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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

But the schools is good schools!

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 ?

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

"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.

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

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.

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

Sooooo they give money to the Crystal Pointe developers and then take it from us. OK. That makes perfect sense. I am paying to help wealthy people purchase fancy condos by the water. Great.

Quote:

What has been cut? What still remains that either is poorly run, overstaffed or dysfunctional?

I'm not excited about paying more, but I'd hate to see Jersey City like California. You can only cut so far, but still idiots say cut, cut, waste when there's not much waste to cut and still have a decently-run state

Quote:

+2

Quote:

Exactly - and when you have zero accountability (i.e. you can submit the budget when the year is practically over, like last year) no one can hold you to hollow, feeble promises like "department directors will cut their budgets by 10%." How can they cut their budgets when there is no budget??

Clock is running on the current fiscal year - it began last Wednesday - a mere 50 days after the previous budget was approved. There actually is a state law that requires the budget to be submitted by July 15th. Why do they even bother with laws like this?

I officially love everyone on this post..........may our tax increases be moderate

Quote:

+1
More funds for the oversized white T-shirts. Have you seen the new projects going up near lincoln park/off 440? Lets see how long these stay livable.

When is a tax not a tax? When a poltician says so!!

"It should not be classified of a tax increase yet," said Ward D Councilman Bill Gaughan. "I think I can say confidently that members of the City Council will work diligently to cut the budget."

To save money, Morrill said, Healy has instituted a voluntary furlough program in which employees are allowed to take up to 30 unpaid days off; instructed department directors to cut their budgets by 10 percent; continued a hiring freeze and a no-overtime policy unless absolutely necessary; and has continued to hunt for outside revenue.

Yeah, I'm sure in this economy people will be taking voluntary furloughs so they can bring home LESS money and save the taxpayer money!

Quote:

You just described the eight council members who voted for the tax hike.

Great.....tax me more while the mutants (who don't work, collect welfare, and generally make the world a worse place) get more benefits under this adminstration.

Salary increases in this economic climate?

Jersey City council votes 11.25% tax hike

by Amy Sara Clark
The Jersey Journal
July 09, 2009

The Jersey City City Council last night passed an 11.25 percent tax hike by a vote of 8-1, with only Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop voting against the measure.

The council approved an estimated tax levy of $170 million, which will be used to calculate August and November tax bills. The amount is based on what city officials consider necessary to meet expenses, including salary increases and health insurance costs.

If city officials go the entire fiscal year without cutting $17.9 million from their anticipated spending plan, the result would be a tax hike of $450 for a home assessed at $100,000, said city Business Administrator Brian O'Reilly.

Fulop said he voted against the measure because raising taxes at the beginning of the fiscal year is like "admitting failure right out of the gate."

O'Reilly said raising taxes now would prevent steep hikes in the second half.

Before his re-election on May 12, Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy presented the City Council with a budget for the fiscal year that ended June 30 with virtually no tax increase.

Yesterday, his spokeswoman, Jennifer Morrill, defended the post-election tax hike.

"He is committed to continuing to work to minimize any tax increase, but everyone must bear in mind how severe the national economic situation is," she said.

To save money, Morrill said, Healy has instituted a voluntary furlough program in which employees are allowed to take up to 30 unpaid days off; instructed department directors to cut their budgets by 10 percent; continued a hiring freeze and a no-overtime policy unless absolutely necessary; and has continued to hunt for outside revenue.

During the public comment portion of last night's meeting, Jersey City resident Fletcher Gensamer, who was laid off last fall, said residents can't afford another tax hike.

=========================

Jersey City tax increase passes 8-1

by Amy Sara Clark / The Jersey Journal
Wednesday July 08, 2009, 8:08 PM

The Jersey City 11.25 percent tax increase passed by a vote of 8-1 tonight with Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop the only council member to vote against the measure.

Fulop said raising taxes at the beginning of the year is like "admitting failure right out of the gate."

But Jersey City Business Administrator Brian O'Reilly said raising taxes at the beginning of the year only made sense.

Why?

He says that in past years the city has kept taxes low for the first half of the fiscal year and then dramatically raised them in the second half to make up for shortfalls. This year he wants to try to keep taxes even throughout the four quarters.

He also said that in past years Jersey City hasn't had enough money to pay its expenses in the first half of the year, causing the city to borrow money from other accounts (such as an account for capital funds). This kind of borrowing lowers the city's credit rating, he said.

Although the rest of the council voted for the increase, they promised to work on cutting the budget to bring taxes back down for the second two quarters.

"It should not be classified of a tax increase yet," said Ward D Councilman Bill Gaughan. "I think I can say confidently that members of the City Council will work diligently to cut the budget."

Despite an early meeting time of 5 p.m., about two dozen members of the public came to the meeting and a handful spoke against the tax hike.

"I ask the council to realize that people are hurting," said Fletcher Gensamer, who said he was laid off in the fall and is struggling to pay his tax bill.

Dick Shephard, who grew up in Jersey City but now lives in New York City, said voting for the tax increase was perpetuating a system of no-show jobs and double dipping.

Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy said he has has already taken steps to cut next year's budget including:

? instituting a voluntary furlough program where employees are allowed to take up to 30 unpaid days off ? instructing all directors to cut their budgets by 10 percent ? continue his hiring freeze and no-overtime-unless-absolutely-necessary policy ? continue to look for outside revenue sources such as grants and stimulus funds

"The mayor ran on a platform that touted his record of keeping municipal taxes stable for three years in a row," said Healy spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill. "He is committed to continuing to work to minimize any tax increase, but everyone must bear in mind how severe the national economic situation is."