Monroe wrote:
Stateaidguy, do we know Murphy's stance on equitable, fair state education funding?

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on September 28, 2016 at 9:20 AM, updated September 28, 2016 at 9:29 AM

JERSEY CITY ? Mayor Steve Fulop will announce this afternoon that he will not seek the Democratic nomination for governor next year, sources have told The Jersey Journal.

The sources also say Fulop will throw his support behind Phil Murphy, a former Goldman Sachs executive and former U.S. ambassador who announced his gubernatorial run in May.


http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... n.html#incart_2box_hudson

interesting, i don't see what makes a goldman sachs alum any more qualified to be governor than a career politician....i'm thinking corzine, christie and gay american. i'm thinking we need someone dedicated to public service in trenton

brewster wrote:
Thanks SAG, but the discrepancies in the numbers is making my head explode.

JC 2015 Equalized Valuation= 21,661,162,459
therefore levy at 2.2291%= 496,257,231

So what is the $217m you said on you site was the "regular municipal tax levy"?

Does it make sense to you that the 146 abated properties represent 30% of the entire value of the city?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:

1.
Hoboken is a ultra high-tax base rich district that gets K12 state aid like it's working class.

JC is a middle-tax base district that gets K12 state aid like it's a desperately poor, blightzone. (more below)

Can you define your terms like "ultra high-tax base"? Is this Equalized Valuation/student population or Equalized Valuation/total population, or what? It's hard to see how JC can be "middle" when "Jersey City's students are much poorer than average".

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Nearly $3 billion is missing from the ratable base due to tax abatements. This means, the average taxpayer is paying higher taxes due to these missing ratables. If these ratables were included, then our taxes would be around $50.00 per thousand instead of $77 per thousand.

Also, please reference your source for $9B of market value being in abated properties. Seems high considering the entire equalized value of the unabated is is $21.6B

Monroe wrote:
'Christie/Abbott' regime??

Christie wants Abbott to go away, no?

Yvonne wrote:
Hoboken has less than 3,000 kids enrolled in school, JC on the other hand has around 30,000. Hoboken has some tax abatements, JC on the other hand has one third of the properties under some sort of tax abatement, meaning no money goes to the local school system. Removing Abbot from Hoboken would be a hiccup, but removing Abbot in JC would be the loss of many homes and major cuts to the local school system. But our mayor and council first concern is for development, not the homeowner paying taxes.

Quote:

135jc wrote:
[quote]
brewster wrote:
[quote]
135jc wrote:
Somerset has probably the lowest taxes in the state.

Not really, about average, but there's a wide spread

NORTH PLAINFIELD 3.665%
FAR HILLS 1.300%

It's funny how people howl about their taxes being high but never actually justify that. JC's are average, 2.216%, and Hoboken is on the low side, 1.313%. Hoboken could pay their way with no aid and still be well under 2%. Food for thought, no?
Tax rate of every town in NJ for 2015
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/taxrate.shtml[/quote
Quote:

Lower property taxes will increase property value and naturally the opposite will lower values. Look at Essex county. So measuring property tax as a percentage of property value is pointless.

MDM wrote:
So two progressives start eating each other even before the election season gets under way? Should be fun to watch...

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
If anyone is curious about how 99 Hudson will impact JC's taxes, I have a post about it here:

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... -citys-new-unpiloted.html

People say that PILOTed buildings "rob the schools," but it would be more accurate (if still exaggerated) to say that PILOTed buildings "rob the taxpayers."

99 Hudson's unPILOTedness is great for JC taxpayers, but it might not necessarily have any impact on the municipal and school budgets.

Thanks SAG! I'm going to be unpopular but I'm actually happy with this proposal from CC. I don't hope this proposal passes, but at least it gets a debate going on an appropriate and fair school aid funding formula.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Actually, I'm saying that the dynamics of supply and demand are seldom that simplistic, especially in real estate.

While SF has seen prices go through the roof as a result of (among other factors) a refusal to increase density, we also have numerous examples of areas that add housing units and experience price increases. Again, that happened in Williamsburg, Hoboken, DTJC, Seattle, LIC, Washington DC....

You have a causality problem. Much of what you are pointing to is a construction boom IN RESPONSE to skyrocketing prices. Developers aren't fools, construction costs being equal they build where the return is greatest.

I assure you, my understanding of causality is just fine. :D

This isn't much different than what we see with highways. A highway is heavily used, and gets congested; we expand the capacity of the highway; the relief is temporary, as six months later the road is congested again. What happens is that as capacity increases, more people realize they can use that highway, so more people choose to take that highway.

Similarly, extreme scarcity can suppress demand. San Francisco has allowed minimal building, and demand is increasing, and this drives up the equilibrium price point. At some point, though, there is no supply available at almost any price point; you can't outbid people if nothing is available. (Vacancy rates in SF are 0.3%; the lowest in the US is San Jose at 0.2%) If you can't find an apartment in San Francisco itself, you have no choice but to look elsewhere, such as Oakland. The scarcity is driving off potential residents, thus it reduces demand, without necessarily reducing prices.

What would happen if we magically generated 150,000 housing units in SF? In theory, this might reduce prices, as supply is dropping. However, there will be thousands of people who were formerly unable to live in SF, who now think it may be possible -- including people from outside the Bay Area. In the same way as expanding the capacity makes more people choose that highway, the expansion of supply means more people can consider moving to SF.

So yes, it is certainly plausible that increasing supply can generate demand.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Maybe because spending more and more money hasn't been shown to result in improvements?? It's sure always easy to spend the money others have worked so hard to earn.

The best way out of poverty is proven to a) finish high school, b) don't have children out of wedlock, c) get a job, any job. If you don't do a), what do you think happens to b and c?

Since the 'war on poverty' began in the sixties more money has been spent than all the wars combined in our history, and poverty keeps winning. A, B, and C are the problems, not education funding.

So naturally the answer is "fuckem, they don't need books, heat, teachers, whatever". I'm all for cutting waste if you can find it, but from everything I've seen and heard, no one is getting a gold plated education in JC public school. I don't know where the money goes, but it sure doesn't show up in the classrooms or activities. But you're all in with "starve the beast", especially as you don't even live here and have to deal with the consequences.

I'm not saying that at all, and I agree that Christie's plan is a non-starter. But how about a plan that insists that local towns fund a minimum percentage of their own school costs? For all the talk of how JC is a melting pot, with lots of kids needing expensive ESL classes-well, it is the Latino and Asian kids that have much better graduation rates than our African American kids. And to an earlier point, JC graduation rates are only 5% higher than Newark kids-and JC is 15% lower than the state average, while spending 25% more per student than the state average.

Maybe begin with towns paying 33% of their own school costs (less than half of most suburban districts) and raise it a bit over time until it's 50%? That sounds equitable and, after all, shouldn't everyone pay their fair share?

JPhurst wrote:
I really can't fathom what Christie is doing. Because there is a political constituency for redistributing aid. That would hurt Jersey City and some other Abbotts, but could possibly be passed on grounds of "fairness." This is so off the wall that it's hard to take seriously.

JPhurst wrote:
I am confident that Christie's proposal is a non-starter.

First, even between Republicans and Sweeneycrats in Trenton, this will probably not have a lot of support.

Second, the New Jersey Supreme Court will not allow it.

When the Court allowed the School Funding Reform Act (Abbott XX), it was based on the finding that the legislature and executive had developed a formula that remedied the defects that led to the Abbott line of decisions. Replacing this with a formula that ignores the needs of poorer students and urban districts ignores the entire line of cases, which the Court has made clear is grounded in a Constitutional mandate.

If Christie/Sweeney were serious about reallocating aid to districts based on appropriate need, the Court might buy it. But this is just Christie being a blowhard. Being Trump's cabana boy has rubbed off on him.

JCGuys wrote:
What are the most under assessed properties in the city?

500 Summit in Journal Square recently sold for $26.5 million. The assessed value is only $151,000.

http://tax1.co.monmouth.nj.us/cgi-bin ... 609605____00004_________M

https://commercialobserver.com/2016/06 ... -jersey-city-parking-lot/

What other crazy examples are out there? I'm now convinced the threats of higher residential taxes is a red herring as its land speculators that will be hit hardest. Guess we'll know for sure by November of next year. We should compile all the fear mongers, especially the one guy who said the reval will lead to a budget shortfall and/or cut services. Call them out when they're proven to be wrong.

Probably Fulop sockpuppets anyway.

JCGuys wrote:
Another excellent article, thanks!

Quote:

The simple method of apportioning county taxes can be distorted by a town giving tax abatements.

The state's PILOT law is terribly designed and gives towns incentives to take advantage of their neighbors in regional school districts, counties, and the state as a whole.

The abuse is enabled by the fact that taxes in regional school districts, counties, and state aid are apportioned by Equalized Valuation, but a property with a tax abatement does not appear as part of a city's official assessment and is therefore "invisible" to the calculation of Equalized Valuation. Since PILOTed properties aren't part of Equalized Valuation, they are "invisible" to the apportionment of taxes for regional school districts, counties, and state aid.

What makes the incentives even stronger is that PILOT payments can be structured so that the municipality gets more money from a property with a PILOT than it would from one under normal taxation. This is because PILOT fees are paid 95% to the municipality and only 5% to the county, with the school system totally cut off.

Montclair has been completely open about how it uses PILOTs as a way of shielding its wealth from Essex County (ie, Newark).

As Montclair's Mayor Robert Jackson explained in 2013, "In a PILOT agreement, 95 percent of the tax revenue comes to the town, not 83 percent. We get more money from that PILOT than we would if they paid taxes."

Montclair's deputy mayor, Robert Russo, chimed in, "That's what I really like about the [PILOT] program. I am not a fan of the county taking money from us. What we're doing is enhancing the township's revenue. No one [in Montclair] is getting hurt."

PILOTing directly benefits a municipality by diverting additional revenue to it (coming at the expense of the county and schools), but it also indirectly benefits a municipality by hiding the ratables from the county. This allows a municipality to hoard its tax base without sharing with the rest of the county.

As annoying as Montclair's PILOTing is and the mayoral bragging about it, Montclair doesn't allow very much new development period, so the overall percentage of Montclair's tax base that is hidden behind PILOTs is small. Even if most of Montclair weren't off-limits to new development, Montclair pays for its school school system with local taxes and if it PILOTed excessively it would be cannibalizing its own school tax base and have a voter rebellion.

Not so for Jersey City. Jersey City should be commended for how accepting it is of new housing, but its schools are paid for by the state and there is no incentive for it not to PILOT virtually everything. Jersey City has thus exploited the PILOT law like no other town in New Jersey to the point where 30% of its valuation is PILOTed. Jersey City's abuse of the PILOT law is so substantial that it was in fact sued by Secaucus, North Bergen, and Bayonne in the late 1990s/early 2000s over not paying for its fair share of county taxes.

I just love that this invalidates Yvonne's arguments about tax abatements. it turns out residents of Jersey City are not losing money to it, we're just screwing over state tax payers with guarantee Abbott funding (for now) and other municipalities in Hudson County that have to bear a larger burden of the county's tax base.

Hoboken and JC really need to lose Abbott status and the other municipalities in Hudson County really need to pressure the tax board to do a reval.

Until then, might as well let the legal pillage continue. Don't hate the player, hate the game. And JC is best at it.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
BTW, whoever it was that predicted a rate of at least 2.5% (based on conversations with a source) may have been right, after all.

How do you figure? If this is going to increase the current rate by 10% of the county portion (50% IIRC) that's .5 x .1 x .02=.001, or 0.1% increase in the overall effective rate. $1000 on your $1m house.

The point I was trying to make is that if we assume our current rate to be 2.2%, and you do the math you just did, the total rate then inches up to 2.3%. That number of 2.2% is a guesstimate. We are all assuming that the current overall valuations for JC are more or less correct. Who is to say that total housing valuation doesn't come in at a lower total than expected, thereby forcing a slightly higher rate?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal

Residents of seven Hudson County towns will see increases in their county taxes this year as part of the $540 million county budget approved by freeholders late last month.

The biggest hikes will hit Jersey City residents, whose share of the county tax burden will increase by 10.15 percent over last year. Union City's share will rise by 5.97 percent, while increases in Harrison, Hoboken, North Bergen and Secaucus are about 4 percent each. County taxes in Kearny will increase by 2.6 percent.

More

As taxes in NJ continue to rise, the math starts to favor NYC: better schools, better government services, better mass transit and with taxes here rapidly approaching obscene levels, the total cost of home ownership is starting to become more and more equal.

BTW, whoever it was that predicted a rate of at least 2.5% (based on conversations with a source) may have been right, after all.

Yvonne wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey4jTMX0twk

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
[quote]
thor800 wrote:
Should someone that bought a house 10 years ago for $750K now worth $1.5M with taxes at $10K have to pay an increase in $20K after the reval ? I disagree that this is worth lowering someone in Greenville's taxes $2k as a measure of "fairness" if both are using the same resources.

Value can be extremely subjective indicator and I personally (taxes set to double after the reval depending on assessment) feel that dtjc will be subsidizing other areas JC way more than they are subsidizing us now.

The "resource use" argument is a nonstarter, as already pointed out. Do you really not have any idea how privileged and whiney you sound? You want your high value but don't want to be taxed on it.

Since you apparently value low taxes more than high equity and are probably under 62, you're the perfect customer for the city run lien bonding I propose that would be like reverse mortgage in it's effect.

Privileged and whiney because my taxes are set to skyrocket based on a superficial measure of value ? I guess it doesn't matter because I could just sell and leave ? What about longtime owners that have no desire to leave ? High value appreciation in a short time is great for flippers and investors but can screw regular owners.

Obviously this is a mute point because that's how NJ does things, but again if you had actually read my posts and not just jumped to a brainless conclusion, I was responding in context to the CivicJC article which stated that the reval should occur because it would bring fairness to JC's property taxes and people in areas that have not appreciated are paying slightly too much will see a slight reduction while dtjc's will see a skewed opposite.

I am not opposed to paying my fair share, but what is fair aside from what the state says is law ? Again, most likely mute point if the city has little say in the matter but I still disagree regarding CivicJC's point that the reval should be done based on tax fairness.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The foreclosure talk is scaremongering plain and simple.

I do expect cacophony of wails and moans probably in November of 2017 as the property owners in the downtown open their new tax reassessments... backdated to the beginning of the tax year.

Boohoo, we Downtowners have to pay ~1% more on property that has appreciated 400% in 20 years. Do we seriously expect to see any years coming where the property Downtown will appreciate at less than 2%? I don't, at least on average. The entire tax is paid for.

And just to be clear above the smoke, the expected rate of ~2.1% is not high for northern NJ, it's average, maybe even on the low side. It's the 1% that some people were gloating over that was the anomaly.

We are so lucky to have the jclist intelligentsia that have agreed that 2.1% will be the new effective tax rate. But no matter how many times it is repeated, it's still wrong. 2.5% best case scenario. If you can't afford 2.5 - to 3%, consider a contingency plan now.