Quote:


http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/state/13888171.htm

Southwest Missouri firefighters watch as fire hits nonmember
Associated Press

MONETT, Mo. - Rural firefighters in southwest Missouri stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the property owner, who was injured battling the flames, had not paid membership dues.

Monett Rural Fire Department Chief Ronnie Myers defended the policy, saying the membership-based organization could not survive if people thought the department would respond for free.

hehe

Quote:
But you don't get to choose which taxes you want to pay. If you live in the city, you pay the tax bill. I have never had a fire so I don't see why I have to pay for the upkeep of a fire department I don't use.

I understand the state may be using the abatement issue justify cutting Abbot funding for schools.

Also, JC may not be cutting good deals on the abatements, so the PILIOT is not maximized. It has been suggested that the "in" developers get better deals on their abatements.

Ok but heres my arguement - Who really thinks anyone moving into the "luxury buildings" of JC would ever send their kids to public school here. My building consists of 50 condo owners on a piece of land that used to be three rental houses. Not a single person in that building has any kids that go any public school in Jersey City

Normal tax is split 3 ways (city, county, schools). PILOT (payment in lou of taxes) is less than the normal tax, and only goes to the city. So the property owner wins by paying less taxes, and the city wins by getting more taxes. The county and schools are the losers, and the schools suffer two ways, first through the loss of revenue, and secondly by the increase in students due to the new residents.

But the end result is not the county or school budgets get cut. Instead, to make up for this shortfall, the non-PILOT residents pay higher taxes. So basically, a PILOT grant to a new waterfront development is being paid for by the non-abated residents of JC and Hudson county. Originally, this seemed to make sense, as the reduced taxes were supposedly drawing in new development to the area. Now that it's a highly desirable neighborhood, there's little reason (besides political favors) to continue to grant new PILOTS or allow the transfer of existing ones.

If this article is accurate, someone needs to tell me why the abatements that get granted in jersey city are bad. if the city gets to keep 90%+ of what it takes in as part of the PILOT programs why is this wrong? IF the article is correct it seems that the city is better off? Someone clue us in. I think alot of the old history on this topic may have been deleted.

Tax abatement aim: Keep more $$ in Hoboken
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
By JARRETT RENSHAW
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

HOBOKEN - City officials, claiming they're being ripped off by other municipalities not paying their fair share in county taxes, have embarked on a campaign to keep more cash in the city's coffers by increasing the number of tax abatements they give to developers.

Mayor David Roberts contends Hoboken residents pay a disproportionately high amount in county taxes compared to Jersey City - in effect giving a break to taxpayers in Jersey City and other Hudson County communities.

"Hoboken taxpayers are subsidizing the county and other communities, like Jersey City, and why should we sit around and do nothing about that?" Roberts asked.

In response, the Hoboken City Council is granting more and more abatements to property owners and developers. Instead of paying conventional taxes, these properties pay a fixed rate amount per year in payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOTs.

Under a conventional tax allocation, the city has to share revenue with the county and the school district - which, in Hoboken, amounts roughly to 75 cents on every dollar.

Under a tax abatement, the city gets to keep nearly all the PILOT cash for itself - thanks to a court decision several years ago, where Secaucus officials successfully made similar arguments, Hoboken, Jersey City and other Hudson County municipalities must give 5 percent of PILOT payments to the county.

In 1990, the city netted roughly $2 million in PILOTs. Now this year's budget includes more than $10 million in PILOTs, from more than 20 projects throughout the city - and more are to come.

By way of comparison, Jersey City collected $6.6 million in PILOTs in 1990, but today it collects more that $83 million on more than $2 billion worth of property, according to an analysis of the city's budgets.

Hoboken taxpayers contribute a little more than $30 million to the county's budget, while the substantially larger Jersey City provides roughly $60 million.

"We are a cash cow for the county, and we represent the people of Hoboken, so what options do we have?" City Council President Chris Campos said.

Hudson County Executive Tom DeGise, a major proponent of tax abatements when he served as president of the Jersey City City Council, supports the right of Hoboken officials to control their own destiny - but he disagrees with some of their arguments.

"While it's true that Hoboken pays a disproportionate amount of taxes, that's because the city has been so prosperous," DeGise said. "If you polled other mayors in the county, they would not be complaining that their ratable base has surged."

Under state law, tax abatement agreements are intended to jump-start redevelopment in blighted areas, which raises questions about their use in Hoboken's red-hot real estate market.

While conceding there's no shortage of developers willing to do business in Hoboken, Roberts said the additional revenues gained from the PILOTs have helped close the city's multimillion-dollar budget gap and stabilize taxes, and also gives the city leverage in negotiating with developers.

"Parks, open space and affordable housing, all these things come with PILOTs, and we could never get these things if we just changed the zoning," Roberts said.