Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Plenty of time to get the hell out. It's a shame that Fulop is going to have to start his term as mayor with this kicking in.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 17:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
City to Undertake First Reval in 22 Years
By Shane Smith ? Apr 29th, 2010 In a letter submitted to the county Board of Taxation, Mayor Healy has announced that his administration will soon begin the process of a citywide property revaluation. If the board approves the plan, it will be the first revaluation in Jersey City since 1988. According to city spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill, ?barring any unforeseen scenarios,? the first step in the process ? accepting and evaluating proposals from valuation firms ? is set to begin in June of this year. After a contract with a firm is approved, property inspections are expected to get rolling around November and last through the end of April 2012. Taxpayers? new assessments will kick in at the start of 2013. Read the rest of the article here.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 16:59
|
|||
|
The Jersey City Independent is the alternative news and culture source for Jersey City.
www.jerseycityindependent.com or jcindy.com |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Don't guess, use the search tool to see if you're right. Show me someone paying $1200. I looked up a small townhouse I know was bought in 79 for $10k and not sold since. It's assessed at $100k, paying $3468. What I can't figure out is how they come up with the ?equalization rate? ratio, and they don't include it with every record. One old property sold in 05 has a ratio of 19.81 and another sold in 04 has 31.04, basically paying 50% more taxes per $ of value. Additionally the twin house next door of that 05 property bought his in 95 for 1/4 the price yet pays the same taxes. Again, so much for the longtime residents being undertaxed.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 16:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45 Last Login : 2023/5/12 21:59 From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
174
 |
Quote:
Additionally, there is a huge difference between abated properties and those with PILOTs (Payment in Liu of Taxes). "Traditionally" abated properties are generally smaller developments (or rehabs) that get roughly a 25% discount off of the normal property taxes for a term of 5 years. Those properties, with an abatement still in affect at the time of the reval, will still be affected. They will simply continue getting a discount, but now based on the new assessment. Those with PILOTs, however, will not be affected. This is why the big developers want them. Even though the taxes are generally higher than normal taxes, they won't fluctuate like everyone else's over the life of the PILOT. This is the selling point. For a set number of years (usually 20 to 30), owners know what their taxes will be. They might be a bit higher, but at least they stay the same. Also, these people don't contribute to the county or the schools; thus the rest of us pick up that portion of the tab. This is partially why our taxes continue to fluxuate (almost exclusively in an upward direction). But make no mistake, these people are not getting a free ride financially. They are paying a healthy chunk of change. It's just that the setup favors the city over the county and the schools. That is where the rest of us get screwed.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 15:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think you're confusing condos with co-ops. They can't tax an entire condo building because the entire building itself doesn't have a deed. The unit owners hold the deeds to the properties that are taxed. In a co-op, the entire building is taxed because owners don't hold individual deeds to their units, just shares in the corporation that owns the co-op buildng. In this case, the building's property tax is paid through the owners' maintenance.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 15:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I heard that condos will be taxed twice once for the owner of the unit and then the condo association will be taxed for the building itself just as homes are taxed that are not of condo status. I hope this doesn't affect maintenance fees. Can someone in the mill please verify this rumor.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 15:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/11/28 3:26 Last Login : 2014/10/27 13:13 From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1013
|
Why do people think abatement means "no taxes"?
Posted on: 2010/4/29 14:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
While a reval will certainly hurt people who have under-assessed properties and those are most likely people who have owned for a minimum of 4 years or so going back many more years, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. You can look at it another way, you just got about 20 years of paying lower than your fair share of taxes.
The people who have bought in the past couple of years have been paying waaaaay more than others in relation to the actual value of the property. Example A property bought for around 300k in the past few years, would likely be assessed around 90k and pay taxes somewhere around 4k a year. A property currently worth 300k that was bought in 1987 for 70k and assessed in 1988 for I'm guessing somewhere around 25k would pay about $1200 in taxes So both properties worth 300k yet one pays 4k in taxes and the other $1200. How is this fair?!? Property owners with under-assessed properties should have known the day was coming when you would have to pay your fair share.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 14:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Wow. You just described my condo. Same square footage, same year and type of conversion and roughly the same age of building. The only difference being the neighborhood (I'm in VVP) and the tax bill. I'd kill for your $6,625.10. I paid just under $7,900 last year - and this was after I appealed my assessment a few years back. I got it lowered, but not by as much as I would've liked. We could play who-pays-higher-property-tax all day on JC List, but I think this just underscores how badly a reval is needed. Like you, I burn with anger when I see neighbors who own entire brownstones worth around $1 million paying only $10,000 to $12,000 a year. The basic issue is fairness. The tax burden is so skewed right now that it is ALREADY driving people out of the city. I'm one of them. I'm not even waiting for the reval, because I'm convinced that the city is gonna arse that up in every way imaginable. And a reval still doesn't address the issue of the city's addiction to overly generous tax abatements for the big developers/campaign donors.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 14:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Nothing has changed in 130 years.
Substitute today's tax-abated properties with the railroads. The part about the city government of 1880 sounds painfully familiar. 1880 NYT article....
Posted on: 2010/4/29 14:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well put and exactly right.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 14:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/9/15 18:45 Last Login : 2023/5/12 21:59 From Harsuimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
174
|
Quote:
Yes I'm sure that there is some cases like you have pointed out. I would venture, however that there are more like what I am about to lay out. Our taxes for 2009 were $6,625.10. I've also chosen two other properties in our neighborhood that I am familier with. The 2009 taxes on those properties were $7,501.25 and $9,679.61 respectively. All three properties are likely well over 100 years old. Two of the three are woodframe construction, and the third is a brick Italianate home. The brick home is paying the highest tax bill. None of this sounds really that out of wack, right? Here's the thing. Our nearly $7,000 tax bill is for 1000 sq ft. The other two examples are for entire buildings. Why the disparity? Our building got converted to condos in 2003. No structural changes. No major renovations beyond some cosmetic fixes. No new heating systems. But simply because it was converted, it became eligible for reassessment by law. Now I will admit, we've made our actual unit pretty nice, but it's still only 1000 sq ft. That means property assessment is simply not done on an equitable basis. It is simply not fair. Yes my taxes are lower than both of the examples I gave. But proportionally, I shouldn't be paying anything close to those who own property that is 3 to 4 times the square footage of mine. If my 1000 sq ft is so damn valuable, just think what their 3, 4, 5 thousand sq ft properties should be worth. I realize people have lived here a long time. I understand that these places might not have always been the best neighborhoods. But property values are what they are. You get your rewards for living here a long time when you sell at a profit ratio that I, and most of the other relative newcomers, will never begin to come close to. So I'm on the "bring it on" band wagon. I'm tired of being unfairly assessed.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 13:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
N.J state law mandates a re-eval every 10 years so what makes you think other towns won't participate as well ? Many towns are strapped but these assessments are required whether the economy is good or not. Jersey City has gotten to big for it's own good so I hope they lower the tax rate to reflect the current levy.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 13:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/5/10 16:36 Last Login : 2023/7/18 1:45 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
981
|
How long will the entire process take? If Healy starts this now, he probably plans that it will be his sucessor who has to carry the can.
Robin.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 13:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
Quote:
I'm sorry you've had a bad experience renting. I've parked on the street for 5 years and the only thing that happened to my car is that the infamous downtown fence and car scratcher scratched it a bit a year ago, and on halloween 3 years ago someone sprayed shaving cream on it. I think it helps that I live across from the police station on Erie. Also, its an old car. lol The rent vs buy calculator I posted is only useful if you compare nearly identical properties in nearly identical locations. You can't compare your rent downtown with your owning costs outside downtown, that's an apples and oranges comparison. A good comparison would be comparing the cost of owning a 1 bedroom at 77 hudson with renting a 1 bedroom at 70 Greene. Those buildings are even attached so its a very fair comparison. Also, regarding your contention that the gays are moving outside downtown.... I would have to disagree. Although Pavonia ave near Journal Square still remains a popular alternative to downtown. Also, a lot of gay men bought in the heights during the peak. You know how that worked out... not good. Since Star Bar has become a big hit with the mo's many people who decamped to Journal Square and the heights are returning downtown which is establishing a pretty decent gay nightlife scene.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 13:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Exactly! The housing market will have rebounded AND, with assessed values being reset, properties become even more desirable if fairly taxed. What aggravates me about the re-eval though is that the burden is NOT evenly shared d/t abatements. Maybe I should've bought in The Soleil as we were told it has a 20 year abatement. "Trust no one" is gonna become Jersey City's motto regarding taxes. By the way, I think all the people in Hoboken who are assuming their taxes will go down after a re-eval are going to be in for a rude awakening.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 12:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Well people you got two years to sell your place. Why would I stick around to pay higher taxes than Hoboken. Hoboken is nicer and you don't have to wworry about getting shot. JC have had an 11% increase than a 25% increase now most likely I will have another increase around 30%. what exactly is the appeal of JC is taxes are higher than Hoboken. If you can sell you place people should consider doing it. The Housing market will have rebounded two years from now and you might be able to move into a better situation
Posted on: 2010/4/29 7:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Property revaluation plans underway, it's been 22 years since the last reassessment
Thursday, April 29, 2010 By MELISSA HAYES JOURNAL STAFF WRITER The "R-word" is in the air in Jersey City and residents are plenty nervous. "You're taking the people who built the city and you're literally throwing them in the street," city resident Yvonne Balcer barked at City Council members last night, reacting to the news that after 22 years, Jersey City is gearing up for a citywide revaluation. "You have given away the city," Balcer added. "The waterfront will not be taxed, they're abated. Affordable housing will not be taxed, they're abated and public housing will not be taxed." Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy has sent a letter to the Hudson County Board of Taxation requesting a revaluation and this week, residents should receive letters from Healy and brochures about the revaluation with their tax bills. The revaluation, which is supposed to be done by every municipality in the state every 10 years, reassesses the value of the city's properties. Because a revaluation doesn't change the amount of money needed to run city government, some property owners would pay more in taxes, some would pay less, and some would stay the same, officials said. "The purpose of this revaluation is to ensure a fair and equitable redistribution of Jersey City's tax levy so all property owners are shouldering their fair share of the City's tax burden," according to the city's Web site. The city is pursuing this because assessed values in the city are roughly 27 percent of their real market value. So several corporations that are paying taxes above this ratio have pursued successful tax appeals. Last month, the city borrowed $7.9 million to repay property owners who successfully appealed their tax bills. Last night, the council authorized refunding another nearly $750,000 to settle tax appeals, the largest of which - $466,115 - went to Wells Reit II International Financial Towers at 95 Christopher Columbus Drive. The building's owners appealed the site's $48.5 million assessment and the property was reassessed at $40.7 million. "It's critical that we do this," city spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill said yesterday. "Waiting only makes it worse." A revaluation puts the ratio back to 100 percent. Weehawken has the highest ratio in the county with 52.08 percent. West New York Mayor Sal Vega said yesterday he is not planning to do a revaluation. The ratio there is 34.4 percent. Jersey City officials plan to solicit bids and have a company under contract to perform the service by September. Property inspections would be conducted from Nov. 1, 2010 through April 27, 2012, officials said. The entire process could take three years.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 7:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Then gay people will move in.
Then the Orthodox Jews. Then the gentrifiers. And on and on it goes. It is the cycle of this area. [tri-state area] It is the Mother Nature of this area. Oh wait, I got confused and started talking about Elizabeth + Asbury park. Nonetheless, reinforcing the cyclical nature of communities' rise and fall.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 3:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
People who probably overpaid for their homes, will probably do better as the values have fallen for them. For people who bought modest homes years ago and have lived or planned to live a lifetime in them, those folks will be the hardest hit in this.
 Plenty of people will not be able to pay their taxes, they will lose their homes, the city will lose ratables and then they will have an excuse to raise taxes yet again, because now they are collecting less tax money! It never ends.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 3:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
BRING THE REVAL to allow fairness!!!!!!
The city is still not being responsible, and probably only doing a reval because they have no choice. The combined impact of successful tax appeals along with the loss of prepayments for PILOT agreements, loss of fat checks for school, transition and distressed city aid from trenton have finally bit this city in the arse. They are doing the reval because they got jammed by it all, nothing else. People with valuations from 1988 should be concerned. Property assessed during the real estate boom should be o.k. and may even come down a bit. This is painful only because this city's government is a bunch of inept goons who have lived in the pockets of developers for decades.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 2:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
In the last 5 years, I've owned for 3 of them and rented for nearly 2. Renting has turned out to be poison at every turn, despite the fact that we live in a "desirable" neighborhood. Our landlord is an ass, the building, which shows well, has constant issues, the car has been broken into on a regular basis. I challenge vandals to break into it more after our trading 07302 for 07306. Seriously. I don't understand the rent vs own calculator. The place we are buying is going to be cheaper and larger than what we rent. [sarcasm mode on] (Yes, I know we are moving into the dreaded 07306, where Satan him/herself resides). [sarcasm mode off] We are looking to spend at least 20 years there, which is a critical difference between us and most buyers. I owned my last place (in the also reviled 07030) for 13 years. This is why we use the term investment. I wish it was referred to as "involvement", as that is a true reflection of what's entailed. I'm not sure why I'm even posting any of this but I get pissy when people insist they have no personal power or impact on anything. That is why Healy can be successful.
Posted on: 2010/4/29 2:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
So the city has an FAQ they've posted on their website to address the revaluation. At the top of the post is a picture of a row of condominiums. Condominiums at Liberty Harbor North. Which is abated.
How do they do stuff like this at every conceivable opportunity???
Posted on: 2010/4/29 1:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Renting has worked out well for me the last 5 years. I'd be paying much more per month out the window had I purchased a similar apartment, and I'd also be underwater. I don't think I have to rent forever per your suggestion, in fact I think that owning is great most of the time and I want to be a homeowner someday, but we are not living in normal times. The old adage of buy any property and wait just won't pan out anymore for anyone with a time horizon less than 10 years. Buying near the peak matters and affects your lifetime net worth. I always pop the numbers into these rent versus buy calculators for JC properties and comparable JC apartments. Even though downtown JC is down 15-20% from peak prices the numbers still don't add up. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/bu ... /buy-rent-calculator.html I see no compelling reason to jump into the market in the next 6 - 12 months. However, things could change after that time frame, especially after the reval shakes out. A walk around Paulus Hook and Harsimus Cove will reveal huge numbers of For Rent signs. My building has had a perpetual for rent sign for 8 months. I'm trying to get another 5-10% off my current rent (2 blocks from Grove street Path). If I don't get it, I'll move somewhere else. I'm already paying 22% below the rent I paid in 2008. Paying 30% less would be sweet. I feel bad for those stuck in JC properties they recently bought. If you bought at peak and your taxes were artifially low due to no renovations???It might hurt 
Posted on: 2010/4/29 0:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/6/27 22:27 Last Login : 2012/4/20 14:33 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
235
|
Quote:
The ratio of market value to assessed value that the city is currently using is 21.5% based on the condo's recent data point. Applying that ratio to the Heights 3 family would imply a market value of $556,000. To the extent that the 3 family's current market value is more/less than that amount, its taxes would go up/down in the reval, everything else being the same.
Posted on: 2010/4/28 23:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
|
Quote:
That would make sense. It's up to Trenton to change the law, but don't hold your breath. This is the law in FL, for example: The assessment on any property which is sold or otherwise conveyed to new owner during a calendar year is raised to full market value according to law. The limitation will be applied to the assessed value in the first year following the year in which the new owner qualifies the property for homestead exemption.
Posted on: 2010/4/28 20:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
I'm sure that I'm not the only one a little confused with how this process works. My concern is what I'm paying now and what it may be in 2 years, after the reval is complete.
My home was built in the 20s and the area is run down. (guess what part of JC that is). If the home was assessed at $105K + in 1988, and I'm paying in excess of 10K + now, what will someone like me expect as a reval for 2011-2012? Could the reval go to $300K? If so, does this then place me in a $30K a year tax hole? That would force myself as well as a lot of other hard working people to sell and move.
Posted on: 2010/4/28 20:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/3/19 18:27 Last Login : 2019/10/21 14:19 From McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
173
|
I guess I just don't understand why a reval can't happen when a property is sold. Wouldn't this make the most sense? Make it so that upon signing a contract the buyer is given the new assessment before closing. They keep that assessment until the property is sold once again. I understand that we must all pay into the system fairly, but how is it fair that someone who bought a place in the seventies for 25k should pay the same rate as someone who could afford to buy the same place for 400k. They are obviously in a different tax bracket.
Posted on: 2010/4/28 20:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
As far as I can tell from perusing records, taxation is simply a complete mess. A 100 year old Heights 3 family bought in 2004 at $385k is assessed at $119.5k and pays $3386. Next door a new construction condo bought for $455K is assessed at $98k and pays $2777. Can anyone make sense of that? Everyone is saying new construction owners are getting reamed. Not from this example.
Posted on: 2010/4/28 20:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Brewster,
Love that first link. I'm not a stranger to it. I've been following the tax history of the place I am in contract on. Taxes in this town will drive one bonkers! The first quarter taxes for this unit are higher than the 2nd quarter ones for this year. When I look back over the taxes paid over the years, the bills are consistent only in how erratic the ups and downs are.  [time lapse]: after seeing what other people are paying, I suspect the taxes on my "new" (the bldg is actually 110 yrs old) place will likely stay where they are.
Posted on: 2010/4/28 20:14
|
|||
|
||||