elsquid wrote:
This is a block from my apartment, so I'm thrilled for the opportunity to support it and not be a NIMBY.

It's close to the bus lines and a Citi Bike JC dock on Newark, and it takes a scrappy space at the edge of my elegant old neighborhood without razing anything memorable or sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle of it.

All hail urban infill.

JPhurst wrote:
Took Lyft back from EWR. First driver came in an SUV but refused to take us because we had three suitcases and four passengers (two kids). He said we had to take a Lyft +. A minute later another driver calls us. Even though she had a small car we managed to fit everything in and she took us. She related to us that she had her own experience with Lyft where she almost missed her flight because a driver refused to take her there.

Lyft and Uber are relying on the fact that the amount of customer complaints about poor, unreliable, or unsafe service is outweighed by the convenience. I suspect they are correct in their calculations, but its a bit of a gamble. The question is how many instances of such failures will be enough to tip the scales in favor of regulation. If it's just a question of occasional dissatisfaction with service and surge pricing, they will likely be able to continue without much challenge. If there are enough incidents such as accidents uncovered by insurance and drivers assaulting or harassing passengers then they may have to accept some regulation.

Otmas wrote:
Quote:

dmellonworth wrote:
Quote:

Otmas wrote:
I wouldn't change a thing. I love reading all the crazies on here.

Agreed... that's at least half the reason I come here. Like the above passionate defender of what he imagines the constitution to be.

Ha! Me too. It's very entertaining. I guess ignorance (button) is bliss for some folks.

Otmas wrote:
I wouldn't change a thing. I love reading all the crazies on here.

buddyboy wrote:
How about censoring all thoughts that don't agree with you agenda?
Let's just suspend posters 1st Amendment rights to free
speech.

iGreg wrote:
What's the backstory?

Only see a clip of a guy getting tossed from a meeting, was he issued a permit to revamp his stoop and then started gutting a side wall to install a bay window?

More to it perhaps ?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Remember, the city (along with the school board and county) set a tax levy, not a tax rate. If we get a reval, and assesed values more than double, the city will collect too much money based on the current effective 2% tax rate. Therefore, the tax rate will go down so the city only collects its tax levy. No one knows what the new tax rate will be until they complete the reval. I suppose it's possible to estimate but it would take a lot of estimations and assumptions.

...
The assumption is that the Jersey City equalization rate is in the right ballpark City-wide. I'd buy a 30% increase on total value of ratables, but not double. Using 2% as a baseline is reasonable - if anything it's likely to come in under that number on an individual downtown property.

Maybe I wasnt clear in my past post, but I agree that the 2% baseline is way too high and is likley to be a lot lower in a reval (maybe less than 1%). I'm not sure I'm understanding the 30% increase on total assessed value... More in the ballpark would be a 230% increase average. Relember, the reval will mean assessed value = market value (in theory). If assesed values are currently only 30% of market value on average, it will take a ~230% increase to get back to 100%.

What you are describing is what the equalization rate does - and is baked into the effective tax rate of ~2%..

JC was assessed at $6b city-wide in 1988. The equalization rate basically says that it is 27.63% of true (current) value $21.6b. The effective rate change will be proportional to difference between actual current value and that $21.6b.

Column [2]*[3]/100 =[1] in attached link.

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2015/hudson.pdf

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Remember, the city (along with the school board and county) set a tax levy, not a tax rate. If we get a reval, and assesed values more than double, the city will collect too much money based on the current effective 2% tax rate. Therefore, the tax rate will go down so the city only collects its tax levy. No one knows what the new tax rate will be until they complete the reval. I suppose it's possible to estimate but it would take a lot of estimations and assumptions.

...
The assumption is that the Jersey City equalization rate is in the right ballpark City-wide. I'd buy a 30% increase on total value of ratables, but not double. Using 2% as a baseline is reasonable - if anything it's likely to come in under that number on an individual downtown property.

dtjcview wrote:
Ballpark - it would rise to ~2% of property value. If someone is paying $11k on a $1m million property, their taxes could double to ~$22k.

One theory put forward by Fulop and others is that extra $10k forms a major part of affordability - ~25% of a $500k mortgage yearly payment. Overnight your $1m property may be worth $750k.

Quote:

AlexC wrote:
Wouldn't taxes on homes in Hamilton Park that are now valued at ~1 million, go way up? I pay about 11k in taxes, how much would that go up? 40k?

Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Does anyone have an idea of how fast the reval would get restarted? And once it is restarted how quickly it would be completed? I do think this is going to have a huge impact on the value of many homes downtown.

What type of impact are you expecting?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
It's also important because PILOTs (which are concentrated downtown) are usually only given on the improvement and not the underlying land. This means that when the reval comes and the land underneath the PILOTed skyscrapers is reassessed Jersey City's PILOTed buildings will begin to pay significantly higher taxes, although not nearly what they would pay if there were no PILOTs.

If you are correct, and I have no reason to doubt your claim based on the knowledge and understanding you have shown with your posts, I would say this is very, very interesting. Residents in newly-constructed, tax abated properties are often sold on the idea that their taxes are pretty much set on stone and that their abatements essentially protects/shields them from any future revaluation.

So when 99 Hudson Street (which isn?t PILOTed) opens and starts to pay school taxes it doesn?t mean that the JCBOE will have a cent more unless it also decides to increase the tax levy. Over the last decade Jersey City?s Equalized Valuation has more than doubled, from $10 billion to $21 billion, but the tax levy hasn?t increased proportionally because the JC BOE hasn?t increased the tax levy by nearly as much (and now is constrained by the tax cap anyway)

When a new reno or property comes on the market, they will appraise the current value and multiply by the equalization rate to arrive at the 1988 "assessed" value (excluding the standard 5-year abatements on renos/new properties). So if you bought a new property in 2015 for $1m, it would have an assessed value of around $300k (1m x 30.02%)

Yvonne wrote:
Sorry, stateaidguy, the concept that we will never lose funding reminds me of the good old days during the Schundler administration. While giving out 20 year tax abatement, they also said out contribution to the board of ed will never increase. That is when we were paying $72 million to the schools. That concept is ridiculous. School districts across the state have low income children and are complaining about the formula, including Bayonne which pays close to 50% of school costs. I don't believe the concept never because laws change all the time.

Yvonne wrote:
The city has already contributed more money to the board of ed. We were paying $72 million, then in 2005, those caps were lifted, the costs increased. We are now paying $112 million. I am concerned about Fulop saying we need more affordable housing, in translation he is saying more children but no tax dollars from those new buildings.

Monroe wrote:
Not at all. I'm just saying that real estate values are only one factor that goes into deciding how school funding gets apportioned from Trenton. While obviously real estate has appreciated since the last reval, wide areas of JC still have very poor residents-and income is also a factor in calculating school funding. And Trenton can't arbitrarily reduce state aid, it's a formula that must be adhered to.

Monroe wrote:
Can someone show me where JC will lose 420 million in Abbott money because of the reval?

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:

There are people for whom this will mean paying thousands less. When Paterson did a reval its Coefficient of Deviation was in the low 20s and it still led to hundreds of property owners paying thousands less.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/city- ... rty-revaluation-1.1437630

A line in that report about Paterson says it all: ?...homeowners said the impact of the new assessments were not evident until late in the summer when a higher tax rate was set for the city.?

stateaidguy's other posts on JCList speak more to the big picture. My 2-cents worth ? the state wants to shift school aid costs ($420 million yearly) back onto Jersey City taxpayers. But first the valuations better line up with reality, since there's no getting blood from a stone.

Yes, JC needs a reval but don't hold your breath waiting for taxes to go down ?thousands? at the end of all this game-playing. That's not what's in store for us.... is it DanL?

Yvonne wrote:
Reval Hearing 28 minutes
https://youtu.be/JvjjgUueXCA

Yvonne wrote:
The mayor speaks on redevelopment, casinos, reval, and parking.
https://vimeo.com/153295281

DanL wrote: the forum is tomorrow evening and our mayor addressed it again at last night's town meeting, draw your own conclusions - https://youtu.be/UGUd534uIs4

Quote:

Stringer wrote:

N.J. hosting public hearing on Jersey City reval tomorrow.

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on January 27, 2016 at 7:31 AM

The state of New Jersey, which last year warned Jersey City that it may need to perform a citywide tax revaluation, is hosting a public hearing tomorrow night to let residents voice their opinions.

The hearing is part of the state's investigation into whether to force the reval, dreaded by some homeowners. State officials said it will be the only public hearing.

The state Division of Taxation will conduct the hearing tomorrow at 6 p.m. in the Scott Ring Room on the second floor of Hudson County Community College, 161 Newkirk St.
In November, taxation officials told Jersey City that because its ratio of true value to assessed value is at just 24.6 percent, the state may force the city to perform a reval, its first since 1988.

Read more:  http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... ring_tomorrow_on_rev.html