ahh, thanks for the info! When we were renters years ago, we were always treated well by landlords. if they had shown us a bigger tax bill and explained a rent hike, i'd like to assume, that while not being thrilled about it, I would've been understanding!

Quote:


Building in JC that are 4 units or less are exempt from rent control. However, the state of NJ has rules against 'unconscionable' rent increases.

For example, a 4% rent increase would be considered normal. A 50% increase wouldn't fly.

After cutting rents to the bone in 08' and 09' and having sewer and tax rates skyrocket, I put all new leases on a month to month schedule. My past policy was to only raise rents when tenants moved out. I have to break that policy now.

ah, thanks!

When the lease expires.

honest question - does a landlord have the ability to raise a rent when a new tax rate is increased? Or does that landlord have to wait until the lease is up, and then put a new lease in place with a higher rate?

just wondering!

Quote:

And as my tax rates go up I will be raising rents accordingly...

I guess most people decided to vote yes....

Public Question - Jersey City

93/96 96.88%

Vote Count Percent

- Yes.....2,451.......... 63.25%
- No......1,424.......... 36.75%
Total.....3,875.......... 100.00%

DEMOCRATS UNITE!!!!!

Our illustrious President Obama went to GREAT LENGTHS to ensure you got an extra $40 bucks from the Payroll Tax Cut Extension. It was all the Press could cover this past fall/winter. It was a nice night on the town, or food for the family for a few nights.

So KEEP YOUR $40 Bucks.

It's YOUR MONEY. STAND UP! VOTE.

Jersey City wants to Take YOUR $40 AWAY. YOUR $40. This time its the School Board. Who has no accountability... and the budget is done in secret and has not been published. No cuts have been made.

KEEP YOUR $40. THIS AFFECTS EVERYBODY.

VOTE NO to new taxes from JERSEY CITY. WE ARE NOT YOUR ATM. VOTE NO.

THE SCHOOL BUDGET IS OVER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. Something like $680 million. Time to start working within what you have and cut costs. There have been NO CUTS.

Did you know that over HALF the staff is "NON-INSTRUCTIONAL" within the school system. TIME TO PURGE, TIME TO CUT.

SAY NO TOMORROW TO TAX INCREASES.

If you do ANYTHING tomorrow. PLEASE PLEASE VOTE. IT IS YOUR CIVIC DUTY TO VOTE!!!!!!.... Thus a FREE Society for ALL. Just DO Something.

FG

So we have a bunch of JC BOE plankton that we elect to represent our interests, that have absolutely no CLUE on finances?

The Mailbag: Neighborhood Association Member Urges Residents To Vote Down BoE Budget


In preface to this letter, residents may want to read about the Board of Education?s 2% tax increase based on a misunderstanding of state law.

To the Editor:

Basically, based on this [report], I would strongly urge everyone to vote NO on the budget. I feel there are means to either keep the budget flat or even cut the budget while NOT laying off teachers or cutting programs.

The question is, if/when this budget is voted down, does this current administration have the guts to make the cuts where they should and by that I mean at the top? For example cutting the influx of office administrators making 6 digits and electricians getting paid salaries yet at the same time outsourcing the work just to name two. I would like to think that since I supported all of you in past elections, you do in fact have the guts.

I look forward to seeing you do right by the Jersey City residents and do your part in keeping our taxes stable.

Sincerely,

John Hanussak
Highland Avenue Neighborhood Association

http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... -to-vote-down-boe-budget/

Please VOTE 'NO' to school budget!


State: Board of Education Set Property Tax Levies Under Wrong Premise; Error Complicates Upcoming Vote


By Chris Neidenberg ? Apr 13th, 2012 ?

The state has informed the Board of Education that, for the past two school budget cycles, it has incorrectly set 2-percent property tax levy increases based on the mistaken premise that not doing so would force it to lose some adjustment aid (now set at $100 million), after JCI asked the state to verify claims board secretary/business administrator Melissa Simmons made.

JCI contacted a New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) spokesman for reaction to Simmons? statements following adoption of the board?s $661.3 million proposed 2012-13 budget March 29. The overall budget seeks a spending increase of 4.6 percent.

?If we don?t raise our taxes by the 2 percent, the state has said they?ll penalize us by cutting our adjustment aid to an equivalent amount,? Simmons said at the time, adding the district did ?not have the leeway? to keep taxes under New Jersey?s mandatory 2-percent cap.

Yet we learned that, since the start of the 2011-12 school year, there has been no edict penalizing former Abbott districts for not increasing their property tax levies, as Simmons has claimed.

Problem is, Simmons and the school board (and at least for the 2011-12 school year, then-superintendent Charles Epps) thought the old law was still in force.

?The state has issued no mandates or threats of reduced aid if the district does not increase its levy by 2 percent for Fiscal Year ?13,? department spokesman Rich Vespucci said, noting the law only requires Jersey City to set ?a minimum school tax levy? of $104,359,519 like all other New Jersey districts under the current formula.

?I have to be guided by the current policy,? Simmons said in admitting the mistake. ?The district doesn?t have the requirement to raise the tax levy.?

The state?s position legitimates resident/watchdog Riaz Wahid?s request that the school board freeze property taxes after a spate of annual increases, just as neighboring Union City has proposed. Wahid has complained of cumulative school tax increases of 39.9 percent since 2005. Yet Vespucci did verify that, for the three school years beginning in 2008-09, state law did mandate former Abbott districts such as Jersey City increase tax levies by certain percentages.

The current proposed budget would increase the tax levy by $2.1 million to $106.4 million. Last year under a similar false premise, the board again approved raising the levy to the cap. For 2011-12, it climbed by $2.05 million, standing at the current $104.4 million minimum. Residents only vote on the tax levy.

Using what it considers the average assessed house of $92,400, school taxes will have cumulatively climbed by about $70 in the past two years if the 2012-13 spending plan is approved. The assessment figure is so low ? and lower than many other North Jersey municipalities ? because Jersey City completed its last revaluation in 1988 and is in the midst of a state-ordered reappraisal, which must be completed by a 2014 deadline.

In a related matter, JCI has tried in vain to find out just how many points the projected school tax rate might increase for all properties. It would give voters owning tracts with far higher values the ability to compute roughly how their tax bills might also be affected before going to the polls.

Yet the tentative rate?s location remains a mystery.

Simmons said her office doesn?t have the data, even though the district provided an estimated increase for the low-end average assessment. She referred us to city tax assessor Eduardo C. Toloza; his office said it would not have the information and sent us to the Hudson County Board of Taxation. An employee there claimed the county would not get the rate from the board until June, when the county certifies the entire rate ? after voters head to the polls.

Following JCI?s inquiry concerning Simmons? statement, Hudson County Executive Superintendent Monica Tone sent Simmons an email letting her know of the mistake. Simmons called JCI Wednesday to point out she erred, the same day we wanted to call her office for reaction to the DOE?s position.

By now, the law has been gone almost two years; it died because the state revised its school funding formula.

Furthermore, Simmons notes that she also mistakenly thought the public?s voting on the school budget last year, and its upcoming vote this year, were of non-binding status, based on the district?s relationship with the state.

?It is up to the people entirely to decide this budget,? Simmons now says of the spending plan and the April 17 vote. ?In the past, I had thought that, if residents voted in the negative, the state could override them and reinstate the full levy.?

Voters approved the 2011-12 budget by a close margin. If this year?s budget is defeated under Simmons? interpretation, it would be sent to the City Council. The council would then try negotiating cuts with the school board.

Asked how the administration and board could not be aware of the change for such an extended period, Simmons replied, ?I?m not sure.?

Vespucci notes that under the DOE, districts are informed of any statutory funding changes by letter from the commissioner before districts plan their budgets. He adds that county executive superintendents, such as Tone, hold ?roundtables? about six times a year with top school administrators to discuss issues, including statutory or regulatory changes passed down from Trenton. He said possible budget changes are discussed in the late winter or early spring.

Thus, the board could have exercised the option of freezing the school tax levy for two budget years starting with 2011-12. Whether the board feels it has the wiggle room to do so is a separate policy issue.

And since he contends the proposed 2012-13 was pitched on an incorrect premise to the public, Wahid wants the board to stand united in taking dramatic last-minute action.

?This is a serious error,? he said. ?It means the premise the board offered the public to increase the budget is entirely invalid. Because of this, the board?s eight members should collectively issue a statement urging residents to defeat the budget on April 17.?

Board of Education president Sterling Waterman, who is also finance committee chairman, did not return a phone call seeking comment. But a source has told JCI the board was contemplating convening a special emergency meeting on the topic in light of Tone?s email.

To Wahid, the fact that the tax increase is at a rate which would not have required a referendum, had school elections been moved to November, doesn?t matter.

The City Council and board opted not to move the vote, taking advantage of a new state law designed to save money and increase participation, a move most school boards decided to implement.

?It?s still the public?s money and they should have a say in how its spent,? said Wahid, who also questioned how the state?s appointed monitor could not have detected the mistake during budget discussions.

?The board never questions anything this administrator does despite legitimate concerns regarding certain decisions,? he added. ?Yet the board is also guilty because it seems to run away from its responsibilities by simply blaming the administration when things go wrong.?

Simmons and Epps have taken heat in the past for certain decisions, including incorrectly inflating the total amount of jobs restored from proposed layoffs (228 instead of the actual 170, when they also counted retirements) until Waterman caught the error. Wahid criticized both for supporting giving associate superintendents annual 1.5-percent increases just to cover the costs of medical bills (a policy that also benefits Simmons). The state requires school employees to contribute 1.5 percent of their salaries to health insurance premiums.

Yet under the state?s latest mandated monitoring report under Simmons, Jersey City was graded at 95 percent for fiscal management and 100 percent for operations.

Simmons stood by her stewardship of the districts finances despite the error, and said of Wahid?s complaint on the healthcare subsidy, ?It?s not a decision I am empowered to make.?

http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... omplicates-upcoming-vote/