HeightsNative wrote:
And now I read the post reval rate may be closer to 1.4%. Hahaha the party and free ride is most certainly over!!

SOS wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
We live in a rowhouse that is in a group of 10 built at the same time and essentially the same size. Some have been updated a more than others but a pretty good sample to compare assessments.

I saw the assessments for 6 of the 10 yesterday. There is an 8k difference in tax from the lowest to highest one. The one in the worst condition got one of the highest assessments.

The assessors are going to have a lot of explaining to do once all the numbers are published.

Did the one is the worst condition allow the appraisers into the home? If not, that might explain the disparity.

jchouse wrote:
Apart from the reval, the other thing to consider is that the ability
to deduct SALT (state and local taxes) may be eliminated in the
proposed tax overhaul. If the tax legislation does indeed go through
(with a doubling of standard deduction), the economics of owning
a house in the tri-state region would completely change. Higher property taxes
in that environment (which is eventually gonna happen in downtown jc with the reval)
would certainly not bode well for the housing market in the area. I would be cautious of buying
with such uncertainties lingering around the corner, not to mention an incredible amount of
rental supply in the area!

brewster wrote:
Personally, I'd say add the rolling reval,ie reset on sale. But that's controversial for reasons obscure to me, likely realtors hate it.

SOS wrote:
Some people may be underestimating the rise in property values in areas beyond downtown. The heights and Journal Square for example are all doing incredibly well. Fulop uses this as one of the significant reasons why the reval should be delayed. In the last 3 years or so the disparity in housing prices in the city has been decreasing at a higher rate than prior years. Fulop haters may not agree, but having a competent mayor has something to do with it.

SRhia wrote:
Thank you @jcguy05 for the long reply!

I'm curious though (and this is for all real estate investors): what is the advantage/disadvantage of cashing out? Assuming someone brought a property for investment (renting out) 5 years ago, and is currently breaking even (or making money) on rent. Why (or why not) would you cash out now? I can think of:

Advantage:
- cashing out to get cash on hand.
- Cash can be available for next investment property when market crashes. Or cash available to make other investments (eg stocks, etc);
- less to worry about (no tenants calling about problems!!!)

Disadvantage (??? Or perhaps rather "reasons to keep it"???):
- Tenant is already paying rent, so you're building equity. Why not keep it??? In 30 years (or length of mortgage), you'll own the property. And given it's a long time horizon, the property will appreciate in value by then anyway.
- no need to go through the hassle of selling (probably not a legit reason

So - did I miss something? Why are some others reasons to sell vs. keep an investment property knowing the market is going down?

Trying to learn here (since looks like there're some pros here)

gordonh wrote:
I (female) run at 5:30. I feel safe on the waterfront (and I get to see the sun rise) and through the downtown streets. As it gets darker, I don't really like going over the foot bridge alone. One reason is there are a lot of skunks in the park and they've caught me off-guard. And some of them don't seem right (rabid).

I've never been hit by a car.

I also run with a dog and without headphones.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
This is a fair assessment. DTJC would suffer more than say Greenville, but all would suffer none the less if Abbot funding disappears. Owners of long term tax abated properties would be the only ones unaffected.

It's better to do something now than let the problem compound itself by kicking the can down the road.

Just a guess based on small sample observation, but if 'suffer' means being unable to afford one's home, DTJC might suffer much less than poorer neighborhoods. Pulling a kid out of private school, day care instead of nanny, cutting back on vacations, making a lump sum mortgage payment and refinancing are options that free up money, should taxes go up. Just a guess...

What % of DTJC kids are currently in private schools? What happens when all these DTJC families can't afford the private schools because their taxes doubled or tripled and flood the public school system? Not saying that is a reason to stop the reval but a reality that should be addressed.

And the alternative is to keep shafting the other wards? Because, honestly, right now, DTJC is getting a great deal: real estate continues to appreciate higher, real estate taxes are below what they should be, which in turn make their properties that much more attractive to potential buyers, who can afford higher mortgages since they pay little in taxes.

The reval has to happen. Putting it off is only perpetuating the relative tax abuse perpetuated on residents outside of DTJC, while compounding the problem. It will be painful, but the more they wait, the more painful it will be. But, the bigger issue for DTJC (and all of JC, really) is the question of the future of Abbott funding. Right now, living downtown is very attractive to young families who can opt for free PreK and relatively low BOE school taxes. If those were to go away, that will severely impact real estate values in JC.

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
This is a fair assessment. DTJC would suffer more than say Greenville, but all would suffer none the less if Abbot funding disappears. Owners of long term tax abated properties would be the only ones unaffected.

It's better to do something now than let the problem compound itself by kicking the can down the road.

Just a guess based on small sample observation, but if 'suffer' means being unable to afford one's home, DTJC might suffer much less than poorer neighborhoods. Pulling a kid out of private school, day care instead of nanny, cutting back on vacations, making a lump sum mortgage payment and refinancing are options that free up money, should taxes go up. Just a guess...

user1111 wrote:
FYI this ordinance was in play way before Prato came to JC... I heard about it last year 2014 when a few businesses were trying to open up on Ocean ave at one of our Block Association meetings. This has very little to do with Prato I do understand why you are all think so.

Many business owners who wanted to open up a cafe were being treated as if they were opening up a restaurant which is quite different.

MDM wrote:
[quote]

I would like to see a survey of the public schools to see how many of the students actually live in those market rate high rises.

I remember at one time (way back when the State first took over the JC schools) I read a statistic that something like 40%+ of the students in JC where in private / parochial schools.

I would be curious what the statistics are now.

Mao wrote:

Landshark- who told you about St. Brigit's? Is that official? Is it public knowledge?

Insurance typically doesn't cover riots/acts of terrorism, which this falls under. What about the 60+ businesses, many small business owners, who have had their livelihoods destroyed over the media's incessant race-baiting? Anyone care about them?

Remember, these race riots could easily happen here, as it got pretty bad after they killed the cop and dedicated the shrine in his honor. They could loot and burn DTJC. If Ferguson is any indication, no one will even care, instead focusing on the plight of the looters.

gordonh wrote:
We used Safwat Taurus of Tadco 201-852-3764. He took care of permits and was very professional.

FYI, if he had found a tank, we would have walked away from the sale.