Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
31 user(s) are online (23 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 31

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (stateaidguy)




Re: Jersey City school officials fret over plan to cut $8.5M in state aid
#1
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


For 2016, Jersey City’s all-in (muni, county, school) tax levy
was $469,206,295. (not counting PILOT revenue).

The Equalized Valuation is $25.7 billion, so you have an all-in
Equalized tax rate of 1.8.

If Jersey City made up for the loss of $150 million of
Adjustment Aid and the Equalized Valuation didn’t increase,
the all-in tax rate would still only be 2.4, which is New Jersey’s
average.

However, in real life the Equalized Valuation is growing and
will significantly higher in five years than it is now, so Jersey
City is still likely to retain taxes below the state average.
Also, the Jersey City BOE does not have to make up for all the
losses of state aid with local taxes anyway.

If Jersey City’s state aid losses are limited to 1.5% of its
budget, then it would take decades for all of Jersey City’s
excess aid to be eliminated and Jersey City’s taxes will stay
below the state’s average for years to come.

Please remember (before you publicly worry about Jersey City)
that a complete redistribution of Adjustment Aid and $500
increase in total K-12 spending is not nearly enough to bring
up the underaided districts to 100% funding.

I respect Steve Sweeney a lot, but he has oversold his plan.
The deficit for 2015-16 is $2 billion and it grows annually, so
$700 million in redistributed aid plus $500 million in new aid is
not enough to bring every district to 100%.

Posted on: 6/23 13:01
Top


Re: Jersey City school officials fret over plan to cut $8.5M in state aid
#2
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


My big observation about Jersey City and state aid is why the school administration and BOE have been so quiet about redistribution whereas Fulop and the City Council (including Michael Yun) have opposed it. If you read the article, JCBOE members do not have the fury about losing state aid that Toms River and Brick do.

It's possible that the administrators and JCBOE members actually are progressives who understand that other towns have greater needs than Jersey City. If so, I commend them.

Fulop, on the other hand, is a lying _______.

Posted on: 6/22 14:34
Top


Re: Jersey City school officials fret over plan to cut $8.5M in state aid
#3
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


The abated properties do pay school taxes on the land they own, so there is a small contribution to education.

However, the way the PILOT law is written, the total payment (land taxes + PILOT fees) is a fixed amount, so if land taxes increase, PILOT fees decrease.

It wouldn't be a large loss, but higher school taxes on the land would mean lower PILOT fees to the Jersey City municipality.


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If the city taxpayers are required to make up this $8.5 million, one one cent will come from tax abated buildings.

Posted on: 6/20 12:02
Top


Re: Jersey City abatement vote met with mock party
#4
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away



The protesters are right, the abatements do harm other Jersey City taxpayers.

Even disregarding the costs of services for new residents/workers/students, unless the PILOT fee exceeds 86% of normal taxation, Jersey City taxpayers get less of a tax offset than they would from new development brought in under normal taxation.

The only time a PILOT deal would be net-positive fiscally if if the abatement truly is a but-for factor in construction.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

The only area I disagree with the protesters with is in who the victim is. PILOTs are tax fairness problem, not a school budget problem. If Jersey City PILOTed nothing what would happen is that other Jersey City taxpayers would pay less in taxes. Unless the BOE passed a larger tax levy, the schools wouldn't have a cent more.


Posted on: 3/10 12:16
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#5
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


What else should one call Steve Fulop's statements other than "bullshit"?

From the point of view of taxes and state aid, it is irrelevant if only one section of Jersey City is thriving because Jersey City IS A SINGLE ENTITY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TAXES.

Even if only 15% of Jersey City's residences are worth more than $1 million, they would comprise approximately half of the residential valuation, with other high-value properties filling in the great large majority.

On top of that, Jersey City has above average amounts of commercial and industrial property. Whereas the average town in New Jersey is 84% residential in valuation, Jersey City is only 62% residential. Although officially Jersey City's property is "only" 25.3% commercial, it has billions of dollars in off-the-books PILOTed property that is disproportionally commercial. (see "Property Type Extremes")

So the fact that parts of Jersey City are still poor is not relevant from the point of view of taxation and state aid. The SFRA formula takes into account a comprehensive picture of a district's tax base (except PILOTed property, which is invisible) and any heightened level of disadvantage in students.

Posted on: 2/23 13:54
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#6
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Steve Fulop is a liar, bullshit artist, and hypocrite.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... hypocrisy-from-steve.html

Fulop claims state aid redistribution is about helping rich suburbs, but he's wrong. The biggest beneficiaries would be towns like Clifton, Bayonne, and Bloomfield.

Even when middle-class suburbs would gain aid, they desperately need it.

Read about Delran whose per pupil spending is barely $12k.

http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/ ... e6-b49d-4b0009fa55d6.html

Read about Egg Harbor Township.

http://www.shorenewstoday.com/egg_har ... 53-9e5e-065b6d0d43b2.html

Posted on: 2/23 10:37
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#7
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
She also says again and again that "taxes are high" without justifying it even when called out on it repeatedly. Not to mention always injecting the abatement issue into the reval discussion, when they actually have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We'd need a reval even if the Yvonne the Witch of the West (bank) waved her wand and made the abatements disappear, since the reval is about fairness between the taxpayers.

It truly appears she lacks the wits to understand these issues, and when called out always doubles down like her man tRump.


brewster, my information comes from the county administrator, we pay his salary to come up with his facts that I quote. It is not my facts at all.


I think it's fair to say that abatements lower your municipal taxes and raise your school taxes and county taxes, although the increase in school and county taxes is a missed offset opportunity, and not a true, net increase.

JC structures PILOT agreements so that the municipality gets more money than it would from regular taxation. For instance, instead of getting 50% of a $1 million all-in tax bill, it gets 95% of $750k PILOT payment.

PILOTed buildings don't give the schools any money at all and pay county fees at a significantly reduced rate.

If JC's PILOTed buildings paid normal taxes, they would offset the overall school levy and by a small but palpable amount for county taxes.

Since a third of JC is PILOTed (by far the state's highest total), the effect on school taxes is very significant.

My estimate is that JC's PILOTed buildings would have an Equalized Valuation of about $10-11 billion 2017. Hudson County's total Equalized Valuation is $71 billion.

Jersey City's PILOTed buildings are thus 15% of Hudson County's total. They do pay some money to the county, but 15% is a palpable impact even on the county's tax levy for the owners of non-PILOTed buildings.

It's hard to compute the net change in taxes due to PILOTing, but assuming that these buildings would be built anyway even if they had to pay normal taxes, my guess is that on the net, JC's PILOTed properties increase taxes for everyone else in Jersey City and certainly increase taxes for people living in other towns in Hudson County.

Steve Sweeney is actually trying to reform the PILOT law. It's part of his state aid reform package, although he's not spoken in public (AFAIK) about what changes he wants to happen with PILOTs.

Posted on: 1/14 10:24
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#8
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Jersey City's taxes will definitely be below 2% post-reval, but this has nothing to do with the reval so much as it does the increase in Jersey City's Equalized Valuation.

JC's EV is now $24 billion and will be even higher after the reval is completed.

JC's all-in tax levy is now $448.7 million. That rate will increase too, but not in proportion to the increase in the Equalized Valuation.

$448.7 million / $24 billion = 1.87%.

The tax rate will fall farther once the new EV is computed.





SAG, Thank you! I'm so tried of the complete and utter BS from the fearmongers and the ignorant. I saw a news report the other day saying it's a double edged sword because the reval will hurt people, but will also generate more money for the city.


Well, an ignorant reporter is just that... ignorant.

BUT, the values provided by the state are very different from what you present in your post.

The State of NJ puts the total JC EV at $21,643,490,206 (21.6 B) for 2015, and 25,679,882,705 (25.7 B) for 2016. The effective tax rate (as calculated by the state) is 2.216% for 2015.

Source for the above:
EV 2016: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2016/Hudson.pdf
EV 2015: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2015/hudson.pdf
Effective Tax Rate 2015: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtrhud15.pdf

How did you arrive at the total tax levy of $448.7 million? Do you have a source for that figure? Also, are you sure you are not using the valuation from valuation from 2016 and applying the effective tax rate for 2015? I ask because the figures are wildly different than what is on the State of NJ website. Thanks!


I admit I misremembered JC's Equalized Valuation, but that mistake doesn't change my argument that JC's all-in tax rate will be below 2%.

The FY2017 EV is $25,697,067,795. (it's a $4 billion increase from the year before, so I guess I got confused and wrote "$24 billion")

The FY2016 tax levy was $448,717,388. (source is the Property Tax Tables)

If you do the division, the estimated all-in tax rate 1.7%.

Oops. Sorry for the distraction with the wrong EV.

Posted on: 1/12 14:21
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#9
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Jersey City's taxes will definitely be below 2% post-reval, but this has nothing to do with the reval so much as it does the increase in Jersey City's Equalized Valuation.

JC's EV is now $24 billion and will be even higher after the reval is completed.

JC's all-in tax levy is now $448.7 million. That rate will increase too, but not in proportion to the increase in the Equalized Valuation.

$448.7 million / $24 billion = 1.87%.

The tax rate will fall farther once the new EV is computed.




Posted on: 1/11 15:17
Top


Re: NJ Democrats for Governor
#10
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


All of the Democratic candidates and Jack Ciattarelli support marijuana legalization.

Murphy is definitely for an excise tax and uses the NJPP's $300 million annual revenue estimate.

Jack Ciattarelli is pro-legalization but is undecided on an excise tax. He says he doesn't like that monetary gain would be the primary argument for legalization, but if the Democrats pushed him on an excise tax (which would mean that NJ would have to have a larger regulatory role), I'd be surprised if he vetoed it.

I don't know where Lesniak and Wisniewski are on an excise tax.

Posted on: 1/11 10:28
Top


Re: NJ Democrats for Governor
#11
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away



None of the Democrats has a real plan on NJ's debt crisis, property tax crisis, and economic stagnation.

Lesniak and Wisniewski voted against Chapter 78 and Murphy has said he would have. Without Chapter 78 and the suspension of COLAs, NJ's unfunded liability over 30 year would be tens of billions of dollars higher. Chapter 78 also had a provision making health insurance cost sharing by public employees mandatory - a move that has taken a lot of pressure off of school districts.

The three of them talk about a "millionaire's tax" to solve NJ's fiscal problems, but the OLS's estimate if that if you increase the top bracket from 8.97% to 10.75% you only bring in $600 million.

Since NJ's deficit against the actuarially recommended contribution is now $3 billion, $600 million is nowhere near adequate.

Murphy's solution to NJ's problems is "economic growth," but NJ's relative economic stagnation goes back much farther than Christie's term and I fail to see a reason why the same policies that have fallen flat in Connecticut (under progressive governor Dannel Malloy) would be more effective in New Jersey.

I think the Murphy/Wisniewski/Lesniak $15 an hour minimum wage would be damaging to the economy too, especially to businesses that compete against businesses in other states. It would wreck agriculture and hurt call centers and manufacturing.
How can NJ have a $15 an hour minimum wage when Pennsylvania's is only $7.25?

IMO, the best choice for governor is Jack Ciattarelli.

Ciattarelli supports cost-sharing for pension recipients getting pensions in excess of $50,000 a year. He supports dropping NJ's "Platinum Plus" healthcare for active employees down to the Obamacare "Gold Level."

Ciattarelli also supports raising taxes on the rich, but the health insurance reform frees up over $2 billion.


Posted on: 1/9 10:54
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#12
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


I'm very dismayed by Sweeney's quitting because I don't think highly of Phil Murphy.

Murphy ran a campaign of going everywhere, spending a fortune, but only talking about issues that every single Democrat agrees on, like gun control and pay equity, and avoiding anything that divided the Democratic party.

To me, avoiding the tough decisions on what taxes to raise, what spending to cut, how to educate urban kids, and how to redistribute state aid isn't leadership.

As Bury Pensions says, on complex problems like the NJ economy, the pension crisis, Murphy's strategy is:

Present an idea that sounds good to anyone who won’t think about it in any depth to people who are not going to think about it in any depth.


Murphy is incoherent.

He wants to save the pension funds, but he also wants the funds to invest in a state-owned bank whose mission is to make low-interest, NJ-exclusive loans.

He wants to revive our cities and sees cities as central to our economic revival, but he opposes the tax incentives which encourage businesses to relocate in cities (and sometimes keep the businesses in NJ)

He wants the "rating agencies off our back," but he proposes billions in new (non-pension) spending.

He wants to drop the PARCC exam and replace it with ..... another computerized exam that kids will take more frequently throughout the year.

He says GE's relocation from CT to Massachusetts proves that taxes don't determine business location decisions, when Massachusetts is actually an AVERAGE TAX state to begin with with taxes that are much lower than CT's (or NJ's) and Massachusetts offered $180 million in tax incentives.

Posted on: 2016/10/6 15:44
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#13
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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


Phil Murphy cares as much about state aid as he cares about Uruguayan airport construction bidding.

Phil Murphy says, writes, and does nothing on state aid. Murphy never misses a chance to link NJ's problems and misgovernance with Chris Christie, but when Christie proposed his awful "Fairness Formula" and when the state auditor came out with a damning report on the unfairness of the aid distribution Murphy says nothing.

Murphy's website has nothing on state aid. His stump speech has nothing in it about state aid. His ads have nothing about state aid.

Murphy's indifference to state aid is in parallel to his indifference to property taxes.

When Murphy has been asked about state aid he shows how uninformed he is.

I saw Murphy get a question about state aid at a town hall and then just hand the mic off to Dick Codey.

I saw Murphy get a question about state aid in an online forum and then put 100% of the blame on Christie for cutting aid in 2010, even though NJ's revenues had fallen by billions and our federal stimulus money had been exhausted.

When host Larry Mendte of Jersey Matters asked Phil Murphy, if he would shift state aid around Murphy evaded the question and gave an error-riddled description of how our state aid law was _supposed_ to work, without recognizing any of hte problems in it. He also didn't use the name of the law, "SFRA," which indicates a lack of familiarity to me.

When Larry Mendte then asked Murphy point blank if he'd reallocate state aid Murphy paused and then said "I'd like to implement that formula."

(watch at 3:30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgoyRJp0qy4

"Implementing that formula" depends on pouring billions more into state aid and Murphy has never said where he would get that money.

The closest Murphy has come to saying there is a problem is "maybe the formula needs to be tweaked."

Yes, he used the words "maybe" and "tweaked."

Murphy talks about PreK aid quite a bit and has criticized Christie for not providing PreK for another 45,000 kids (which would cost at least $600 million.)

However, as for K-12? Murphy doesn't care.

Posted on: 2016/9/28 15:10
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#14
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Senator Ray Lesniak has the best quote on the Fulop>Murphy endorsement:

"Murphy made a deal with the Devil."

Steve Fulop has done more shady dealing than any other elected Democrat in New Jersey.[img width=200]https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/photo3-e14418546066951.jpg?quality=80&w=635&h=394[/img]

Steve Fulop defends grossly unfair tax systems, for Jersey City and the state as a whole.

I agree and hope that Ray Lesniak starts to get more attention now.

Murphy's claim to be against "insiders" is pathetic. Murphy takes all the suppport from insiders he can get.

http://observer.com/2016/09/lesniak-s ... with-fulop-off-the-field/

Posted on: 2016/9/28 14:48
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#15
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


I hope Fulop's departure lets Ray Lesniak or John Wisniewski become a top tier candidate.

Both Lesniak and Wisniewski have a lot of integrity and deserve a fair look.

Lesniak is the state's #1 advocate for animal rights. That's not an issue a politician picks up who just wants to pander to donors or a big constituency. I respect him for taking up a cause for a voiceless, voteless group.

Wisniewski was a very early backer of Bernie Sanders. I was never a Sanders person, but I admire Wisniewski's independence for this. Wisniewski went for Sanders when nobody thought Sanders had a chance.

Posted on: 2016/9/28 12:14
Top


Re: Fulop won't run for governor, will back Murphy, sources say
#16
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


I could vote for a businessperson who had no prior experience for a high office if I agreed with him or her on the issues and the person had made his/her money in a way that hadn't hurt the common good, but not Phil Murphy.

Phil Murphy has shown almost no sympathy for New Jerseyans who are getting killed by property taxes. If you look at his website and listen to his statements, he says nothing about taxes at all except that they are a problem for seniors and some low-income people. The idea that middle-class or working-class, non-seniors could be overburdened by taxes doesn't occur to him. Murphy is the only candidate running who OPPOSES a tax cap.

When asked about property taxes Murphy says the solution is "economic growth," which is the equivalent of saying "I have no plan other than luck."

And yet, Murphy's spending promises are so expansive that even if we had strong economic growth (yeah right) Murphy would pour so much money new programs like a huge expansion of PreK that there would be little money left over for municipal and school aid that actually offset property taxes.

Murphy is, by far, the biggest shill for the NJEA too. He says he has "no opinion" of tenure reform, he says he is against new charter schools, and he wants to drop the PARCC with (get this) a different computerized test.

Murphy's playbook for the campaign is a generic "How to Run as Democrat" playbook he got from the DNC. Murphy is for all sorts of worthy Democratic goals, like funding for Planned Parenthood, a $15 / hour minimum wage, and gun control, but there is next to nothing in his campaign which deals with NJ-specific problems, such as our pension crisis and sky-high cost of living.

Quote:

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

Posted on: 2016/9/28 11:37
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#17
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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?


The 146 properties could easily be 30% of the entire value of the city.

Many of the PILOTed buildings are skyscrapers and skyscrapers have crazily high valuations. If one PILOTed office building is worth $300 million that alone would be 1.4% of Jersey City's total valuation.

The 2.2291% ETR has county, school, muni, and even library and county and open space taxes combined into it. If you combine all of the different taxes JC taxpayers pay and divide by the Equalized Valuation, you'd get a figure that was in the low 2% range.

If you see discrepancies it might be because JC's Equalized Valuation is growing so rapidly and people might be using recent figures from 2014 or 2015 that are now out of date.

It might also be due to there being certain relatively small, obscure taxes that sometimes are neglected in calculations (like library, open space, and even a $5,429,458 "school levy as required by municipal budget" (I have no idea what that is))

See "Property Tax Tables" > Tax Summary to see all of the property taxes you pay.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/ ... urces/property_tax.html#1

Posted on: 2016/9/10 14:23
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#18
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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".


"Ultra high tax base" is just a term I use. There's no official definition to it.

But I like to call a district "ultra high tax base" if its tax base per student exceeds Millburn's since Millburn is the richest (large) suburb.

For 2015-16, Millburn had $37,000 in Local Fair Share per student or $1.9 million in Equalized Valuation per student. (Millburn shouldn't get state aid either)

Hoboken had $70,000 in Local Fair Share per student or about $4.6 million per student.

Local Fair Share is a hybrid measurement of tax base that the state is supposed to use to calculate Equalization Aid. It depends on Equalized Valuation and on Aggregate (not mean) Income.

It might seem strange that the state factors in income, but if state aid were based on property wealth alone it would actually be very bad for Hudson County where there is a relatively low ratio of income:property wealth. Conversely, it would be very good for South Jersey and rural areas, where the ratio of income:property wealth tends to be higher.

Anyway, tax base per resident would result in a very different ordering of relative wealth than tax base per student.

"It's hard to see how JC can be "middle" when "Jersey City's students are much poorer than average"."

There are many districts where there is a large difference between the strength of the tax base and the wealth of the students.

There are Jersey Shore districts with poor students but tens of thousands in LFS per student.

There are rural districts where the students are solidly middle class, but the tax base is very weak.

Divergences like these between tax base and student demographics result from different towns having different compositions of residential and non-residential property and different age structures where there might be proportionally a lot or proportionally very few kids in the public schools.

So Jersey City's students are 70% FRL eligible, which is about the 45th highest in NJ, but Jersey City has higher percentages of commercial and industrial property than the average NJ town and proportionally very few school-aged kids for its population.

Thus Jersey City's Local Fair Share per student is just somewhat below the state's average and if PILOTed properties were factored in, Jersey City would be above average.

Posted on: 2016/9/10 10:26
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#19
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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


The $9 billion in Equalized Valuation figure came from me.

I did the calculation in 2015 after it was released that if JC's PILOTed properties paid taxes, they would pay $198,589,915 (to the county, schools, muni)

Since JC's Equalized Tax Rate is 2.291%, I just divided 198,589,915 by .02291 and got $8.6 billion.

Since the $198,589,915 number came out in July 2015 I think it's a fair extrapolation to say that by now with more PILOTed properties being completed and appreciation in the existing ones, that by now the PILOTed properties would be worth at least $9 billion.


http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... sey_city_tax_abateme.html


Posted on: 2016/9/10 10:06
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#20
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
'Christie/Abbott' regime??

Christie wants Abbott to go away, no?


I was being a little facetious, but I think "Christie/Abbott regime" is a legitimate exaggeration.

Christie doesn't like Abbott (neither did Jon Corzine), but the state aid distribution is still dominated by NJ Supreme Court orders made in the 1990s.

Under Abbott, the Abbott districts were entitled to state aid that would bring their spending above what DFG I and J districts spending, meaning whatever Mountain Lakes, Livington, and Princeton spent, the Abbotts had to spend more than that. The NJ Supreme Court, quite literally, also said that Abbott unwillingness to pay higher taxes and Abbott inability to pay higher taxes, were the same thing, so the Abbotts all took a long tax increase holiday in the Abbott era and let the state pick up the slack.

Later, the Abbotts even got the right to get "supplemental funding" for whatever plausible educational project they could think of.

SFRA's passage in 2008 technically erased Abbott privileges for K-12 aid, but all their aid up to that point was grandfathered in.

In 2011 the NJ Supreme Court disallowed cuts to the Abbotts, but allowed cuts to all other districts. Christie obeyed this dictate and thus let the Abbott spending advantaged actually increase.

Aside from K-12 aid, the Abbotts also continue to have a monopoly on Pre-K and get 100% state construction funding.

So even though Christie doesn't like Abbott, he hasn't succeeded in changing the distribution. (nor has he really tried.)

What Christie has done since 2012-13 is flat-fund all districts, including ones getting way more than they need, like Asbury Park. Under Christie, the only thing that determines a district's aid is what it got the year before.

So I think speaking of a "Christie/Abbott regime" is a fair rhetorical flourish.


Posted on: 2016/9/9 14:25
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#21
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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.


People (including me) often talk about Hoboken and JC being districts that should lose state aid because they've become wealthier, but on close inspection there are big differences between Hoboken and JC.

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)

2. Hoboken's tax abatements have zero distortion on its state aid. Jersey City's tax abatements have a large distortion of its state aid. (more below)


K-12 Aid
I'm glad Yvonne mentioned that Hoboken has fewer than 3,000 students, because that fact combined with Hoboken's having over $13 billion in Equalized Valuation is why Hoboken should lose not only its Adjustment Aid, but all of its state aid.

In Local Fair Share, Hoboken has $67k per student. That's double what Millburn, Prinecton, and Paramus have.

If Hoboken lost its $5.5 million in Adjustment Aid the increase in its taxes would be imperceptible. Even if Hoboken lost all $10 million of its K-12 aid the increase would only be $600 for someone with a $1 million property.

And that $600 increase is assuming that Hoboken wouldn't make cuts. Hoboken now spends about $23,000 per student and it could make cuts before getting anywhere near core educational services. That poor owner of a $1 million condo in Hoboken might not see a $600 tax increase after all.

However, no one is talking about taking away Hoboken's Sped Aid, Transportation Aid, Security Aid, and Interdistrict Choice Aid. Thus, even if Sweeney's plan is passed and implemented, Hoboken will still get about $2000 per student.

Hoboken people sometimes defend Hoboken's state aid by saying that Hoboken's students don't represent the city at large. That might be true, but it's irrelevant, since Hoboken's tax base is so enormous.

Jersey City, on the other hand, is slightly below average in tax base, with about $10.2k per student (not counting PILOTed propety). Since Jersey City's students are much poorer than average (70% FRL eligible), the state calculates a high Adequacy Budget for JC of about $21,000 per student. If JerseyCity got exactly what SFRA's formulas recommend, it would get about $9200 per student.

$9200 per student is still pretty high, but what JC actually gets is $13,600 per student, which is almost as high as Paterson and Newark (who are both underaided)

Finally, it should be noted that JC might have 30,000 kids, but that's nto a lot in proportion to JC's population. Paterson is much smaller than JC but has almost as many kids and actually a greater number of FRL-eligible kids.

PILOTs

PILOTing only distorts state aid in a real way when a district gets Equalization Aid. Hoboken gets no Equalization Aid, so its PILOTing doesn't affect its state aid. The PILOTing hurts Hudson County, but not the state.

This is because Equalization Aid = Adequacy Budget - Local Fair Share

If a district's Local Fair Share exceeds its Adequacy Budget, it does not get Equalization Aid.

If the district's LFS exceeds Adequacy budget by 10%, 50%, or 300% it doesn't matter. The district still doesn't get Equalization Aid.

Hoboken's Local Fair Share is about $180 million. Its Adequacy Budget is about $46 million. So if Hoboken "hides" more wealth behind PILOTs it doesn't matter. Hoboken's Equalization Aid will be $0 no matter what.

Jersey City on the other hand, is much poorer than Hoboken and would get well over $200 million in Equalization Aid even if SFRA were properly run. Every time JC PILOTs something it hides the wealth from the formula for state aid and sustains a level of aid that is not justified based on JC's real wealth.


Posted on: 2016/9/9 14:16
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#22
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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.


I don't think the measuring tax burden by percentage of property value (ie, Equalized Tax Rate) is pointless, but I agree with your point that high taxes can lower property values and low taxes can raise them.

I think therefore that tax relief for the most tax-burdened towns in NJ is desperately needed. High-tax, low-school spending towns like Prospect Park, Bound Brook etc are being wrecked by their tax burdens. People living there are seeing the values of their homes (their biggest assets) steadily diminish.

The point of state aid is to allow struggling towns to stabilize their taxes and arrest spirals of decline, but under the Christie/Abbott regime, there's no redistribution of state aid. Taxes steadily increase in towns that are already overburdened and their declines deepen.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... y-wealth-in-njs-most.html

Posted on: 2016/9/9 9:51
Top


Re: Murphy Files ELEC Complaint Claiming Fulop Using Mayoral Account to Run for Governor
#23
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Yeah, and Murphy is complaining about Ras Baraka and Adrian Mapp too.

Quote:

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

Posted on: 2016/9/1 14:16
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#24
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


6.

It's Christie's own fault that Asbury Park still gets $24,000 a student.

Asbury gets $24,000 a student because of Adjustment Aid, not because of SFRA per or Abbott per se.

If it weren't for Adjustment Aid, Asbury Park would only get $13,500 per student.

Christie has the de facto power to cut Adjustment Aid and even did this in 2012-13.

I cannot believe the legislature would object to cutting Adjustment Aid for Asbury Park. Asbury Park's own representatives also represent Freehold and Red Bank Boros and are strongly pro-reform.

Posted on: 2016/8/31 15:22
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#25
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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.


Oh, I'm profoundly disappointed by Christie's proposal because it points the debate in the wrong directions.

1.
Christie shifts between two unrelated arguments about state aid without apparently realizing that he's doing so.

As Christie said on June 21st:

"No child’s dreams are less worthy than any others. No child deserves less funding from the state’s taxpayers. That goal must be reached, especially after watching the last 30 years of failed governmental engineering which has failed families in the 31 SDA [Abbott] districts and taxpayers all across New Jersey."

So...

a. Christie argues against progressive aid in general. (a view I find despicable.)

b. Christie argues against Abbott and the NJ Supreme Court and says the NJSC "overcorrected." (a view I broadly agree with.)

What's misleading about this line of argument is that most of the districts who would lose aid under Christie's proposal are not Abbotts and their aid has nothing to do with the NJ Supreme Court. For instance, Dover gets $9,551 per student; Paulsboro gets $11,725 per student, Prospect Park gets $8,995 per student etc. The aid these districts get has been determined by the legislature and executive, not the NJ Supreme Court.

Although I think aid targets for high-FRL districts are not affordable and are beyond the point of diminishing returns, the above three districts get much less than they need and their total spending is only $10k-$13k per student.

2.
Christie also makes a serious error in how he attempts to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of Abbott spending by comparing Abbott districts with charter schools in Abbott districts.

This is not a valid comparison because charter school students are self-selected and non-representative. Yes, charters spend less than district schools, but they have different populations.

A more valid and much more damning argument is to compare the Abbotts with high-FRL non-Abbotts who spend $7k-$10k less per student and lack any Pre-K.

When the most severely underfunded and demographically poor non-Abbotts, including East Newark, Freehold Boro, Red Bank Boro, and Fairview, do just as well as the best funded Abbotts, there is something fundamentally wrong with the Abbott Hypothesis.

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... has-been-ineffective.html

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... ctiveness-elementary.html

http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... -excellence-of-dover.html

3.
Christie also ignores the most unfair aspects of the Abbott regime, which are the Abbott monopoly on Pre-K and 100% state funding for Abbott construction.

4.
Christie ignores that the real victims of Abbott are poor non-Abbotts, from Clifton to Lakewood to Egg Harbor City to Bayonne to Belleville.

The plights of these districts is the most unfair thing about the Abbott Regime, not that suburban and Shore towns like South Orange and Margate have high taxes.

5.
It is Christie's own fault that the Abbott list hasn't been updated.

The governor and legislature have the power to update the Abbott list, but Christie has neglected to do this.

Posted on: 2016/8/31 15:15
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#26
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


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.

Posted on: 2016/8/31 11:49
Top


Re: Jersey City councilman signals shift on long-term tax breaks
#27
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


The article misstates why Jersey City's schools get so much state aid and why some legislators object to that.

The article says that JC's schools get a lot of aid because of the proportion of students who are poor and/or have "limited English," but this isn't how the distribution works.

If you look at many towns with FRL and LEP percentages that are the same as Jersey City's or higher - Guttenberg, Bayonne, East Newark, Dover, Bound Brook, Kearny, to name a few - you'll find that they get nowhere near as much state aid as Jersey City despite often having inferior tax bases per student.

Why does Jersey City really get huge amount of state aid compared to certain demographic peers?

Because of Abbott.

In other words, JC gets a ton of state aid because in the 1980s Jersey City was poor and also had a legal classification as "urban." Other districts in NJ whose FRL and LEP rates may exceed JC's either weren't as poor in the 1980s or, if they were, they didn't have "urban" status. (Guttenberg was and is the densest town in America, but it is and was not legally considered "urban.")

Anyway, because SFRA disallows the redistribution of state aid and until 2016 nobody asked for redistribution, Jersey City gets tons of state aid that under a rational calculation of needs and resources it would not get.

So the article is incorrect. JC's state aid has very little to do with its contemporary percentages of FRL and LEP kids; it gets a lot of state aid because of its poverty in the 1980s, the Education Law Center's legal aggression, the NJ Supreme Court's extremism, and then the legislature's aid hoarding "Hold Harmless" (Adjustment Aid) provision.

Posted on: 2016/8/18 22:40
Top


Re: Better ways than abatements to address Jersey City's affordable housing crisis | Opinion
#28
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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.


I see what you are saying, but I don't think the highway analogy applies to housing since highway-traffic generation is due to an increase in miles driven per person.

With highways, you can theoretically generate more traffic by building more highways since once the highways exist, people can take longer excursions and thereby increase their miles driven or switch to driving to work instead of taking PT.

But with housing, the amount of housing people use purely dependent on population. 99% of people can only afford one residence. If the highway analogy really applied to housing, then people would start buying extra apartments once more apartments are built, but that doesn't happen. Except for the top 0.1%, people are content with one urban residence at a time. (the closest equivalent to increasing miles-driven would be larger apartments, but I didn't think this was happening).

If JC didn't build lots of housing those buyers would buy up and bid-up the existing housing stock and spread farther into hitherto-ungentrified parts of the NY-metro area.


Posted on: 2016/7/27 11:57
Top


Re: Better ways than abatements to address Jersey City's affordable housing crisis | Opinion
#29
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away



I'm not a fan of Steve Fulop, but I think housing policy is an area where he is ok. Think of all the city establishments in the US who are anti-development and fight off most attempts to increase housing supply and alleviate pressure on renters.

Steve Fulop and Jersey City are very open to new development. If you compare JC to NYC's outer boroughs and downstate New York, JC (and NJ in general) builds more units per capita in most years.

( NJ never gets any credit for anything, but in housing policy we're a lot better than NYC/NYS.

https://newyorkyimby.com/2014/10/north ... heres-how-they-do-it.html )

Anyway, JC might try to force developers to build more affordable units, but it would make market-rate units more expensive and/or require bigger tax subsidies, or even reduce the total number of units that get built. Those are pretty big tradeoffs if you ask me.




Posted on: 2016/7/26 15:44
Top


Re: Will Jersey City and Hoboken ever lose Abbott District Status?
#30
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

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?


The minimum percentage proposal isn't economically workable. For the poorest districts, like Camden, Bridgeton, and Woodlynne, there is no way they can pay 25% of even the state's average, let alone the higher amount they should be paying. Those three districts have Local Fair Shares per student of under $2,000.

(on the other hand, NJ does need a minimum local contribution from the Abbotts for construction. Right now they pay 0%)

The formulas of the current law, SFRA, would allow some money to be taken from Abbotts. Half of the Abbotts are overaided, even Camden.

While I believe that Abbott has become extremely unfair and has always been ineffective, I strongly disagree with the Republicans that the focus should be on taking money from the Abbotts since not all of them are overaided and they aren't NJ's only overaided districts either. There are many overaided exurbs, rural towns, and Jersey Shore districts too.


Posted on: 2016/6/22 9:50
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 »






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017