Browsing this Thread:
7 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
 
|
Icechute,
Could you imagine the carnage if a thorough forensic audit was done on this city? Many would probably end up in jail. Quote:
I came to realize that your statements must be carefully-read and fact-checked as a result of reading your statements. Dont have time to search the board, but am sure I am not the only one who realizes you either deliberately mislead or dont know you are doing it often enough to describe it as a pattern. Being able to go to weekday council meetings that occur during the workday is a luxury that many don't have. Attending public meetings for 30 years, collecting public documents, and having a username that identifies who you are does not mean you are never wrong. Thanks, but no-thanks to appearing on your show.
Posted on: 2009/7/15 21:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Quote:
I don't object to paying my fair share and I don't object to a reval. I would just like to see the formula fairly devised and applied. Ok. Let's assume that after a reval, everyone pays their "fair share". Now, let's discuss whether you are getting a decent value for your thousands? To me, a far larger issue is not what I'm paying (within reason), but whether the $$$ will continue to disappear in a bottomless sinkhole of nepotism, mis-management, greed and corruption. Knowing everyone is paying their "fair share" is little consolation when I know it's all still going to Healy, Comey, Flood & Son, Vega, Gaughan and Miss Florida, Nidia Lopez.
Posted on: 2009/7/15 21:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Prove to me with facts that my statements are inaccurate. I have attended public meeting for over 30 years and have received public documents over that same period. Saying I am inaccurate also means you must prove it. Your statements are not dogma. It is amazing, people who do not attend public meetings and hide behind a phony name have the nerve to announce someone is wrong. If you wish, I will give you this courtesy-be on my show, SpeakNJ and prove to me how I am wrong.
Yvonne
Posted on: 2009/7/15 20:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Althea,
Agreed. And was not saying that the commercial vs. residential property tax treatment was fair. Just wanted to make clear that having the assessment of one class increase while the other decreased did not show anything underhanded on the city's part. From my perspective, it makes little sense to blame the city for things that State law dictate. However abatements, pilots, revals, revenues, expenditures are things over which the city has control are fair game and the city has done nothing but butcher it all. Agree that all the issues you mentioned need to be addressed. This city's finances are so bad that selling and moving out of here is a real possibility. This city will continue to lose people who did not come here to find cheap rent for a couple years but who came here intending to plant roots and raise a family. They will be replaced with a population that is majority transient. Great if you like Hoboken, not so great if you want a stable family oriented urban community. I hope you are wrong about Yvonne having a better grasp of these issues than many on this board because often statements she makes are misleading and sometimes blatantly inaccurate. Like many on this board, I wish I had the luxury of being able to attend council meetings more frequently, but they usually begin before many get home from work.
Posted on: 2009/7/15 20:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
shakatah,
That's fair and I think you make a lot of sense. I also happen to agree with your principals and share them. I know blanket statements like Yvonne's suck, but I also know she attends every council meeting and has a wider grasp of the issues than most of us. I just think that it is hard to tackle such an issue with so many moving parts on here. For example, tax abated property owners pay their fair share (quite a bit more) while many of the rest of us grossly under pay (that would be me). I think I should pay my fair share. The attack on people in abated homes is stupid. It is what happens to the PILOTS that is questionable since they aren't included in the budget and therefore more of the tax burden falls on the rest of us. I don't object to paying my fair share and I don't object to a reval. I would just like to see the formula fairly devised and applied. I get that it is legal to classify commercial property differently, but to the property owner that sees their taxes go way up while their neighbor with property of equal value (regardless of classification) goes down, ask yourself if you think that is fair? Is it? Perhaps you think it is depending on how fair the formula is. I don't think it is fair... property value is property value and income is generated from both types of property. One person greatly benefiting from one type of income is rewarded and the other is punished. If they were taxed equally on their property values that would make sense. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think this is all very confusing and appreciate the dialogue to help see the various perspectives. Althea Quote:
Posted on: 2009/7/15 17:56
|
|||
|
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
Althea,
She actually said "If a reval happens, taxes will just go up. Every place went up in 1988 reval except commercial (reduction) and ward F." Split hairs if you like but it is no secret that "I dont want a reval because taxes will increase" is used by Yvonne and others. If not corrected, such statements could easily lead readers to believe that a citywide reval will increase taxes when it doesn't. A reval is not a tax increase. The difference between the two four families you mentioned is that one is classified as commercial while the other is a residential building. They are different classes of property and therefore are treated AND taxed differently. Nothing sneaky or unjust about the city treating and taxing different classes of property based on their classification as they are required to do so under State law. So rather than asking ourselves if it is fair that a four floor commerical brownstone is taxed/assessed the same as a four floor residential brownstone (different property classifications), the two questions we should ask instead are: 1) Is it fair that a four floor residential brownstone (1 family) which could sell in today's market at $1.2 million and a condo (1 family) which might be half the size and value of the brownstone has a tax bill and assessed value 2 times that of the brownstone? 2) Is my answer to this question consistent with my principles?
Posted on: 2009/7/15 15:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Quote:
Bret Schundler won the special election in 1992 based partly on the fact he was active in the Coalition of Fair Taxation a citizen group fighting the flaw reval..... ......An unknown won based on the fact that people saw their taxes rise. And then he did the United Water deal and since then, my water bills have risen faster than the sewer backups in a heavy rain.
Posted on: 2009/7/15 13:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Bret Schundler won the special election in 1992 based partly on the fact he was active in the Coalition of Fair Taxation a citizen group fighting the flaw reval. The 1988 reval hurt the majority of the city, exceptions: commercial property, rent-control buildings, and ward F saw a decrease. An unknown won based on the fact that people saw their taxes rise. I don't remember the exact number of people runnning for mayor, but I believe it was 10 or 12 candidates.
Yvonne
Posted on: 2009/7/15 12:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Oh god... I love my tax abatement, now more than ever!! If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have moved to JC. Sorry haters!
Posted on: 2009/7/15 3:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
My understanding is that there is more than one way to reval, that it is not just based on fair market value. My understanding is that back in 1988 the City actually put in qualifiers.
So say for example you were a four family residential next to a four family with a the ground floor being commercial space and even though your assessment value is the same, the formula worked out so that the 4-family saw their taxes triple... fair enough BUT the 4 family with commercial space saw their taxes drop despite an already low assessment, well this is where people felt the inequity came in. So while revals seem fair on their face value, there are various formulas a City can use that can actually mean those luxury buildings on the waterfront (at least if there are any not abated) that have commercial space on their property can see their taxes lowered. There is leeway in how to reval without a doubt. Nothing is as equal as it seems. This is my understanding based on the information I have gathered from many different residents around back in 1988 that I trust very well. So I could be wrong. Perhaps you can see where these folks are coming from though if this is what happened. Yvonne did not say everyone. If I thought that this reval would be equitable for everyone, (except that there would be some assistance for seniors on a limited income so they wouldn't be forced out of their homes) and my taxes were to double, well then I would be the first person shouting for this no problem. But not only will there be a tax hike rolled into this, there is also how the reval will be calculated to consider. Please correct me if I am wrong. Quote:
Posted on: 2009/7/15 2:47
|
|||
|
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 suggest to go to the Public Library and look at old copies from 1988 from the Jersey City Reporter and the Jersey Journal. There were many stories on the 1988 Reval. Commercial properties saw their taxes drop greatly. There are documents galore. Ward F went, rent-control buidings, and commercial properties went down. In fact, former mayor Gerry McCann did a reassessment of commercial properties in 1989 when he won against Mayor Cucci. Many commercial property owners sue and won and received their lowered assessments. Taxes downtown saw increases from 200% to 500%
Posted on: 2009/7/15 1:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
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, I wasn't around during the US Civil War either, but I know the North won. Facts are facts. You stated that a reval will cause taxes to go up for everyone. That is a lie. No research needed. It's just not possible as a direct result of a reval and a reval only. A reval redistributes the tax burden more fairly, it does not increase taxes. A tax increase, and nothing else, causes taxes to go up for everyone within any given taxing district. You also stated that commercial properties and Ward F property valuations went down. I dont know if that is accurate, but if as you say your assessment increased signficantly then someone elses assessment must've decreased. Meaning your property was under-assessed and commercial and ward F property was over-assessed. Correcting inequities is exactly what a reval is supposed to do, but I guess you would've been fine if Ward F and commercial property owners continued to be overtaxed to your benefit. Fair is fair Yvonne. The city's tax policy should be fair to all property owners. Under-assessed and over-assessed properties should be asjusted up and down respectively to a level which distributes the tax burden as fairly as possible. That's good public policy. Railing against the council to do their job, stop passing the budget toward the end of the fiscal year, and trying to hold them accountable, while supporting a NEW local income tax and a property tax policy which is so utterly unfair is hypocrisy, as what you are basically saying to city government is "increase tax revenue, just take no more from me".
Posted on: 2009/7/14 14:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
shakatah- You were not around in 1988, the year of the reval. Taxes went up because commercial properties taxes and multi-family buildings went down a lot.
I did research for the Coalition of Fair Taxation, a citizen group that opposed the reval. The numbers were slanted. Yvonne
Posted on: 2009/7/14 3:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
This is what you get when most of the City Council could care less about the citizens of Jersey City. Money bought the election, what it could not buy was an educated, articulate council that would work for the people. If you have attended any of the meetings and or watch channel 1 you would see the following.
Gaughan - he looks like most of the time he could not be bothered and will we just get the meeting over with and rubber stamp the vote. Sottolano - Whenever there is something he objects when Fulop comes up with an intelligent debate, you hear Sottolano make comments like, we already discussed this, lets move on, its because he can't have an educated debate, another rubber stamp. Brennan- A goon, he can never articulate the point he is trying to get across, so he rambles on and tries to grandstand like he know what he is talking about, and how far does he have his nose up Healy's ass. Flood - is she even awake at the meeting? She is worse than Brennan when with it comes to articulating anything. I guess she wakes up in time to rubber stamp the vote. Lopez - Is she even a JC resident? If the folks from Ward C needed to get in contact with her in her ward, where will they find her? At the debates during the election she read word for word of her script, never looking up at the audience, even reading off the script, another one this can articulate anything. Vega - lets just call him Healy's rubber stamp. Richardson - for the most part she comes of caring, and seems to have a grasp of the issues and debates accordingly. Though she does vote the Healy way most of the time. Kenny - not sure about him yet, he does come across articulate and grasps the issues. Fulop - educated, articulate, understands the issues, looks at the positives, and negatives of the issues and how his vote would effect the people of Jersey City.
Posted on: 2009/7/13 16:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
T-Bird,
I find focusing on whether individual taxes will increase or decrease a bit problematic..i.e. If my taxes will increase, I cant support a reval but if they will decrease then do the reval yesterday. Having a fair tax system should be a given, and its not. A reval makes it more fair. That alone is reason enough to do a reval. Appealing your assessment year after year yeilds the same result but residents should not have to spend years fighting to be treated fairly. With and without a reval we have winners and losers, but updating all property values by doing a reval is more fair than what is currently in place and that should be the primary concern. I could easily appeal my taxes each year resulting in a reduction in my assessment and keep my mouth shut while I watch other residents stuggle with unfair assessments. Nobody wants to pay more in taxes, but the city has a responsibility to treat residents fairly. It is not doing so. In fact, I latched on to this issue after successfully appealing two years. And I will appeal for the current tax year based on what the data reveals. Residents should not have to take such action on something as simple and basic as fair taxation. I admit being idealist and thinking that instead of everyone only looking out for themselves and allowing city hall to operate the way it does, together we should make them extremely fearful of retaliation for being faithfully inept.
Posted on: 2009/7/10 19:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
|||
|
||||