CatDog wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Good Lord!, I certainly hope Hillary has made that comforting
phone call.



#Special

1.5 years after the election and you're still obsessed with Hillary. Goodness.

yorkster wrote:
100% agree. Makes more sense on 440 / route 1&9

Quote:

brewster wrote:
What a stupid ass place to put it on the butt end of the peninsula!! That's hardly closer than Clifton or Teterboro for DT and Hoboken, the 100k people in the county with the most disposable income. 440 or 1-9 would have been so much smarter. Justy look at the map, no one is going to cross the Bayonne bridge or the 78 bridge to shop this store.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Really? This successful model?
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/11/ ... rcent-higher-murder-rate/

Since marijuana does not send users into homicidal rages, nor does it encourage users to steal rampantly to pay for it, it makes no sense to claim that Colorado's homicide rate increased slightly because marijuana was legalized.

Did u bother to read the article?

Yes. Did you?

The CBI and and Denver PD offer no theories. One police officer mistakenly says it's due to economic conditions (patently false, as crime rates did not soar in 2007-2009). One lawmaker who tries to pin it on pot also acknowledges a surge in opiate use.

Spare us the FUD, kthx.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Really? This successful model?
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/11/ ... rcent-higher-murder-rate/

Since marijuana does not send users into homicidal rages, nor does it encourage users to steal rampantly to pay for it, it makes no sense to claim that Colorado's homicide rate increased slightly because marijuana was legalized.

Pebble wrote:
This really shouldn't be a debate. Legalization is a slam dunk. You have the successful models in other states already. Throw in the fact that we have major cities bordering our state, we could easily draw in some major revenue via "tourism." Atlantic City could have something drawing people to it, again. Camden could start to make a come-back in some parts as a destination.

The downside could be a much more crowded PATH. The plus side could be that the PATH might be pressured to run more trains later and over the weekend...

brewster wrote:
Quote:

mpwJC wrote:
I reached out to him on Facebook as well. The article doesn't explain any of his possible reasoning for being against legalization, so I'll let him make his case, but I will vote against him in every election if he isn't in favor of something the vast majority of NJ and Hudson County supports.

Half this opposition is just spineless pols afraid of being painted "soft on crime" in the next election. That's why only in Vermont was legalization passed by the legislature, all the rest were plebiscites where they could claim it wasn't them that did it.

robotdisko wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
All the rest of New Jersey's probably paying for it in fees somewhere.

link? or the voices in your head?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
What amazes me is that in a number of these suburban towns homeowners are living pretty nice lives in individual homes and payimg taxes in the same amount in some cases as people in JC who are crammed into condos and living with some horrible quality of life situations. For what?-proximity to NYC? It's outrageous.
Doesn't make sense.

That's not entirely accurate. The new estimated rate in JC is 1.62%, which is one of the lowest in the state. The rest of the state pays between 2.5-3% (I forget the exact average number, but it's well above 2%, so don't quote me)

Even post reval, JC is getting quite a deal on the backs of the rest of the state.

Why do people continually point to tax rates as a measuring stick? Obviously an area with high property values will have a lower tax rate. An area with a high tax rate will lower property values. See how that works? You are also citing a tax rate while property values are at an all time high in Jc. The other cities you compare the rate to have also not just had a reval meaning their tax rate will be inflated since it would not be based on it's current market value. The point is taxes in JC are no great bargain.

How can they not be considered a bargain? JC gets the better part of half a billion dollars from the backs of other taxpayers to pay for most of its school costs.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
What amazes me is that in a number of these suburban towns homeowners are living pretty nice lives in individual homes and payimg taxes in the same amount in some cases as people in JC who are crammed into condos and living with some horrible quality of life situations. For what?-proximity to NYC? It's outrageous.
Doesn't make sense.

That's not entirely accurate. The new estimated rate in JC is 1.62%, which is one of the lowest in the state. The rest of the state pays between 2.5-3% (I forget the exact average number, but it's well above 2%, so don't quote me)

Even post reval, JC is getting quite a deal on the backs of the rest of the state.

hero69 wrote:
i agree that this is small potatoes for the port authority..sort of like paying $130,000 for piece of mind

hero69 wrote:
lol. california was a disaster until jerry brown came in and restored order. guess what, he did what needed to be done, including raising taxes.

K-Lo2 wrote:
What extra money? With the SALT limitation at $10k, the extra take home is wiped out and then some.

mscottc wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
This is the problem with liberal states, even though the pension are not fully funded, the governor is still giving away free stuff. The promise for free county colleges means taxpayers are on the hook for those services. Another thing that no one caught is the 7% sales tax. Christie cut the tax slightly in order to have a 23 cents a gallon tax on gasoline. Now the 7% is new restored and the 23 cents tax is permanent.

It may be a problem for liberal states, but it's not a problem for this liberal mind. I'd rather be known for higher taxes than watching people suffer all over the place with low education, no or poor food, crumbling infrastructure, and kicking the financial obligations down the road. I'd rather be California or New York than Wisconsin or Mississippi any day.

There is a happy medium somewhere. And quite frankly liberal states are doing much better than conservative states in so many different ways.

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It’s unreal.

I’m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It’s really something else.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
That's like saying the city should remove every single traffic light, and make it the responsibility of individual drivers to know when to safely proceed at intersections.

Oh please, spare us the ridiculous nonsense. Obviously, not appealing property taxes is absolutely 100% nothing like removing every single traffic light.

sigh

You missed the point.

Since you appear to have problems with analogies, let me help you through this: The municipality has caused a problem by failing to uphold its legal responsibilities (removed traffic lights). You are throwing responsibility for fixing the situation on the citizens (crossing without lights). That won't work, because there is still a systemic problem (no lights) that individuals do not have the ability to fix.


Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
It is not the responsibility of tens of thousands of JC residents to fix a systemic refusal by the city to uphold its legal responsibilities.

No dispute about that. But it is up to an individual to appeal their taxes if they are unjust or unfair because they are too high.

That’s why there’s an appeal system and that’s how it works. An individual brings an appeal – get it…?

Can’t disagree that Jersey City was wilfully negligent in neglecting to conduct revals for the past 30 or so years. Nevertheless an individual could have fixed their own problem all during that time with an appeal. It’s no secret and many people did appeal successfully. Stop crying now if you didn’t. I feel sorry for you, but you alone are responsible if you didn’t appeal.

Steve Fulop was willfully and wantonly negligent when he stopped the reval after becoming mayor.

Oh, by the way, I think you’ll find that the road rules hold you responsible for safely proceeding at any time you’re driving on public roads – whether or not a traffic control signal is installed.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

The issue here is, you have three decades where some residents were screwed. They were paying a tax rate double that of those living with much better means. The poor were subsidizing the wealthy. A reval one year later would mean that the poorer areas only receive one year relief to earn back the money they lost over those decades.

During the entire time since the 1998 reval anybody who believed their property taxes were “unfair” had the right to appeal.

It should not be the responsibility of individual citizens to fix an abject failure of by the city to uphold its legal responsibilities to keep property taxes accurate.

It's also my understanding that tax appeals are limited in how much they can adjust your tax amount.

There's also a deliberate (imo) policy of issuing confusing tax bills. Nowhere on the property card shows the equalization rate nor the implied property value. And they make the process of appealing as complex as possible.

Most people didn't know they were getting ripped off.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
If you are refering to me "bitching about the tax increase" please show me where I did.

sigh

Show me where I accused you personally of complaining about the tax increase.

If you are not in that elite group, then the worst thing I did to you was correct your claims about the effects of low property taxes on JC RE values.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
The point is that low taxes drove up the market values. High taxes will lower the values and now there will be a flood of appeals unless another reveal happens

Low taxes was only one part of what has driven up property values in DTJC. Other factors include, but are not limited to:

• Intense real estate pressures in the NYC area (including the insanity of buying in Manhattan, which is dominated by co-ops)
• Close proximity to Manhattan, especially the Financial District and much of Midtown
• Low inventory in DTJC (75% is rental)
• Housing stock that's either decent or worth fixing up
• Record low interest rates
• Between ~1995 and 2006, a massive bubble in national real estate values
• Lots of other nearby areas which didn't have such tax imbalances also increased in value

Also, keep in mind that DTJC has been in the process of gentrification for decades -- as in, long before property taxes got out of whack.

Another thing to keep in mind? Hoboken did a reval a few years ago, and it was not Real Estate Armageddon. What a shock.

What is likely to happen is that RE values will drop for a few months, then come right back up. At the bare minimum, the people who own those $1 million homes? Another adjustment isn't going to reduce their taxes back to $10k/yr.

Sorry, Charlie. You got a massive tax break for decades, now pay yer taxes.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

lecxe wrote:
Your tax bill went up? Well cry me a river. Life ain't fare. No one cares.

Yes, except the reval is actually the epitome of fairness. They're upset that everything is fair now lol.

It's fair until values fall. Jeez. How hard is that to grasp?

Well now that it's fair, they want to change how it's done. They say the old tropes of "we all use the same amount of services so why should our taxes be different". There's a DT attorney on Nextdoor insisting it should be done by income, can you imagine the shitshow that would be? And many of the same complainers would still be complaining.

HeightsNative wrote:
[quote]
lecxe wrote:

Your tax bill went up? Well cry me a river. Life ain't fare. No one cares.

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
I wonder if JC will see a massive amount of tax appeals, like the city did in the early '90s?

Any tax appeal will likely be dismissed without much fuss: what would be the argument to bring an appeal? That the person doesn't want to pay so much? Once the revaluation is completed and put in place, that is the new baseline. It is utterly impossible to try and argue against your new tax levy when it is based on a professional valuation of property that was carried out citywide.