Browsing this Thread:
10 Anonymous Users
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
The income determines not just the tax, but the bank financed sale price, since the bank's appraisal for them is almost entirely based on income. This is what created the messed up market where prices for multis were driven up way beyond appraisal by condo speculators with cash. That's why just holding rental real estate is no longer a living, but just another investment vehicle. Back when historically you could buy for 4-5 times rents, you could see real cashflow. IIRC, that 10 family had a rent roll of under $5000/month and it sold for $800k. that made it's P/E over 13. Who knows what a rent based appraisal would come in at. I saw a recent appraisal by income of a $3600/mo rent roll 4 unit at $340k. But even comparing 5+ unit buildings I found large tax disparities.
Posted on: 2012/7/13 17:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Commercial units (5+ units) have to report their rent rolls to the city. The income stream determines in part the tax rate. I don't know the formula though.
Posted on: 2012/7/13 13:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
unabated condo nearby paying the same as a 10 family around the corner I've been wondering about situations like this. Does anyone know how multifamilies subject to rent control are taxed?
Posted on: 2012/7/13 13:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yvonne, I just looked at your posts again, and it appears all you're attempting to say, in an incredibly convoluted way, is there's $2.8b in abated property in JC paying PILOTS instead of being on the tax rolls. When I asked in post 190 "Is that 1/3 the abated properties in redevelopment zones?", why didn't you simply say "yes"? Considering that includes all the high rises and most of the major low rises like Liberty North & Port Liberte, and even renovations like the Beacon and Hamilton Sq, this $2.8b number should shock no one.
More to the point, it's irrelevant to the reval which is being done to level the playing field for the properties that ARE on the tax rolls, so everyone is paying proportional to the value of their property and not distorted by 25 years of history. By law, the reval can't raise the overall tax base. And as Jaded detailed, you're as good a candidate as any for who's currently paying less than their neighbors due to the status quo, which is likely why you're so indignant about any change. BTW: I own property Downtown too, I doubt it's worth more than yours, yet I pay 30% more than you, and 34% more than a building similar to mine across the street from me. There's a new unabated condo nearby paying the same as a 10 family around the corner, even though they both recently sold and the condo is worth half the building. Finally, your building is assessed low even relative to your row of similar houses. Tick tock....
Posted on: 2012/7/13 2:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
 |
Quote:
Hard to follow all that you have said on this - not just in this thread, but over the years. If I've inappropriately edited your words above, it wasn't my intention and please correct me. But if what I've condensed is accurate, it means: Abated properties pay $99.8 million in PILOT payments (according to the proposed 2012 city budget , p. 16). Property taxes on the ratable base are $202.0 million. If the valuation accorded to abated properties is $2.8 billion, that would mean that PILOT payments are 3.56 cents per dollar of valuation. Properties that pay traditional property taxes are paying 3.48 cents per appraised dollar. If there are properties other than abated in the $2.8 billion (hard to tell based on how you write), then the PILOT payers are paying an even higher rate. You'll say "abated properties pay less in property taxes." I'll say - good. County government should largely be dissolved. Jersey City gets very little in the way of services for what they pay in. You should go fight with the county over that rather than castigate your neighbors who are overpaying the city coffers relative to you. Next you'll say "abated properties don't pay school taxes." You know what? You've been getting a free ride on school taxes for decades. The state pays about 70% of the JCBOE budget. The people who should be upset about the unfairness of our school taxes don't live here. They live in Summit and Westfield and Mahway - their taxes have been subsidizing our schools for a long time.
Posted on: 2012/7/13 2:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
In post 192 you said abated properties were not included in the segment you're talking about, now you say they are. You're not being very coherent.
Posted on: 2012/7/12 20:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2009/5/15 4:26 Last Login : 2017/12/25 1:59 From here to eternity
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
512
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2012/7/12 20:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This report done by the county board of taxation is approximately 12 pages. There are different sections, one for churches, schools, cemeteries, and public buidlings. Each of those have their own section along with their value which is not added to the ratable base. Then there is the ratable base which presently is $5.8 billion. Finally there is another section which does not include public buildings, or churches or schools. This section is exempted from the ratable base. It includes public housing, affordable housing, luxury or sometimes referred to as market rate housing. It is exempted from the ratable base. This section is worth $2.8 billion. I am going to repeat myself because there might be a reading comprehension problem here. This last section $2.8 billion does not include churches, schools, public buildings, or cemeteries. This $2.8 billion is abated and is not added to the ratable base. The higher the ratable base the lower the taxes. This is the reason that Mayor Healy is doing the reval plus the fact that a higher ratable base means he can do more bonding.
Posted on: 2012/7/12 18:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I had the same thing happen. I called the number on the door tag and got a child's answering machine message saying Daddy was not home and would return my call. Nothing happened, after me calling there twice. So, i called the company's office at 30 Montgomery. Person who answered said she would give a message to the guy who is supposed to visit me. That was four weeks ago, and nothing since. The company rep did say that there is plenty of time for revisits, as the deadline is still more than a year away. Company rep did not seem concerned at all. Just like last time, the reval is probably gonna be a great big mess. Last time, at least, we had fun protest marches and meetings and mini-tax-revolts. Don't know how the people will react this time, since it's a very different population. Newcomers may just lay down and take it up the bum; but last time the old-timers got good and furious and it was a lot of name-calling and crazy antics. The City did get its tax increase after all , but we did not make it easy for them. Hope the same holds true now.
Posted on: 2012/7/12 17:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You just contradicted what you said up thread about not counting abatements and "churches, schools, cemeteries or public properties". That only leaves private non religious non-profits, and I don't believe that they own 1/3 of JC!
Posted on: 2012/7/12 14:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Please stop playing the victim and please stop broadcasting the myth that those of us who pay PILOTS pay NO tax at all. While I agree that the city has become too addicted to abatements in areas that no longer need such incentives and that the granting of abatements has more to do with developers who enrich the campaign coffers of city officials than any other factor, I also recognize that if weren't for a PILOT, I couldn't even afford to continue living in JC. Let's look at some hard numbers, Yvonne. Your annual tax bill is around $11,500 a year for an entire row house on Van Vorst Park. I used to own a 1,000-square-foot unabated condo in the same neighborhood. The annual tax on that condo is now around $9,500. How is that possibly fair? The fact is, you've benefitted handsomely from owning a property that was last assessed in 1987, and if the revaluation is properly done, some fairness might actually return to the system. Given the recent trajectory of tax increases, it was becoming harder for me to justify living in a historic dump that was draining my finances in taxes and upkeep. So, yeah, I sold the place and moved to one of those gleaming, abated high rises. I'm now taxed around $7,000 for an 800-sqf one bedroom - by no means a bargain, but my tax bill will at least be stable for 20 years and I can plan accordingly. At $7,000, I daresay I pay more per square foot in taxes than you do - so I don't see how you can claim I'm a "burden" you're supporting.
Posted on: 2012/7/12 14:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
What brought in more money for Jersey City? The PILOTs or the regular tax revenues of the properties before redevelopment?
For example, Newport is largely abated (though I think the mall came off the abatements a few years ago). But it was mostly abandoned peers, rail yards, and trash dumps before the abated development occurred.
Posted on: 2012/7/12 14:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
All property is recorded according to the stats, Jersey City like older municipalities has a lot of non for profit buildings. I remember some towns complaining to the state years ago about the unfair burden of carrying these non for profit buildings, (they were talking about universities). But unlike these towns we carrying an additional burden of tax abatements.
Posted on: 2012/7/12 13:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
C'mon Yvonne, so where's the punch line? If a property isn't charity tax exempt, gov't owned or abated, it should be paying taxes, no? Surely Mr. Kenny gave a reason for these properties not being on the rolls, what is their nature?
Posted on: 2012/7/12 4:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This information that I quoted comes from the Hudson County Board of Taxation. Also, I have spoken to Don Kenny, the Administrator of the Hudson County Board of Taxation on several occasions. It is his job to collect data that the county uses for municipal tax rates in Hudson County. The rate is based on the municipal ratable base. And abatements are not included in this data, the reason my and other taxes are high. In JC, $2.8 billion is excluded in the ratable rate.
Posted on: 2012/7/12 3:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Quote:
Just like everywhere else. Dead people, while in many cases still voting, aren't paying taxes here, either. That doesn't make us unique (the taxes part, not the voting.)
Posted on: 2012/7/12 0:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The big developers here aren't even in this game, since they all bought, I mean "applied for", abatements from the city and pay PILOTS instead. They aren't actually on the tax rolls. Which is what I believe Yvonne is tap dancing around. Is that 1/3 the abated properties in redevelopment zones, or are you trying to say something else Yvonne? If so, what? And if your source of data is online it's educational to share the link.
Posted on: 2012/7/11 23:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
They just walked through my house. Told me I wouldn't see any change to my assessment for two years.
I have every expectation I'm gonna be slammed and the big developers of the world will make out like bandits. 
Posted on: 2012/7/11 22:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The information came from the Hudson Board of Taxation. I did not include churches, schools, cemeteries or public properties. These properties, the one-third are non-ratables. The higher the ratable, the lower the taxes. These one-third are not included in the ratable base. Also not all non-ratables pays property taxes. Some low income properties have a clause that allow them to deduct water, sewerage and utilities. As these cost go up the city receives nothing.
Posted on: 2012/7/11 22:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Just to add to your point... the city does benefit from some of the sales taxes (Urban Enterprise Zones) as the 3.5% goes towards business district improvements. It also went at one time to increased police protection until the police union sued to end that practice. In addition, per the NJ Constitution, all sales and income taxes are collected to offset property taxes. It's hard to imagine, but at one time NJ had no income taxes. Income and sales tax revenue are distributed (at least in theory) to offset local school costs and other expenses. I don't remember the exact figure, but I think JC property taxes only pay something like 15% of the actual cost to run the schools. The rest is made up by the State via income and sales taxes.
Posted on: 2012/7/11 21:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Lets not trip the truth-o-meter. The abated properties pay PILOTS, payments in lieu of taxes, that often bring the city more than if they were paying ordinary taxes which must get split with the county & schools. Only the PA and other publicly owned, charitable or church owned properties pay no taxes. Would income & sales taxes really be better than paying it by property tax? Might be more regressive, but maybe not, considering property tax is passed along to renters. Now, proposing a JC commuter tax would be fun to see the feathers fly!
Posted on: 2012/7/11 20:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
People forget that Brooklyn and the rest of NYC has an income tax and sales tax that goes to the city. JC has a property tax that excludes close to one-third of properties from taxation.
Posted on: 2012/7/11 20:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think it's far more likely the city exaggerated the future tax roll of the property to justify the deal than we're really looking at rates such as you calculate. The reval is supposed to be revenue neutral, the city tax roll stays the same, but at $12 per sq ft/year I don't think ANYONE would be seeing their taxes fall. But sq ft is the wrong starting place anyway, it's all about the value. If I had to guess, I would expect $700k brownstones paying $5k will see a rise and $700k condos paying $15k will see a fall. I nearly spewed my coffee Sunday looking at the Times real estate section showing a $2.4m Brooklyn townhouse paying $2,200 tax! A similarly priced suburban house pays $30-40k. So if you've ever wondered about why Brooklyn prices are so much higher than JC, it's that an extra chunk of tax cash is available to pay a bigger mortgage! Their tax system of using commercial to subsidize small residential is as messed up as ours, just in a different way. On the same page a $700k Manhattan condo was paying more than twice what the townhouse was. Messed up.
Posted on: 2012/7/10 1:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2009/5/15 4:26 Last Login : 2017/12/25 1:59 From here to eternity
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
512
|
Quote:
'Kitchen Cousins' duo to redevelop Jersey City police headquarters http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... usins_duo_to_redevel.html This article contains potentially valuable information on the valuation ranges and considerations for the ongoing reval. According to the city, the expectations of tax revenue is $12 per sq ft/year, or $1 per sq ft/month (300k/25k=12). Since the properties are likely no to be finished overnight, but certainly within the next 18 - 24, the information can be useful in gauging where the tax buden could potentially be (on average) in the downtown area(s). Since there would be 46 apartments in the building (with sizes and dimensions) yet to be determined, the average tax burden per apartment would be $6,500 and the average apartment size would be around 545 sq ft, which would be a (smaller) one bedroom apartment. Extrapolating at a 1,000 sq ft apartment, this would indicate a tax expectation (post reval) of $12,000/ year. And for a 2,000 sq ft brownstone, $24,000/year. Anecdotal evidence (coupled with aggressive studying of zillow.com) suggests that most 1,500 sq ft apartments pay around $8 - 12k/year in taxes, and the brownstones tend to be in the $10 - 18k / range. This applies to the downtown area. There are some caveats that I want to emphasize: (a) This calculations build on multi-family properties to be built. (b) Multifamilies (not condos and owner-occupied 1-4 family properties) tend to carry higher taxes (at least typically.) (c) These numbers would fit well for average comparables - locational differences and more/less desirable areas would be not significantly different. I want to hear what others think ...http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... usins_duo_to_redevel.html
Posted on: 2012/7/10 1:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
looks like the inspections look at number of rooms and general upkeep of the place. Does anyone have any experiences where they measure square footage? you would think that is one of the most crucual elements but it doesnt sound like they are doing this.
Posted on: 2012/7/6 21:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You should place your name on the council agenda for public speaking and tell your story at city hall.
Posted on: 2012/7/6 18:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The inspector left a note at my door while I was out on vacation last week saying he had come to see my place but I was not home and I should call him. It also said "2nd notice" (I never got a first notice). I have made repeated calls during this week and gotten no response. I have called the appraisal company's office in Jersey City, and all they do is take a message from me. Very frustrating! I don't want to have the value of my place unfairly raised just because I was on vacation when the inspector came (out of the blue without any advance notice) and I couldn't be there, and didn't know he was coming. It is not fair at all. Has anyone been successful at getting in touch with anyone at the company, and/or the inspector(s)? Alternatively, has their councilperson been able to do anything about it?
Posted on: 2012/7/5 21:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
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
|
Quote:
Actually, taxes citywide have just about doubled since 2005 (just a whisker under 90%, I believe.)
Posted on: 2012/6/22 19:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
When the assessor came here, he stepped two feet into my condo. He asked how many rooms I had and then marked something on the page and said, "Okay, done." I asked what he had written down: I have 1 bedroom and 1 bath, and the condition is "normal." That's all they write.
Posted on: 2012/6/21 16:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2009/12/30 14:44 Last Login : 2023/9/18 21:02 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
129
|
I think each homeowner has a different perspective if it is worth the risk or not. If you know the inspector is not getting into most of the houses on your block then basically the whole block will get hit with the same assessment (assuming the block is a row of once identical brownstones).
Now if people are letting them in that have much nicer houses then yours then yes definitely worth it to let them in so you don't get stuck with their assessment. All depends on the condition of your house and what you currently pay in taxes in comparison to the neighbors.
Posted on: 2012/6/21 15:41
|
|||
|
||||