Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Based on prior constitutional mandates and court decisions, the BOE is correct.

And it was state law that a) imposed a property tax cap and b) required all PILOT payments to be made to municipalities. So don't blame the district for underfunding.

Towns can ask for cap rises over 2%, and no city (including JC) was forced to give PILOTS at all, especially in non distressed areas like the JC waterfront.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The top 1% of NJ taxpayers pay 43% of NJ income taxes.

A meaningless statistic without their percentage of NJ income earned.

Not sure, but given NJ?s income tax is very progressive I?m sure it?s even worse. Top earners pay quite a higher % than low earners.

JPhurst wrote:
State Aid Guy, who replaces facts with insults and snarkiness when exposed, doesn't understand what "Appeal To Authority" means. It is a logical fallacy that cites someone else's support for a proposition, with no other evidence, for the truth of the proposition.

It is not an "Appeal to Authority" (in the fallacious sense) to cite a tribunal that has made findings of fact and conclusions of law that create a claim of right.. In this case, the "authority" is being cited because it is a Constitutionally binding NJ Supreme Court decision that made findings of fact and implemented specific mandates (that were never met). It is no different than State Aid Guy pulling numbers out of his tuckus from SFRA and calling them dispositive.

Abbott was not "decided by lawyers." It was decided by Justices. Because, you know, those are the people who are authorized to make such decisions.

And do you think the outlandishly corrupt Steve Sweeney is an "education expert"?

Brown vs. Board of Education was decided in 1964. It is no less relevant today, and there are plenty of schools that are under such decades old decrees.

In any event, the reason it has been so long since Abbott (and it's 1990, not 1985, because Abbott II is the key decision here) is because prior to ordering these mandates, the Courts gave the state legislature every opportunity to develop remedies on their own. It was only in the absence of that that the Court decided to order its own remedies, which the other branches of government followed kicking and screaming, and which they never fully implemented anyway. As Justice LaVecchia explained in 2011.

"It begins with the 1990 decision in Abbott II, and shows the forbearance with which this Court awaited, for years, the State s development of a constitutionally sound method of funding for disadvantaged pupils before specific remedial orders had to be imposed:"

SFRA did not eliminate the obligations in prior Abbott decisions, and was found Constitutional on the basis that it did not prejudice the Abbotts.

And when the state legislature failed to properly fund the school formula, the Supreme Court took it up again in 2011. The Court ruled that a) the legislature was obliged to fully fund the SFRA BUT b) the case that brought the issue to them only gave them jurisdiction over the districts that were covered under Abbott v. Burke. That is, in part, one reason the disparity exists. Personally, I would have preferred that the Court order funding of the whole formula, as did Justice Albin. But then again, it was Jersey City and the other Abbotts that actually did the work to demonstrate the deficiencies in education, proved that the NJ Constitution was violated, and led to the increase in state aid. 205 other school districts now running from behind clamoring "Hey that looks good, I want some too!" is all fine and well, until it interferes with the obligations to those parties that were originally covered under Abbott.

JPhurst wrote:
From the NJ Supreme Court's decision in Abbott v. Burke II.

These are documented findings, not games with spreadsheets. When the legislature passed SFRA, the court subsequently held it permissible, but that did not abolish the obligations to the Abbott districts.. SFRA was designed to help other districts, but not at the expense of those districts that had proven the deficiencies at issue.

Interesting comparison between South Orange/Maplewood and East Orange. Interesting how the former district saw the benefits of consolidation, but not when it came to actually taking on poorer and minority students.

Create the Unified Oranges School District first, then we can figure out how much aid it needs.

I have no problem with other poorer districts making the case that they are, in fact, deprived of the state's constitutional obligation. I also am more inclined to support districts that have been designed to end segregation, like Morris School District, then those who remain segregated. I absolutely oppose SFRA being used to eliminate pre-existing obligations to the districts that proved their case, demonstrated need, and ultimately led to other districts that didn't do that clamoring for "me too."

-------

JPhurst wrote:
I don't speak in generalities. I speak in terms of the specific findings that the Abbott court made as to why those districts are entitled to relief, and the specific, and for the most part, unmet, obligations that the state had as a result of those findings.

JPhurst wrote:
Meanwhile. in "underfunded" East Newark....

East Newark should not even be a town, much less have its own school district. But they are paying $145,000 to their super who just resigned his prior job under investigation.

http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/201 ... t.html#incart_river_index

When "stateaidguy" starts insulting people, you know you must be on the right track.

JPhurst wrote:
The state should also phase out aid to all k-6 or k-8 districts, and impose a 10% surcharge on such districts until they merge into full k-12 districts. These micro districts create extra layers of administrative waste and are largely designed to segregate students from broader based populations which would include poorer and minority students.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JSleeze wrote:
The one thing that keeps coming up in the various threads about property taxes is the fact that JC's rate (1.62%) is below state average. That has nothing to do with anything.

In a city, the advantages of density and efficiencies of scale would dictate a lower rate. Provision of services should be easier (think police, fire, trash pickup, etc.) given closer proximity, fuel costs should be lower, purchasing should be more effective since you are doing it in larger volumes, etc. Not saying it always works out that way, given politics, corruption and the like - but from a basic economics standpoint the math is pretty simple.

The state rate that gets tossed around is an average. Not everyone is average, for good reason.

In theory, your post should be correct. In practice/reality, it is completely off. Today's budget is the same (when accounting for inflation and value of dollar) as it was decades ago. This is despite technology advancements that should have made for more efficient processes and government services. Also, in terms of the breakdown of our tax levy, ours is only low because we are paying 1/6 of our local school budget. If we were paying half of our school budget (instead of just 17%) then that levy would triple, bringing our taxes up to just shy of 2.5%.

We don't have a low tax rate because of economy of scales, or efficient local government; we have a low tax rate because we have gotten other people to foot our bill.

JCGuys wrote:
Great. So how much will taxes go up on downtown rate payers?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:

Those in Jersey City who are honestly so concerned about the JCPS being below Adequacy need to start demanding that the JCBOE use its existing banked cap and then put a referendum to the voters asking approval for a higher tax levy.

Despite having an enormous gain in ratables, the JCBOE is only in 4th place among Hudson County districts in increasing its tax levy since 2010, despite the fact that its initial tax levy was so low and the JCPS was always below Adequacy.

If Bayonne and East Newark can raise their tax levies by 23%, when can't the Jersey City BOE do this (except for the fact that it doesn't want to?)

2010 2017
Bayonne City 60,670,934.00 74,877,844 23%
East Newark 1,178,641.00 1,447,486 23%
Weehawken 16,674,798.50 20,424,896 22%
North Bergen 40,489,434.00 49,217,112 22%
Hoboken 36,386,944.50 43,857,211 21%
Guttenberg 9,272,354.00 11,158,596 20%
West New York 14,040,891.00 16,724,432 19%
Kearny 45,449,873.00 52,218,164 15%
Jersey City 105,961,498.00 119,464,435 13%
Secaucus 31,978,788.50 35,945,958 12%
Harrison 9,882,896.17 10,944,941 11%
Union City 16,338,576.00 15,418,637 -6%

Good luck with that. I agree with your point, but i doubt you will get many takers willing to pay more in taxes. Many DTJC homeowners who got slapped with huge tax raises are actively looking for ways to stop the reval, or delay its implementation. Some are outright crying poverty and unfair taxation. If the school tax levy was to be raised enough to actually approach adequacy, plus the projected deficit, it would likely equal a 100% increase. That means local taxes would go up to 2% (or, higher) and the very vocal DTJC homeowner contingent will simply revolt against the idea.

La_Verdad wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

ecinjc wrote:
Ok so it?s clear you have some objections to the study. And I was misinformed in thinking some of edlaw researchers were related to Rutgers. Also if they are funded by JCEA I agree there is probably some bias there. But I looked on your blog and see no disclosure of your name/identity. I think that it would be powerful to disclose this information so we can see what your potential agenda/bias may be. Especially if you are accusing others...

Stateaids identity doesn't matter; the data does. If I were stateaid I'd stay anonymous, especially in NJ. Stop focusing on the wrong thing.

Stateaidguy's identity is entirely appropriate to focus on, especially when he (?) claims to be from "one of the Oranges". Why is he on this board? Who's interest is he serving with his posts? There could be very legitimate reasons for him to be here, but the conversation would be much better served by knowing the answer to those questions.

ecinjc wrote:
Here?s a good overview of funding issues from Rutgers Edlaw. It?s a complex issue and will need more than just a portion of abatements to fix. But it?s good to understand that we are not overfunded based on the number of disadvantaged, eel,and special needs kids we serve. http://www.edlawcenter.org/assets/fil ... _School_Funding_Case_.pdf

newbie100 wrote:
BTW how many students does JC have and what is our per student spending?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I've been fascinated by the 99 Hudson development. It's being built with NO TAX ABATEMENT and will contain 781 luxury condos. Average sales price may be well excess of $750,000.

That's $585,750,000 in new ratables. It will lead to a big drop in the property tax rate.

Big drop? 586 MM is ~2% of the total new valuation. A drop of 2% in a 30K tax bill is only $600, which is $50 / month. I am not sure I would call that a "big drop".

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:

I am posting this here because I've seen so much speculation on what the new tax rate will be after the reval. (which doesn't actually change the tax rate).

Tax Bill = Assessed Value * Tax Rate

Since the Total Assessed Value of the City increased according to your report, then the Tax Rate willdecrease.

That is assuming total appropriations/spending, average tax bill, etc. remains the same or if you prefer fancy words, ceteris paribus.

Thank you as always, SAG. Any insight on valuation post reval?

This is likely good news for homeowners in general, but let's not forget that even if this resulted in a net decrease of the equivalent increased valuation (~10%) the city homeowners are still looking at an effective tax rate of 1.9% (given the 2.1% effective ta rate of 2016) which is still a substantial one for those properties that have appreciated so much over the past decade or two.

I do wonder if the effective rate would actually drop that much, considering that municipal ad valorem property taxes are only a portion of the total tax bill (isn't it around 60%?) with the remaining being taken up by school taxes (~26%) and county taxes. If the other rates do not adjust down, the net decrease would be closer to 6%, leaving the effective rate at a smidgen below 2%.

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

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.

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!