CdeCoincy wrote:
Just a paranoid thought before the morning meds kick in. Is it possible that the reval is being postponed so that the inflated prices paid by yuppies, gays and Australians can be factored in, thus justifying a significant increase in Greenville taxes? (and perhaps lessening the tax burden downtown?)

Am I the only one old enough to remember the basic slogan of 1960s planning: Urban Renewal is Negro Removal.

mwa7368 wrote:
You pay $6500 now which is comparable to non-abated properties but your locked-in for the length of the abatement. 15, 20 yrs. That a huge benefit to you because you are protected from the rate increases such as Healy's double digit hikes in the past few years. In 10 years your going to be winning.

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop has said during the debates he plans to give abatements to other parts of the city. There will be a backlash if reval happens and taxes are raised substantially then new construction is protected with abatements. This is the reason I believe the reval has been cancelled.

i dont understand why abatement hits such a nerve with people here. The abatement in jersey city is completely different than what's in NY(which is real abatement where you dont pay taxes or pay pennies on dollar).

In JC, for example my 1br condo has abatement, but i am still paying $6500 a year in taxes so is everyone else in my building, and all the other condo buildings. I also own another unit in a similar type "luxury" highrise where there is no abatement, and the regular property tax is about $5000 which is even lower. Even crystal point which caused so much drama for having granted a lower abatement rate, their resident is still paying $5500+ a year for 1br in taxes.

The only thing abatement does is funnel the money to jersey city instead of the state as i understand it, which is beneficial to the city. It's not like anyone is getting a free ride with abatement.

So why is there so much anger towards it?

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop has said during the debates he plans to give abatements to other parts of the city. There will be a backlash if reval happens and taxes are raised substantially then new construction is protected with abatements. This is the reason I believe the reval has been cancelled.

Yvonne wrote:
Brewster, I paid the taxes the city sent me and I paid on time. However, I did appeal after reval, I received an $375,000 assessment along with a 16,000 tax bill in 1988.

rasoszynski wrote:
Did anyone sell their town home in 2010-2011 fearing the reval? How do they feel now that it's on hold especially as housing prices have climbed over the last year?

rasoszynski wrote:
Let me inject an even less popular idea than Aniara's: A Municipal Income Tax. You don't get much more progressive than that.

Ever wonder how NYC has relatively low property taxes, except on landlords? That's how. Although because NYC is a renter city the increased tax on rental property owners versus owner occupiers is steep and brings in a haul. Does JC do that?

Back to assessment & the reval: How did we figure out the ratio? How do you determine what side of the magic 33 you're on?

Since the Hoboken reval is underway with appraisers currently out in the field what are the chance Hoboken could sue JC to force our reval? Hoboken is tiny, their reval could be done rather quickly.

Thanks,
Rachel

Aniara wrote:

One solution would be to stop using property value as basis for taxation. No matter how you twist or turn it, property value is a poor indication for how much the municipality spend on services to said property (and its inhabitants). I would suggest that a fair way of valuing a property would by by internal square feet since this is generally a better indicator of government services being provided (trash collection, education, FD, PD etc).

This would still be a progressive taxation since "well off people" tend to live on more square ft then poor people and hence get to pay a higher amount of tax per person.

CapnJon wrote:
when we bought in the Heights, we were told by the Tax Assessor that our taxes would hold at $2,500 per year for five years. We believed him. Within a few years we were up to $6K annually, and now, almost a decade later, are at more than $7K....

brewster wrote:
Pebble, you can rationalize all you want, but it's a zero sum game. Given the relative values, for every property paying too little, there's 2 or 3 paying too much, and having THEIR resale value depressed because of it. There's simply no justification for it, and "you knew what you were getting into when you bought" does not make a compelling argument, especially to longtime owners.

brewster wrote:
The status quo is simply unfair to more owners that it benefits. It just appears they're not as aware of it, and active to change it, as are the beneficiaries who are desperate to preserve their advantage of having their fair taxes paid by others. "Don't rock the boat" as a slogan for perpetuating injustice has a long and storied history, but I'd like to hope that it has no place here.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Let?s talk about the flip side. Would you be happy if the city doubled your taxes causing your condo value to drop a lot more? What about if your taxes doubled and someone else had their taxes drop in half? That?s what will happen to other home owners, maybe not to that extreme, but it will go up for quite a few people.

If I had been paying, say, $3,000 - $4,000 a year in property tax on the same condo for years, then, yes, I'd accept that the tax would have to rise sharply, if not double. No one likes paying more for anything, but the reality is if I've been getting this great deal for a long time, I've got to expect the party to end at some point.

JadedJC wrote:
It's the same thing with Amazon having to collect sales tax in NJ. It was a great incentive while it lasted, but at the end of the day it was unfair to other retailers, and the money to pay for public services has to come from somewhere. I'll still shop at Amazon and pony up the sales tax because they offer great customer service. At least they'll be winning my business on a level playing field. Your argument suggests that it's okay to leave the market distortion in place and that it's okay for some homeowners to be heavily subsidized by others.

JadedJC wrote:
Also your contention that people complaining about the tax unfairness didn't do their homework when they bought isn't so cut and dried. In the case of new construction or a condo conversion of an old building, prospective buyers are told taxes will only be set AFTER the sale. I have friends who bought at Dixon Mills and got sticker shock when they received the first tax bill. Of course, developers will provide an estimate on what the likely tax will be on the purchase, but they're almost always underestimated by a large margin. That's why I always tell friends and acquaintances to take the time to check with the tax assessor's office - don't ever believe what the realtor or developer tells you. That's the hard lesson every virgin home buyer learns.

brewster wrote:
Pebble, you can rationalize all you want, but it's a zero sum game. Given the relative values, for every property paying too little, there's 2 or 3 paying too much, and having THEIR resale value depressed because of it. There's simply no justification for it, and "you knew what you were getting into when you bought" does not make a compelling argument, especially to longtime owners.

brewster wrote:
The status quo is simply unfair to more owners that it benefits. It just appears they're not as aware of it, and active to change it, as are the beneficiaries who are desperate to preserve their advantage of having their fair taxes paid by others. "Don't rock the boat" as a slogan for perpetuating injustice has a long and storied history, but I'd like to hope that it has no place here.

Pebble wrote:
Let?s talk about the flip side. Would you be happy if the city doubled your taxes causing your condo value to drop a lot more? What about if your taxes doubled and someone else had their taxes drop in half? That?s what will happen to other home owners, maybe not to that extreme, but it will go up for quite a few people.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
There seems to be a lot of reading comprehension issues here. I am not sure what the problem is or why anyone is so intent of forcing their opinion. I see both sides of the coin. I simply don?t believe that the argument of ?fairness? really is so cut and dry.

If the revaluation occurred every 5 years, this really wouldn?t be an issue. But a lot of things have changed since the last one.

So the solution is to wait even longer for a reval?

Pebble wrote:
There seems to be a lot of reading comprehension issues here. I am not sure what the problem is or why anyone is so intent of forcing their opinion. I see both sides of the coin. I simply don?t believe that the argument of ?fairness? really is so cut and dry.

If the revaluation occurred every 5 years, this really wouldn?t be an issue. But a lot of things have changed since the last one.