrease. Why?

Because when your taxes go up 4xs, many will not be able to afford to pay and will not pay their tax bill.

Guess who will make up for that revenue shortfall - those whose tax bill initially decreased after the reval as well as everybody else.

Likewise, when real estate prices plummet due to sky rocketed property taxes, those other 400% increase property owners taxes will successfully appeal their assessed valuation. Lower assessed valuation means a lower tax bill for them.

However, the amount of money the city needs to collect in tax revenue to provide essential government services still remains the same.

Again, guess who will make up for that revenue shortfall - all other property owners, including those whose tax bill initially decreased after the reval.

Your assessed value may have decreased, but with property tax defaults/liens and subsequent tax appeals (many), your tax RATE will increase.

That's something to thing about, you know, one step ahead, when the all-at-once reval occurs.

"The city's neglect results in a grotesque subsidy, from black to white, from poor to rich."

Only a quarter of the downtown population is white and blacks are in about equal proportion, there, too.

In this case the proper definition of a "subsidy" is when you consume more in government services than you pay, as in those "poor black" per race baiter Tom Moran being subsidized by the rich white folk of downtown.

RE: State busts Jersey City, Elizabeth for violating order to reassess properties

Post reval, when taxes increase 2 - 4xs over night, can we then bitch to those who push so hard for an immediate Reval (as opposed to a more sensible, one time phase in) about the tax RATE INCREASE for ALL property owners due to a a significant drop off in tax revenue collection attributable to many properties in default (tax liens) or successfully appealing their assessed valuation's due to a drop in their homes' market value?

Turn downtown Jersey City into a modern day Venice by converting many of its streets to canals. It will be a Jersey City, Make It Yours ? tourist delight.

It will solve problems with flooding, aging sewers and sewage overflow, motor vehicle traffic and noise, pedestrian safety, cut down on the City's CO2 emissions, and reduce its municipal expenditures for repaving streets and to pay for Parking Enforcement staff.

While you are at it, you can convert the Citibikes to paddle boat bikes.

Like many of the Mayor's past initiatives, this will be a "proactive" approach to provide a waterway outlet to mollify rising sea levels.

It will also provide the Iron Man Mayor another photo-op, to be the first to swim Jersey City's canals (before Dancing Tony does).

State aid guy....there is also a formula for charter school funding, too, that incidentally the State does not adhere to. Additionally, for the State to write that PILOTS do not contribute to funding schools is really misleading. It is all political spin.

You cannot be serious to write that Jc municipality CAN pay an additional $335 million to the schools. That is basically doubling the budget and local taxes would double overnight. Aside from the inability and unwillingness to pay there are State imposed tax, debt, and appropriation caps ranging from 2 - 3.5% on the municipality.....knows the price of everything, but not the cost.

????

PILOT money does contribute to the schools.

Here's a homework assignment for you.

What proportion of a local municipality's spending is for municipal services versus the local public school system?

In Jersey City, the school district's budget is approximately $665 million, while the municipalities is: $418 million***

665/(665 + 418) = 61%


Please tell me of another municipality where more than 60% of local government expenditures is for public education? Surely you will find some among the other 564 municipalities in NJ, but not many. I bet you can count them on your fingers.

The J.C. school district spending is over $22,000/child per year. That amount puts the school district in the 99th percentile in the state for local school spending. 99th percentile.

Finally, who living in Jersey City or for that matter in New Jersey is not paying already high taxes?

The school district complains that state funding is flat (as opposed to cut for many other municipalities). NJS state tries to pull the wool over locals, including a local CPA blogger, that PILOTS do not contribute (as in zero, nada, none) to local public schools, and Yvonne kvetches on about the municipal finances.

Why isn't there more focus on how well the school is spending your tax dollars?

50% more money is spent on the schools than the city. The municipality discloses a lot of financial information (http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/officialdocuments/). Not so for the local school district. Why do you think that is so? Have you read the last school audit?


***The $418 million and 61% figures are conservative, because I did not account for the county taxes collected (pass through) by Jersey City that are included in the remaining $418 million budget. If I did, the proportion of school spending would be even higher.

Ralph_Abutts (me) wrote:
"PILOT money does contribute to the schools."

Monroe's response:
"Not true. PILOT money goes into the regular coffers, which only covers 16% of the school costs anyway."

???????

::::Sigh::::

PILOT revenue afffords the City Council to appropriate as much money as it currently does to the JC public school district. PILOT money does contribute to the schools. The blogger's explanation is not correct despite the pretty visualizations.

JPHurst, the school is getting 'none' because the city council decided to regardless of the city's sources of revenue. If the city had no pilot revenue, the school funding outcome would be the same, if not worse. However it is nearly none as the city did pony up another 2% of school funding not too long ago.

As for city finances, you touched upon this earlier. The city is in no position to make a significant increase in its contribution to the school district. The city has a state imposed spending, tax, and debt limit caps. That is not true of the school district. Additionally, the city is not permitted, per statute to maintain a budget surplus. However, it is ok for school districts to do so.

By law, both are to publicly disclose a budget and an audit, annually. The city complies, however, the school district is lacking...sorely so.

Wishful, just ignore bodi as what he writes is inaccurate. There are not two different tax rates, or percentages as he asserts. The revaluation affects the assessed (equalized)value of the property. The tax rate is a constant value for all.

The fallacy is that he was implying that downtowners pay a lower rate (%) and that Bergen Lafayette was carrying water for them, much like I am carrying water for Warren Buffet who pay s amuch lowerincome tax rate than I.

Actually what you wrote literally, was not obvious and incorrect and there was no mention of a revaluation in this thread until you brought it up.

The last revaluation was in 1986. There are many properties through-out the city, which their assessed values have changed over such a long period of time. Other parts of the city will pay a larger tax burden post reval, too.

As for carrying water, your assertion does not really hold water as comparing rates does not really tell the whole story. The DTJC property paying 1% versus 3% may be paying 10x the $ amount of taxes as the 1% rate payer in Greenville or Lafayette, while consuming much less government services, including being less likely to have children enrolled in the JCPS district (back on topic).

No, I am not delusional. Most "properties in DTJC" as in the majority, "*will* see an increase in their tax bill". Yes to brownstones, however unless you have the data to prove such, I am not sure that is a correct assertion for the majority as in most. For instance, to keep this on topic, there is a lot of housing stock in DTJC (maybe even a majority?) that are PILOTS and PILOTS are not subject to tax revaluation.

A revaluation does not increase taxes, it just shuffles the deck. That is some pay respectively more, less or the same (including DTJC), but the total amount of taxes collected remains the same after a revaluation.

+1 JPhurst's comments. Ditto that.

If the Mayor had the power of a dictator and made all PILOTS pay traditional/conventional property taxes, that would only add $80 million more to the city coffers. Of course, the fallacy in this logic is the tax roll would not be this high without the tax abatement incentive. That is without the incentive, their would be at least some properties that would never be developed and in turn no revenue generated for the city (or for that matter low income housing).

As a matter of semantics, NJ Statute defines PILOTS as not contributing to schools and likewise are Payments In Lieu of Taxes. That could not be further from the truth. You would be a fool to think PILOTS are not a tax. Try to not pay your PILOT, and watch how quickly the *Tax* Collector places a *Tax* lien on your property.

You do the math. If you do not think the $119 million in PILOT property tax revenue does not contribute to the school district's budget, or for that matter the fiscal health of the city, just as much as "conventional" property taxes, then it is just ignorance (enumeracy) or being foolhardy or perhaps you are just an Irwin Schiff prophet.

The City currently pays the school district $112 million a year. There is no state imposed formula of how much revenue and of what type of revenue the city must transfer to the school district. It is completely at the discretion of the City Council and the money is paid out of the City's $530 million operating budget. The school district budget is *significantly* larger, at $665 million, btw.

When the blogger asserts that PILOT revenue pays no school tax, that is true, per se, as defined in NJ Statute (NJSA40A:20-12). However, it is a bit misleading. It is like saying the Dad does not contribute to his kids allowance, because the Mom hands the kid money despite the parents sharing in all of the family's expenses.

As a property owner, you pay your property tax or PILOT payment to the Jersey City Tax Collector. All of this money goes into a general operating fund. Likewise the same is true for parking tickets, building permits, dog licenses and other sources of revenue.

The City Council approves the municipal budget. In this budget, they decide how much money the municipality will write a check to the public school district.

Again, you write the check to the city and the city writes a check to the school district. That check does not differentiate or enumerate what the source of city revenue is.

You can debate whether the municipality contributes enough to the school district. However, when you do, you cannot uncouple from that debate, how fiscally able is the city to contribute more money, if need be.

In my opinion, it is putting the cart before the horse to assert the City is not paying anywhere near its fair share to the school district. Where there are Abbott districts there are PILOTs and for good reason. This is not something unique or limited to Jersey City.

The PILOT issue is being raised now because State funding for the Jersey City school district has been flat. The State is broke and is trying to push more of the fiscal burden back on the municipalities.

The irony here is that the State imposes tax, borrowing, and spending caps on municipalities. There is a strong emphasis placed on property tax relief and the need to reduce high taxes. However, the State does not impose such caps on itself, nor directly towards public school districts. Likewise, you do not hear discussion about cutting school spending (public or private). It is taboo.

I think the better debate is to question how "through and efficient" of an education is the Jersey City public school district providing? With emphasis on efficient, as in fiscally efficient. The school district is near the top of the state's 600 public school districts spending per student head. With an already high tax burden for JC and NJ, there's not much money left to shake off from the $ tree.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Did you not read what I wrote prior to mentioning the "C" word? Cavil on.

I'm sure it was certainly a more pleasant experience for the sales person, too, that you used Costco.

Costco auto is not bad; I ended up getting a better deal not using it or other car brokers.
Your mileage may vary.

The UEZ sales tax does not apply to cars.

That's great you test drove a car using Costco. You left out a few missing details...before you drove out a minimum 30 minutes to Wayne, one way,
and passed by Rte. 440, you filled out a costco form, and then called the dealership,
and make a greater commitment (mental sunk cost in terms of time & energy)
to purchase the car and from that dealership. There's nothing wrong with that - its just takes
more time and is slightly less convenient. Is that clear (or banal) enough?

Instead of harping on a trivial detail, why not write about your experience with the Costco auto program?

I did not write nor "believe" that you cannot test drive using Costco. It's just less convenient.

I understand the sentiment and hesitation full well about car dealerships on Rte. 440. Such was conveyed to me by my friends while shopping.
However I had a good experience purchasing a car at Hudson Nissan.
The sales and follow-up service were very good.

I think the key here is to be an informed customer and know exactly what you want. I did my research using the internet.
You can find the true price of the car, as in what the dealer pays, the average markup, inventory at local dealerships, etc.

Before I set foot in the dealership, I knew the model car, its options and color that I wanted.
I also got quotes from multiple dealerships via email.

I was able to test drive the car at the dealership, too - which is notable if you
are considering Costco, TrueCar, CarsDirect, etc.

With that it saved me a lot of time, made bargaining easier for me, and a much easier sale for the dealer.
Its mutual. I know there are multiple Nissan dealers, so its easy to walk out and they know it. For them,
I'm an easier sell because I know what I want and am not consuming a lot of their time.

In the end, I spent about as much time with the purchase and for about the same price a
car broker would offer.

That's my experience as a 1st time car shopper. In short, use the internet and email to your advantage.