dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

Bike_Lane wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
does that building hold no historic significance? we're a block away, and can't change our stoop railing, per rules. how can corporations just tear down these old beauties?

They're not in a historic preservation district, but in the Newark Ave Downtown Redevelopment Plan Zone (would have to look that up to see what you're allowed to do there)

They're on the Planning Board agenda for Aug 13. The agenda says "Multi-phase proposed project retains Newark Avenue and Barrow Street (partial) facades in accordance with bonus provisions of the redevelopment plan to construct a 7-story mixed use building with 51 residential dwelling units and 11,967 sf of retail space.
Deviations: Minimum Rooftop Amenity Space, Prohibited facade materials, Minimum floor to ceiling heights - upper floors, Minimum floor to ceiling heights - ground floor, Minimum building stepbacks, Maximum stories"

Sounds like they want to cram in a few more units than allowed. If you feel strongly about it, reach out to Matt Ward in City Planning or go to the Planning Board meeting.

Per this article, https://jerseydigs.com/barcade-propose ... ewark-avenue-jersey-city/ it sounds like they're going to preserve and reuse the historic facade for the front of the building and that dollar store being obliterated is no huge loss.

However, it seems like the overall retail footprint is going to be greatly reduced as I don't think the combined dance studio/Barcade/Dollar Store is anywhere close to 12k square feet.

The NAs will do their usual whining and grandstanding over the residential density and parking, completely ignoring the retail factor, per usual of course.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
stay away from Imperial Roofing.

You got that right!

Capital's price on PVC seemed great considering the warranty, till another roofer pointed out that the parapets were crumbling and the mortar was gone! They were going to wrap the crumbling masonry in PVC and walk away making it a hidden time bomb. Not good.

Another roofer on another roof ignored that the timber on the roof edge was rotted away where water had pooled. After the roof was done I noticed the siding shingles buckling from the whole roof sagging! I had to tear down the ceiling under it to get at it to shore up the roof.

Lastly, not roofing, I discovered that 2 bathrooms I had build had no waterproofing membrane on the cement board under the tile, considered mandatory today by tile professionals. I discovered this when I had to rip out a windowsill in the shower that they had failed to pitch so the water would run off rather than pool and leak through.

Lesson is most contractors are happy to leave you with a time bomb if they can argue it wasn't in their scope of work or you didn't ask for it specifically. I've learned my lesson, I'm going to hover over the next contractor I hire and make sure it's done right. I have no idea what people with less skills, knowledge & free time can do. Sorry for the rant, I'm disgusted.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
The softness is not attributed to the reval, but to the new construction. And getting hustled by agents means nothing. The biggest challenge to agents in any market is getting the listing. Get a $1m listing and that's a $25-60k payday if you price it properly.

We've been hearing people proclaim that Factor X will kill DTJC RE property values for years now. It's a bit old. Not to mention that we are specifically discussing the effects of the reval.

Yes, I know that getting calls from RE agents means nothing. So does one RE agent saying "single family homes are soft," or one single listing. That's why I'm saying you have to look at actual data, which a) shows no major drop in prices yet and b) shows that in the long term, prices are likely to hold or increase.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

They're not "absurdly high taxes"; they're exactly the taxes one should pay for a residence in a particular market. Also, at a rate of 1.62% is still one of the lowest tax RATES in the entire state. Try paying 2.3% or whatever the state average is, on these valuations, then I'd say whoa. But again, there are options: reverse mortgages, the senior freeze, etc.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:

Also, how could anyone whos taxes arent increasing / substantially dropping (greenville & west side) complain that downtown isnt paying enough ? Seems like everyone wants a free ride these days

Again with this? You obviously don't get it. This new (estimated) numbers show what most have been claiming for years now: that DTJC had been underpaying their taxes to the detriment of poorer residents in areas that have seen little or no appreciation.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/RevaluationUpdate

if you click "1-4 family neighborhood analysis" on the bottom of the page, it opens a PDF with average tax increases by neighborhood. Downtown JC taxes are looking to go up by 50% (unless I'm misinterpreting the table). But...tell me again how the housing prices won't be affected by this?

Going by the document, it looks like the increases in DTJC are anywhere from mid 50% to 75%, with the sole exception of the Van Leer neighborhood (WTF is that?) which is expected to go up by only 41%.

Interesting... I expected DT to get even higher increases. But, overall, the picture is bleak for the administration in terms of optics. Just as had been argued and pointed out multiple times prior to the reval, the current tax situation was a reverse Robin Hood scenario, and the numbers are damning. EVERY neighborhood outside of DTJC is going to see reductions, some quite substantial, with five rare exceptions, expected to have minor increases, three of which are under 5%.

And, it seems like they are expecting the tax rate to come out at about 1.62%. While that is welcome news for the DTJC homeowners, it is likely bad overall for the city, as pressure is likely to increase to force JC to take on a larger share of the local school budget if the property tax rate is so low compared to other NJ towns. At 2%, the city could argue that anything higher was a huge burden on residents, but at 1.6%, I believe that would be one of the absolute lowest property tax rates in the state (outside of Cape May county) and makes us a target for increased pressure.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
I fear for the future of this forum.....

Too late for that, this place was moribund before the election anyway.

IMO this notion of letting activist incumbent residents decide what happens in their neighborhood is absurd. In almost all cases they will vote for no development. No one has a right to a static neighborhood. Many of the same people howling about high housing costs are the ones preventing higher density.

Here's a thought experiment: convert Summit into a Bus Rapid Transit lane from Journal Square up to 495 through to the Port Authority, and rezone the heights area along it for midrise higher density. You would lose parking on Summit but thousands of new affordable homes with great mass transit and no need for cars would take its place.

This type of "New Urbanist" growth vision would absolutely be vetoed by existing residents, but potential residents have no vote.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
[quote]
not everyone that currently owns downtown has been living there forever and been substantially subsidized by other areas of the city. these areas have also seen increased values in the past few years and maybe wont see that golden $100 or $200 per month reduction by the reval - at most ? who will be crying now ?

OK, think of it this way.

Let's say that Joe bought a brownstone in 2015 for $800k, and is paying $8k per year in property taxes. After the reval, his taxes shoot up to $16k.

Joe has, in fact, already benefitted. By the time the reval takes effect, he'd have saved well over $25k just in a few years (as he should have been paying higher taxes in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018). And someone else had to pay the taxes he didn't pay.

In addition, if we don't do the reval, or somehow shield Joe from his full obligation, he's still getting a tax break moving forward. Further, someone else is still paying the remainder of Joe's fair share, while he continues to reap the benefit not only of lower taxes, but also higher property values.


Quote:

telling someone that they shouldnt be pissed their taxes are skyrocketing based on an arguably inflated investor driven market and if they dont like it, then they can just sell and leave is just being a dick.

Yes and no.

Yes, in that the city should not have delayed the reval for 30 frickin' years. It should have done this about every 5 years, in which case people would see more frequent and significantly smaller changes in property taxes.

No, in that it is unjustified to be mad that you have to pay your fair share -- especially after getting a break, at some else's expense.

Griping about "inflated investor driven market" is nonsense, because the people whose taxes are going up have directly benefitted from that market. Nor is there any sign, even after people literally spending years predicting a massive crash, that JC is in an unsustainable real estate bubble.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

yorkster wrote:
Funny, those of us apposing the methodology of property tax calculation are due to get a $36K bill and those in favor obviously are not. Just because a value of a home has risen doesn't mean that the individual that lives in that home has the means to pay $36K year over year.

Stop being self-servingly obtuse. There is nothing wrong with the methodology. it is the same one used ALL OVER the USA. If someone bought a home for 300K, and that home has now risen to 1.5 MM, and they can't afford the taxes now, they still have options that all those other that have been subsidizing them do not have. Namely, the person has 1.2 MM in (unrealized) profit into which the person can can tap to pay off the tax burden: borrow against the property, or sell, or find another solution.

Complaining about having to pay higher taxes on a property that has appreciated tremendously, and for which taxes have been under assessed for a decade or longer, is like complaining about being taxed on lottery winnings: it is petty and will not get you far.

RichMauro wrote:
I'd define economic violence as a disregard for others in the name of profit for oneself.

A for instance:

Realtors constantly knocking on people's homes pestering them to sell which could lead to the ousting of long term tenants.

AMo wrote:
I think Moran is kind to suggest that Fulop remember "why he got into this game" in the first place. The "why" was self promotion, plain and simple. There were no core beliefs, only a lust for power. It's time that he return to the private sector where he will be free to cut deals that advance his interests, free from the inconvenience of considering the public good.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I was at the council meeting when the city said this will be a rail spur. A spur means trains will be on the line. It does not mean people will walk on the area. All of the connections to the line are torn down. The city lied, that is the point. Perhaps they will lie on another project to take your property next.

Either you have Alzheimer or are being deliberately forgetful. A major event in this whole long drama was when the city unveiled a plan for a linear walking park sharing the embankment with light rail. I can picture someday climbing up to a train at Jersey and 6th, and taking it to visit the future Trader Joes at 15th St in Hoboken, when they redevelop that area and add a new HBLR stop there. That will never happen if it's torn down.

The difference between you and me, Brewster, I state my facts without name calling. Now let me give you some facts. Since other parts of the Conrail line has been torn down or have development there such as Bruce Ratner property where would this rail go? Where is the money for this rail spur? It is not coming from the state, fed or even local taxpayers. To put it mildly, JC cannot pay for terminal leave without bonding. Since there is no connection, the city lied about a rail spur, the exact term which was used by Corporation Council Jeremy Farrell when the city council passed the ordinance. The term was rail spur not railbanking because this rail line is going no where. Now this brings me to my second point. If Conrail did not abandon the property correctly then Bruce Ratner's property is also not correctly abandon. So the lawsuit against Ratner should go ahead. But it is not just Ratner, Conrail had other connecting lines in JC that developed. I actually have a map of those lines so much of downtown JC was not in compliance and the people who own those properties now have problems. This opens up questions on many properties in downtown JC.

Yvonne wrote:
It was abandon in the same process because Conrail owned that property too. Why give a tax abatement if a property was illegally abandon? When young men were teens during the 1960s. The railroad hired them to clear the rails during snowstorm when school was closed. Those teens walked the length of the line including where this development is located. My point is - it is part of the same rail line. This process smells, from city hall stating falsely the that this will be a rail spur in order to take the property to granting a tax abatement on another piece of the rail line. Honestly, the feds should investigate JC over the embankment.