Eleanor_A wrote:

I bought my condo in 1997 for $75k. My taxes now are about $3500. I'm gonna get screwed by this revaluation, aren't I?

icechute wrote:
Follow me here and tell me if this makes sense.....

I'm one of those with one of those rowhouses downtown near HP that was bought back in 1995. Price was 175K and building was reassessed to that same amount (through tax appeal) at that time.

Over the years, the assessment has risen to 198,000, (most recently last year) which is what it currently is and I am paying almost 14K in taxes.

If the current average assessed value is 26.75% of market value, that would work out to a market value for me of $740,187. And if the current market is 30% of what it was before the recession, that would have made a pre-recession value of about 960K, right in that "1 million dollar neighborhood" category that always get thrown around.

So am I right in concluding that I am not horrendously under assessed and that the hit might not be as bad as expected?

heights wrote:
If someone pays property taxes in one town where they live (in this case NOT Jersey City) and have their children go to a public school in another town such as Jersey City is it legal and if not how can it be addressed ?

mwa7368 wrote:

A property bought for around 300k in the past few years, would likely be assessed around 90k and pay taxes somewhere around
4k a year.
A property currently worth 300k that was bought in 1987 for 70k and assessed in 1988 for I'm guessing somewhere around 25k would pay about $1200 in taxes

So both properties worth 300k yet one pays 4k in taxes and the other $1200. How is this fair?!?

Property owners with under-assessed properties should have known the day was coming when you would have to pay your fair share.

mendezia wrote:
How do the brain surgeons at the JCPA plan on collecting these fines? Are they now requiring bikes to have license plates?

stani wrote:
A reval is essential for JC. The big problem is that the people who own un-reassessed properties think high property taxes are other people's problem and therefore are either happy with the political machine, or apathetic about local politics. This keeps the machine going. Not until more people realize that the machine's corruption and incompetence are a problem will there be any chance for change for the better.

icechute wrote:
Multi-unit rowhouses are assessed higher the more units there are?

For example: for a given rowhouse, all other things being equal, would a 3 family will be assessed higher than a 2 family?

This is assuming they are rental units, not a condo building.

When you purchase new construction the tax assessor finds a fair market value for the unit. This is may or may not be your purchase price, it is what he thinks is fair market value. Take that fair market value and multiply by the ratio for that year and you get your assessed value. You carry that assessed value forward, it does not change until a revaluation or appeal or an added assessment. Every year the tax assessor changes the ratio or ?equalization rate? to adjust for market value changes across the city. To find out your current market value divide your assessed value (on your tax card) by the current ratio or ?equalization rate?. If you can prove through comparables that your current market value as calculated above is 15% higher than comparables, you have a case. Comparables have to be arms length sales (short sales, distressed sales and auctions do NOT count). Comparables are not just similar units such as 2brs with 1200 sqr feet in the same area. Square footage, home type (brownstone vs highrise), lot acreage, parking, proximity to transportation, proximity to shopping, traffic, proximity to commercial properties, views, upgrades, amenities vs no amenities, etc, etc all matter. For a traffic example if you have a house on a highway your property is less valuable than nearby comparables on a residential street. This is why there are appraisers, they know how to make adjustments.

So for example in JC if you purchased a condo in 2006 and it was given a fair market value of $400,000 then?
Your assessed value is $138,360 (market value at time of purchase times the ratio for 2006?..400,000*.3459)
You carry that assessed value through, so now using the Oct 1 2009 ratio your market value in 2009 is $539625 ($138360/.2564)
So if you can prove comparables are now 15% less than your current market value ($458681 or less) you have a case.

JCoffey wrote:
yadda yadda

what surprises me is how poorly Hoboken fares compared to its close neighbors.

betterIN_JC wrote:
I woulndt put it past the politico to have even planted the people/documents to keep him from gathering too much momentum. Let his record of who he is stand...

Lafayette wrote:
Brewster:
I asked 2 plumbers their prices and what their opinion is of your statement. One told me that there prices of materials and labor have not gone down, neither have taxes, gas, insurance, worker's compensation etc so even if they would like to they can't afford it.

They did agree that anyone can get as many quotes as possible but many contractors have a hard time going to give many quotes since many times it leads to nowhere. It's a double edged sword. Also, if we are talking about a technical field such as plumbing or electrical you should call a licensed one,but most settle for the local "handyman" which is cheaper than a licensed plumber. Many don't want to get permits.

My uncle says he's licensed and he won't lower his prices, he says most people call him after they have hired the so called cheaper contractors and they mess up and he ends up making more.....sad reality for the homeowner who tried to go the cheap route.

cheaper is not always better.

Lafayette wrote:
If this tab "Contractors" is supposed to help all of us there needs to be a better way of getting recommendations on both sides.
I have licensed plumbers in my family and they are all hurting.

heights wrote:
A moving company would charge you probably fifty to a hundred bucks to drop it to the curb which has to be on the day prior to your recycling day.

Getting themselves into? That's why independent companies rate the investments, since us mere mortals can't understand the complexities of these new products. S&P and Moodys were complicit in these schemes. When will they be charged?

A solution of course would be government regulation but then we get into the whole socialism versus capitalism argument.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

fraulein wrote:
Seems like It's Greek to Me is for sale:

http://www.theavantigroup.net/commercial/listing_ag16.html

Makes sense since they are grossly overpriced.

DCofJC wrote:
Most important thing is YOU HAVE TO CALL!!! Every time. No matter how classless these people are they, or the bar owners are, sooner or later they will most likely get sick of police presence.

teacher wrote:
Brewster, because one owns a brownstone, does not make one wealthy and connected, some maybe going bankrupt, and stuck with the expensive albatrose. FEMA refuses to pay, the town refuses to fix/pay, so why should the owner be held to a higher standard?! Sue..well maybe with a class action..where's Erin Brock? It sucks for all involved, it costs too much to try and fix these things, and there are no guarantees... then the shit can come in from the sides..ie the neighbor...how can one stop that? The owner has no choice but to try and recoup a tad each month..,

Xerxes wrote:
Quote:

she wonders why her landlord rented out her apartment

That question will keep me laughing all day.

Amy wrote:
If you want to know what teachers make, you can look here:
http://php.app.com/edstaff/search.php

(This is for last year.)

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

jcnight wrote:
I dont get it!!! Are you actually fighting to be able to walk a dog on the grass or is the underlying reason your arguing this situation beacuse you really want to throw a ball on the grass and let your dog chase it????
If it is the later I will tell you now IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN

This is about allowing people whose dogs cannot go into dog-runs to use the park. Many people have dogs that are rescues etc and they don't do well in confined spaces with lots of other dogs. These people should still be able to walk their dogs in the park. It is their park too. BTW? A dog free park would be the stupidest idea ever. Do you really want a park where homeless people and criminals are given free reign at night? The dog walkers are the eyes and ears of the neighborhood. Anyway, you can't keep us out so might as well put it out of your mind.

Vigilante wrote:
Where did you see/hear this proposal?

Bksballers wrote:
Hey,

I am new to the forum and am quite glad I found it. I will be moving to 7th street near Hamilton Park on May 1st and an happy to hear that it should be opening near that date. Is it still on track to open by mid May?

I have two kids, one is 6 and one is 6 months. Aside from the park, does anyone have any good suggestions of places or activities in the neighborhood for a family? Any ideas are appreciated. I am from downtown Brooklyn anbd am moving ot JC to be closer to my parents.

Vigilante wrote: BTW? Here is a diagram of Hamilton Park. I have colorized the new areas with red that would obviously be "pet free" plus the rest of the grassy NW quadrant. Looks about right. No need for any new "proposals". The law is 50% designated pet free. Nuff said.

JadedJC wrote:
Hmmm. This is troubling, and I think Brewster's fears of a fishing expedition are well founded. Nothing good can come of this. I'm curious to ask the posters whose condo buildings have had such inspections: did they find any violations? Also, what is the legality of refusing inspectors entry in NJ? In NYC, homeowners can legally refuse entry to building inspectors who don't have a warrant (not sure if this applies to rental buildings, though). In any case, I'm wondering about owner-occupied single family homes and condos - can we legally deny entry to inspectors?