Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Here is some information/responses from my girlfriend that hopefully clears some things up for people:
I'm a condo owner in jc and I work for a reval fim in NJ. I too am scared of my taxes going through the roof. However the bottom line is not so much your assessment but the budget (which seems like is going up - of course). I would like to offer some of my knowledge on revals/assessments if that would help. re: Quote: "I believe you also have to multiply by an equalization ratio (was it .33?) which, if my numbers are correct, makes the tax increase at $150/year per 100k. If that is not true, that means people in houses assessed at 250k are paying 10k/yr or nearly 1K per month in just taxes? Any Jersey City tax experts out there?" Well that's somewhat correct.. There is a "ratio" (assessed value to "true market value"). The 2008 ratio for JC was 26.12%. I in no way claim to be a Jersey City tax expert. I do not know the 2009 ratio nor the current tax rate. Shame on me. However, the Hudson County taxation website has the 2008 info which I used below. IE: fair market purchase price of $300000 in 2008 is assessed and put on the books at $78360, not the sale price. $300000x.2612 = $78360. The 2008 tax rate was 5.552 per $100. So that persons' taxes should be $4351/year. My condo was purchased in 2008 and close to that price but I'm assessed under $80,000. re: Quote: "My assessment is just under 200K and my taxes are just under 12K." Yeah that sounds about right. Let's say $200000 is your assessed value then your "equalized value" for 2008 should be $765,700. That would've been your fair market value based on the ratio. So taxes = $11,104/yr. Let's say we do a reval for value date of Oct 1, 2010, which yes, can be done in one year. (True, it's tough with a city this large and dangerous, but can be done.) The new sales will most likely prove to be lower than the previous year due to current situation. The new assessed values will be 100% of current market values. So, for example above, your assessed value on the books of $200000 will now be closer to that $765,700. (Probably less though b/c of market). This does not mean your taxes are quadrupling. The tax rate will be decreased and set accordingly to meet the new budget set next year. Some peoples' taxes will go up, some will come down, some may stay the same. Most likely though, everyone will go up at least a little bc we all know the budget will go up. Total Assessed values in JC x Tax Rate = BUDGET Regarding appeals you are NOT appealing your TAXES. You are appealing your assessed value. You must prove you are over assessed and show evidence specifically in comparable sales. In Bergen county court where I do most of my work, they won't even hear the case unless you provide evidence. I don't know Hudson county practices. It's tough b/c burden of proof is on the homeowner not the other way around. The reval companies are staffed with qualified licensed appraisers and trained field inspectors and we do not get paid any more for giving a higher values. Trust me I'd rather all values be low then no one would complain but we must adhere to certain standards as appraisers called USPAP. As far as property abatement/PILOT... No comment, I'm staying out of that one. I'm not sure on how many should be given once regentrification has been underway. The state really gives the jurisdiction to the town in how they want to deal with PILOTS and not much legal action can be taken if you feel your PILOT is too high. Hope that helps at least someone to better understand. ...also here is a website to get more education on Revaluation and the appeal process for Hudson County.http://www.hudsoncountytax.com/html/taxAppealFAQ.aspx
Posted on: 2009/7/10 19:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
 |
Quote:
In theory, that's correct. But since Wednesday's "not a tax increase" (I like that - thank you!) only raised total tax revenue by $17 mm and the city is short anywhere between $42 mm and over $60 mm, depending on who you are listening to, it's quite likely that the revaluation will be done in conjunction with the other shoe dropping (i.e. the second "not a tax increase".) And while even if that weren't the case, if you are one of the majority of people who will see a large individual increase at a time of extreme economic distress, do you really care whether or not overall taxes went up?
Posted on: 2009/7/10 19:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yvonne, Taxes CANNOT go up for everyone as a result of a reval. A reval does not increase or decrease tax revenue, it simply reshuffles the deck. Overassessed parcels get adjusted down, underassessed parcels get adjusted up, and properties that are fairly assessed are not affected.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 19:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
If a reval happens, taxes will just go up. Every place went up in 1988 reval except commercial (reduction) and ward F.
Abatements are contracts are not impacted by a reval or tax increases.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 18:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Heights,
Whether the parcels are assessed at 100% or 10% of market value matters little, as the tax burden will be more fairly distributed. The city is irresponsible for continuing so long without a reval. Currently we have assessments based on values from 5 years ago and assessments based on 20 years ago. This is crazy. btw..ALL property should be included, pilots and abated... Real examples of properties purchased in same tax year: 500K 1000 sf condo, $15K $1.1 million brownstone, little over $5K $525K three family, around $3100 Consider this: The most recent "not a tax increase" of 11.25%, will mean that a person paying $15K will have to cough up almost $1687 more per year, while the person who owns the million dollar brownstone, which is worth TWICE as much as the condo only has to come up with $562. The longer that city goes without a reval and continues to simple tack on across the board tax increases, the more imbalanced and unfair this whole mess becomes.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 18:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Would you rather the city assess the buildings at market value ? Most older 2 family houses in J.C. are assessed at $175k which is half of the market value. This possesses a hike of about $800 a year. Even older condos are only assessed at $50 - $75 thousand dollars. A couple of years ago the town of Clifton raised their property taxes $600. It has been a while for this to occur.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 17:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I was wrong. Just spoke to someone who knows more than I do about this stuff. The actual reval could take 6-8 months, not years, if the firm hired a large staff to do the actual visits. The visits are the part that takes alot of time.
This would only happen AFTER the county tells the city that it MUST do a reval to be effective in X tax year, earliest would be the tax year following the tax year in which the reval was done. So best case scenario is that the reval is done in the current year and will be effective in the upcoming year. Not holding my breath for that. Suing the county tax board and city to force the reval is an option for the long term and filing tax appeals en masse, especially for the upcoming cycle, is an option for the short term.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 17:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You would be surprised at how capable some of these firms are. The tests they have to go through to get the various appraisal licences are nothing to sneeze at. It is not like the rest of northern NJ is without industrial, superfund, office, exempt properties, houses, high-rises, long lags between revals etc...
Posted on: 2009/7/10 16:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Could you imagine one person doing all the visits in JC?
When I mentioned lawsuits I was talking about the city (client) suing the reval company after the entire reval is thrown out. A quicky reval on a city with as many parcels as JC, so much new development, and so much time between revals will undoubtedly be full of glaring errors. Revals on cities the size of JC and Newark take a while. Actually Newark's upcoming reval will probably take less time than JC's because it will be an update from the reval done 5 or so years ago. With two decades since the last reval, assessments so out of whack, JC reval will take some time and even longer because the firm and city would do best to be sure that the reval was airtight.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 16:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Newark is up for bid now, not sure when it was done last and if that contributes to the time it took. The large cities would be a different animal, if the fee did not allow for a number of people in the field, sure it could take forever but that is kind of ludicrous. Many other sizable cities in NJ are done with one person doing the physical property inspections and the office handling the calculations, valuations, appeals, etc in less than a year?s time. Maybe that is not possible here, I don?t know, it hasn?t been attempted in forever. w.r.t. lawsuits...I am pretty sure the tax appeals are against the town with the reval company partaking, not sure about any liability...I dont know, i just hear about this every day, I could ask. What kind of experience/knowledge of revals do you have?
Posted on: 2009/7/10 16:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I lived on the waterfront for years and was astonished at the number of empty lots and parking lots. I am still astonished at the number of huge parking lots. I assumed the demand wasnt there to develope the land therefore the PILOTS needed to encourage them. Given the trump building is not putting up a second at the moment neither is 50 Columbus...I assume the parking lots will remain in all the other areas. I hope we get some revenue from the lots. I've lived here for over 20 years. Newport was all of 3 buildings and there were still factory buildings standing on the Colgate land. Waterfront abatements made sense then; not now. And given that "trump building is not putting up a second at the moment neither is 50 Columbus" would seem to prove that contrary to what the council always says, namely that these project would not be built without abatements, is false since these project were given abatements (wrongly) and the developers are not building now.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 15:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'd check again if I were you. All towns and cities are not created equal, so size and number of units to be revalued play a significant roll. There are very few firms authorized to do across the board revaluations in NJ. Do a google search on the Newark reval and how long it took. Or even better do a search on the last JC reval to see how long that took. If your girlfriend's firm can revaluate JC in less than years without loosing their shirt in lawsuits, you should marry her quickly and let me know when I can purchase stocks because her firm is the next Google.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 15:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
Yeah that's kind of the point, isnt' it Icechute? Selectively, abatements are good tools to encourage development of areas that otherwise would remain idle. But c'mon - this isn't the Jersey City of 1980. There are no smoldering car fires and garbage heaps along the river. You don't need to provide an incentive for a Crystal Point to be developed, let alone answer the door when they come back looking for more.
Seems like there is little if any thought put into what is given, either. It seems to be a standard 16% 20-year package, regardless of the need or particulars of a given project. Of course, to be responsive and creative, you'd need someone in city hall who understands how markets work and what motivates development.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 15:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I lived on the waterfront for years and was astonished at the number of empty lots and parking lots. I am still astonished at the number of huge parking lots. I assumed the demand wasnt there to develope the land therefore the PILOTS needed to encourage them. Given the trump building is not putting up a second at the moment neither is 50 Columbus...I assume the parking lots will remain in all the other areas. I hope we get some revenue from the lots.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 15:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Without an abatement what is the likelihood of a developer breaking ground in some areas of JC ever, or anywhere in JC in this market? 1. Abatement or no abatement, no there are parts of JC, NO developer is ever going to throw a shovel into. 2. Your question assumes abatements are to encourage development in oppressed parts of the city. Fair enough. But our city gov't continues to give them out for valuable waterfront land and extends them when a developer makes a bad business decision and wants a bailout (Crystal Point).
Posted on: 2009/7/10 15:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
My girlfriend does tax revals in NJ, her firm is hired by the towns and cities, it does not take years. I don?t claim to understand all the ins and outs of the JC abatement system, someone please let me know if my logic is off. I do understand how abatements seem unfair to those who dont have them. For the city as a whole however...couldn?t they be a good thing? Depending on how the following questions are answered I can see a real upside: Without an abatement what is the likelihood of a developer ever breaking ground in some areas of JC, or anywhere in JC in this market? What amount of revenue (if any) does JC realize from a unoccupied plots of land versus a high-rise full of people paying PILOTS?
Posted on: 2009/7/10 15:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You know what?
The bottom line is this: ALL these crooks could have been sent packing little more than a month ago. The combination of low voter turnout, including plenty of people right here in downtown and more than likely, little voter turnout in all those tax abated condos on the river is why we are where we are today.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 14:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
shakatah - I'm with you brother. (Or sister, as the case may be.) I'm not native to this city and what I've seen and learned while I've lived here has made my head spin. All the way around. Several times at once. I am itching to see something done that brings about real and lasting change. Recalls. Indictments. A long term strategy that puts professionals with vision, compassion and dedication into office. Anything!
The problem with a massive appeals-based strategy, as I see it, is that you would think the people with the best case are those who bought within the past four or five years, right? They are the ones who were revalued at the time of purchase, during the runup in property values, and probably have a strong case to make that they are significantly overvalued currently. The catch is that many of those people are tax abated. They pay fixed PILOTs and to appeal your valuation, you have to give up whatever is left of your 20 year abatement and float with whatever tax rates the city applies. It's a very risky strategy if you have an abatement to give it up - it depends on your likely time horizon for owning your property to figure out whether or not it's worth it. You might not be able to get as many people as you expect to participate if they risk losing their abatement. Maybe I'm wrong - maybe the abated make up a much smaller proportion of the overall market activity of the five years. It just seems to me that with all the new development, those buyers would make up a lot of the activity.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 14:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
T-Bird has drilled down the real issue here. Where the rest of the $42million deficit coming from? Brace yourselves people to open your wallets again.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 11:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
T-Bird ,
The property tax appeals would be to send the the city a message that while they sit around waiting till the end of the year to pass a budget and insulting the intelligence of their constituents, the constituents might just throw them a curve ball. Ironically, if the mayor and council were doing their job effectively, including doing more frequent revals flooding them with tax appeals would achieve little, if anything. But with almost two decades since the last reval, a good number of carefully selected tax appeals would cause chaos. And with the current housing market, this is a perfect time for such a strategy. We also have more than enough time to organize and execute. Sitting around and doing nothing while the Mayor and council waste my money is just not an option. Also, from start to finish a reval takes years. So unless you know something i dont a reval will not affect the current year. Filing a ton of tax appeals will choke 'em and FORCE the mayor and council to be accountable to taxpayers. They don't want to cut expenditures, fine we can't tell them how to budget, BUT we surely can cut revenues by winning tax appeals. Let them figure out how to deal with it, like the many other municipalities that actually budget and do the work they are supposed to. Enough outcry. Let's act.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 4:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18 Last Login : 2020/9/25 20:40 From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1609
|
Ironically, while you are talking about property tax appeals, what is coming next is the revaluation. The increase approved at yesterday's council meeting generates $17 mm of new revenue. Current estimates of the shortfall in revenue for this year vs. last year are $42 mm. That exercise yesterday didn't even raise half of the gap in revenue. I wholeheartedly support property tax appeals. It seems as though the administration has a different idea.
Quote:
Posted on: 2009/7/10 3:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,0
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
But the schools is good schools!
Posted on: 2009/7/9 22:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,0
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/7/4 16:37 Last Login : 2021/11/4 21:55 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
586
|
What is outrageous are the wage increases and the abatments, especially the last one, since people in buildings with abatment won't see an increase like everyone else.
How feasible is a citizen inspired lawsuit against the city for the abatments ? It looks increasingly like a class of people defining their own territory with its own tax code at the expense of the rest of the population. Doesn't it smell like unfair treatment under the law ? Isn't there some legal protection at the state level that addresses abuses and/or provides remedies ?
Posted on: 2009/7/9 22:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Was at that meeting, and I left feeling disgusted by the SMUG attitude of much of the council and city employees there.
First, this was a public meeting, yet, copies of the resolution that was being considered was not distributed, only the agenda for the meeting was. That alone has a chilling effect for many people. Second, the banter about "this is not a tax increase" and "we are increasing the August and November payments so that they will be more equal to Feb. and May payments" is garbage and insults intelligence. Third, passing a budget for the current year AT the end of the current year is inept and the council should be ashamed of itself. Fourth, it is obvious that most of the council is in the Mayor's pocket. The council basically rubber stamps the Mayor's resolutions/decisions. So where is the balance of power, WHO/WHAT is keeping an eye on the Mayor, checking his actions and keeping him honest? Combined, this "preliminary taxy levy" and passing the budget at the end of the fiscal year allows the Mayor and his cronies...um..I mean council to HIDE behind "this is a prelimary levy and we are doing everything we can to find savings or one-shots" for most of the budget year, pass the budget with one or two months left in the budget year AFTER many expenses are so far out the door that it is impossible to make SPENDING changes to impact the budget. Fifth, I am convinced that the only thing that will get the Mayor's and council's attention is if residents use the law to REMOVE money from city revenues. How can you do that as a resident? FILE A PROPERTY TAX APPEAL. If enough of us do this, especially for the current budget year, the city will be on its knees. Also, I can't imagine a MORE PERFECT time to file so many tax appeals to make the mayor and council's head spin as a sizable pool of likely to be successfull tax appeals will hurt. Basically, it comes down to this. The city refuses to reduce spending, control taxes and stop playing games with residents' hard earned dollars. So TAKE as much of your hard earned dollars AWAY from the city as is allowed. How do you do this? FILE A TAX APPEAL, if you are likely to have a reduction in your assessment.
Posted on: 2009/7/9 22:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,0
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If that is not true, that means people in houses assessed at 250k are paying 10k/yr or nearly 1K per month in just taxes? Your numbers fall short about how overtaxed we are, especially for services provided. I think you are leaving out the county and school portion of the taxes. My assessment is just under 200K and my taxes are just under 12K. That's about $1,000 a month for Willie Flood & Son, 10 year old potholes, a councilwoman from Florida, a mayor who gets into bar fights, a school system I can't send my kid to, a police force one step above mall cops, a rubber stamp council and so much more.
Posted on: 2009/7/9 22:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,0
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
I don't think the math adds up. First, the average value is 350,000 but I doubt the assessed value is even half that. Also, the article says taxes will increase $450 per 100k or 11.25%, which means the current rate is about $4000 per 100k. I believe you also have to multiply by an equalization ratio (was it .33?) which, if my numbers are correct, makes the tax increase at $150/year per 100k. If that is not true, that means people in houses assessed at 250k are paying 10k/yr or nearly 1K per month in just taxes? Any Jersey City tax experts out there?
Posted on: 2009/7/9 21:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
"JC has not a massive tax assessments in how many years? To a certain degree as long as the assessment is delayed, most house-owners in Jersey City are being subsidized."
I agree with your point about the assessments being subsidies. However, from what I understand that assessment will come this year, making the 11.25% tax hike a double whammy in poor economic times. The average value of a home in Jersey City is $350,000. With this tax increase that equates to ~$130 a month in extra taxes. The problem for the "rich" downtown residents is that they will cut their discretionary spending (i.e. going out to eat at local restaurants) which will hurt local businesses. Then look at long time Jersey City residents whose houses have increased in value more than they ever would have guessed. They literally will not be able to afford the assessment + the increase and will have to sell their homes, putting further downward pressure on home prices. It is chaotic, un-orderly and irresponsible to increase taxes right now. Especially when several spending restraints and potential budget cuts have not been fully vetted.
Posted on: 2009/7/9 21:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,000 )
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
So it seems everyone who ran against Healey was right. He didn't wait long to raise taxes. Recall can become a reality if people wake up
Posted on: 2009/7/9 20:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,0
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
JC has not a massive tax assessments in how many years? To a certain degree as long as the assessment is delayed, most house-owners in Jersey City are being subsidized.
Posted on: 2009/7/9 19:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Jersey City council votes for an 11.25% tax hike - ( Will add $450 for a home assessed at $100,0
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
Don't go there........maybe a tiny fraction goes to subsidize new development, which will bring in people who improve the city. By far, most of the taxes become handouts for those who don't want to work
Posted on: 2009/7/9 19:47
|
|||
|
||||