Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Is 1 Exchange Place in need of Redevelopment?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Democrats or Republicans - same old bullshit. Stop the abatements NOW
Posted on: 2012/6/14 2:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Is 1 Exchange Place in need of Redevelopment?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
PILOT payments are considered as taxes by the IRS and are tax deductible on your federal taxes.
Posted on: 2012/6/13 21:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Is 1 Exchange Place in need of Redevelopment?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I am against abatements because they are not ratables. The county not the city figures out our taxes. They uses the city's value (property) but tax abatements are excluded from this formula. More than $2.8 billion is withheld from the ratable base which makes taxes higher for the regular taxpayer. That $2.8 billion does not include churches, parks, or public buildings just tax abatements.
Posted on: 2012/6/13 20:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Is 1 Exchange Place in need of Redevelopment?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It seems a lot of people are opposed to abatements, but it's not clear why. If you have an abated property, as I do, you still pay fees (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) that is comparable to the tax rate. This money goes into the funds for the City, just like taxes, but none of it goes to the state or schools. So I can see a person who is concerned about the schools being peeved about this, but otherwise....??? What makes it a raw deal for the owners is that they can't write it off on their tax forms, so some condo boards actually vote to pay the taxes and get rid of their PILOT so that they can get the tax write-off.
Posted on: 2012/6/13 20:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Is 1 Exchange Place in need of Redevelopment?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The city council renewed the redevelopment status of Exchange Place seveal years ago when Vega was still on the council. The redevelopment period expired. This was done because one parcel of land was still not developed. Naturally, I spoke against this. JC is writing laws that benefits particular developers. More than one quarter of JC is tax abated. This is the reason our tax base is high. Even the State of NJ wrote a report in 2010 on the improper use of tax abatements in JC and elsewhere.
Posted on: 2012/6/13 19:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Is 1 Exchange Place in need of Redevelopment?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Need more information to make this determination. Why do people say it's in need of redevelopment? Why do people say it isn't? What specifics involving tax abatements are involved?
Posted on: 2012/6/13 19:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Is 1 Exchange Place in need of Redevelopment?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
 |
the city council will be voting this evening to designate the area (lot) at 1 Exchange Place as an area in need of Redevement and all of the benefits that brings (read TAX ABATEMENTS) along with also introducing the redevelopment plan for the one lot/one building plan.
is this a good use of redevelopment law?
Posted on: 2012/6/13 18:59
|
|||
|
||||