Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
37 user(s) are online (26 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 4
Guests: 33

K-Lo, Sam112, JCGuys, dmellonworth, more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 »


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/23 14:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 767
Offline
Quote:

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.


At least the abatements have an expiration date, which is more than can be said at this point for all those homes being undertaxed at their 1987 values. People like Yvonne and Fletch would like everyone to believe that those of us on PILOTs pay no tax. In Yvonne's case it's to deflect attention from the fact that she's paid obscenely low taxes for years on a seven-figure property right on Van Vorst Park, as Brewster has repeatedly pointed out. The tax and sale records are public, and the links were posted on another thread awhile back.

Also, the PILOT doesn't fix your taxes at the same amount for the entire term - I wish that were the case. During the latter half of the abatement period, you're supposed to see a gradual increase as your taxes are normalized. However, I heard through the grapevine that the tax collector had forgotten for years to apply the normalization for some buildings in Newport, and some people were hit with a doubling in tax overnight as they entered the final years of their abatement. Also, when homes come off the abatements, they're assessed the current value - not the value 15, 20 or 30 years earlier. Like I said previously, the PILOT basically shelters me from the lunacy of JC tax hikes and provides some predictability in my costs until I'm nearly done paying my mortgage. I actually would prefer a city income tax - at least if the income ain't there, they can't tax it.

Posted on: 2013/7/3 23:37
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/23 12:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 445
Offline
I personally have no problem with the abatements or PILOTs but the numbers that you have don't seems right. If the luxury apartment is paying $5K in taxes that seems too low. I think it's fair to say that a luxury 1 br is easily worth 350,000. that would mean that this example is paying about 1.5% in taxes where the current rate in JC is more like 2%. Fair value taxes would be around 7K.
Also $5500 for a crystal point 1 br unit is crazy low. That should be around 8K at least, if we consider actual value.
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.


Quote:

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?

Posted on: 2013/7/3 19:25
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/1/23 14:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 175
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2013/7/3 17:53
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#89
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3533
Offline
Quote:

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.


And when you sold the ratio of assessment to value was 14.2. You were actually paying 1% of value when you were theoretically paying 2.2%, and there are plenty of people in JC paying well over 3%. Those people in other wards were paying your fair property tax for you. It's that simple. Why is it they deserve that exactly? Because they weren't as educated and tax savvy as you, and trusted that JC would spread the tax load fairly?

Posted on: 2013/7/2 19:23
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2337
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 17:35
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3533
Offline
Quote:

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?


Actually, Yvonne did just that, after paying obscenely low taxes for decades.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 16:30
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#86
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/14 15:24
From jersey city
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 15
Offline
People were discussing progressive tax ideas, I just added it to the pile. All the concerns you mention are valid and point to the depth of corruption in JC.

To your point that a JC municipal tax would be a competitive disadvantage driving people to Hoboken, it works both ways: How long do you think Hoboken will let us go on without a reval when their reval results might drive people to JC? Maybe this is all part of the plan. In Hoboken, you have new condo owners paying 30K/year prop tax dying to stick it to town house owners paying 18K/year prop tax.

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?

Wait, Hoboken has a taxi authority and JC doesn't? Is that why you can't reliably get a cab in JC? The more you know.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 15:52
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/7/11 15:25
From Soho West
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 349
Offline
An income tax in JC would be the greatest thing to ever happen to Hoboken, Union City, Weehawken, and Harrison, among others.

Why do you think people come to JC in large part? To avoid the NYC income taxes.

People have researched this, and the income tax costs more than the property taxes.

And do you really want to trust the city, even with Fulop at the helm, with more money? Do you think the JCPA employee will do a better job giving you a parking ticket because he enjoys his shore house especially much where he keeps his six figure pension?

Will this tax lead to taxi enforcement (which Hoboken does with no income tax)? Will it stop Spectra or the Pulaski shutdown?

Does it do anything for NYC but drive people away?

Posted on: 2013/7/2 14:05
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2337
Offline
I agree with the idea of an income tax for JC. Eliminate property taxes but do keep land tax which is lower. NYC also has a sales tax.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 13:31
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/7/11 15:25
From Soho West
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 349
Offline
I'm in a PILOT and my taxes are still outrageous.

The PILOT holds the taxes to what the owner when the PILOT incepted paid. But now the unit isn't worth as much, despite it recovering some value. The taxes should be about $600 less in a non PILOT building, but I'm not exiting the PILOT so I won't get slammed down the line. If my unit was walking distance away in Hoboken, I would be paying less taxes. Senseless.

Taxes in JC are out of whack with NJ especially when you consider what other towns get. Even in Hoboken, they pay less and manage a taxi authority and municipal garages. We get what? The incinerator authority? Granted other towns also are inconsistent but few are as wasteful.

Perhaps Fulop is going to start slashing waste and then come back to EVERYONE with lower bills.

Also...as to abatements...they SHOULD be given to non-downtown developments...for certain.

Developers don't need incentive to build downtown- it's already popular.

But OTOH, why not induce someone to build luxury condos in the Heights, or Greenville, or Bergen Laffeyette...A) it could improve the neighborhood and B) it will bring in people to share the burden with us, be they wealthy professionals, investors, or whoever...and likely they will not be people adding kids to the system or really using many services....

I think people want to think JC abatements are like NYC abatements where people are living in luxury condos and paying a few hundred bucks a year in taxes. Go Zillow or Trulia any JC PILOT building and learn the truth. The first people who got them in Port Liberte are getting totally killed.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 13:24
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3533
Offline
Quote:

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


Yes, income would be better than a sq ft tax to be sure. In my experience it's not true that the wealthier necessarily live in more space, I'll bet there's more studios Downtown than elsewhere. Most people wouldn't put up with that without a real location incentive.

But property tax is the closest thing we have to a "wealth tax", to really get at the heart of the matter of each paying according to his ability to pay. It's not about charging for what a household uses, it's about getting what is needed to run the city in a progressive way. Otherwise, and I'm sure Boris would love this, we could just divide the whole budget by population and call it a day. Every man, woman and child pay's their 1/255,000th.

It was my understanding that taxes on businesses was what allowed such low residential taxes.

Your ratio is the assessment divided by market value, then multiplied by 100.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 12:03
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#81
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/14 15:24
From jersey city
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 15
Offline
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

Posted on: 2013/7/2 10:25
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/5/28 23:09
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 671
Offline
Quote:

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.



Current system tells people that as soon as they make their houses better and neighborhood cleaner, the value of their houses will be reassessed and the taxes raised. I mean, - if we want safe and clean streets, the minimal common sense says that we should at least stop punishing those who help clean them up.

Posted on: 2013/7/2 0:38
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/24 19:50
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 260
Offline
I'm aggravated with the stoppage of the reval b/c most of the properties have already looked at. I don't want to deal with that again. Also, sooner orlater a reval has to be done. The can't keep being kicked down the road, that only exacerbates the problem.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 23:15
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2337
Offline
The reval will not be true because one fourth of the city is tax abated which means those properties will not be affected. After all the purpose of a reval is to bring all properties up in order to pay their fair share of taxes. This is part of the reason I am against tax abatements.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 23:05
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/23 12:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 445
Offline
Imagine that Fulop finds so many inefficiencies and wasted government money that he is able to roll back some of Healy's tax hikes? Then I might be ok with no reval.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 22:42
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#76
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/7/1 16:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4
Offline
After reading the full threat its clear that there are many sensibly points well argued but also plenty of anger and fear.

Fact remains that a revaluation would cause not just taxes to change across Jersey City, it would also cause house values to rise and fall accordingly. Most of us will probably agree that this is problematic for people who have purchased houses in the past 10 year span.

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.

I'm not naive enough to think that this idea would be liked by anyone, but nevertheless it was worth taking the 3 minutes and type it out :)


Posted on: 2013/7/1 16:34
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/4/14 23:58
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 685
Offline
We've been in our condo apartment for 7 years. During this time, our taxes went from $4200 to almost $8000 today. So that's almost 50% in 7 years - our combined family income didn't rise accordingly, not even close. As a matter of fact, I lost my job during the financial crisis. So life is pretty tough.

And with two kids in private school, plus that $8000 tax bill, the argument whether to "burb it or not" is definitely getting more attention in our family.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 16:04
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/23 14:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 767
Offline
When I bought my first condo in JC, the tax at the time seemed doable at just over $6,000. I had assumed some tax hikes in line with or just over the rate of inflation. In six years, successive double-digit take hikes by Healy had raised that to $9,000. I wish my income rose as quickly. The fact was, the only way I could continue to afford to live in JC was to ditch that place and buy in a building with a PILOT. At $7,000 for a one-bedroom, I'm still paying quite a bit of tax, but at least I know I'm shielded from crazy annual increases until my mortgage is nearly paid off. Just down the street from my first condo, some d-bag one-percenter had bought an entire brownstone for $1.1 million on which he's paying just over $11,000 in annual tax. He was literally crowing about that. So, yeah, Pebble, f*ck him. If he can afford to pay that much for a home, he can afford to pay double or triple the tax.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 15:30
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3533
Offline
Quote:

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....


Capn, can you tell us your ratio, assessment/market value?

Pebble: If 2 people bought in Downtown and B-L 25 years ago just after the reval, when the tax rate were all level, the latter is now paying 2 to 3 times the effective tax rate of the former. They didn't "know what they were getting into". They depended on the City to tax them fairly, and the city failed due to the craven cowardice of it's politicians.

This is a regressive tax situation, plain and simple.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 15:18
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/9/21 9:53
From Jersey City Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 499
Offline
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....

Posted on: 2013/7/1 15:06
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1103
Offline
Quote:

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.

“You knew what you were getting into when you bought it” works with every other purchase made in this country. Why would it be different now?

The resale value of the property with the overpriced taxes is not depressed. It was sold at the price it sold at because of the taxes. The price of the house would likely have been higher when the person was purchasing it if the taxes were lower.

Quote:

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.

Again, I don’t know what is fair or not. I know that it doesn’t seem fair that a lot of people will have their taxes raised so that people which seem capable of affording the higher taxes (if they couldn’t afford it, they wouldn’t have purchased it) get to now receive a government windfall.

This isn’t a civil rights issue where certain people are being held down. This is a consumer issue. Some people pay more than others. Those people that are paying more believe it’s unfair simply because someone else is getting it cheaper. I’m just not sure that it is.

Quote:

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.

Who said they were getting a break? We have a ceiling for how much taxes can increase per year without a vote for a reason. Purchasing a home, you know that. As such, how do you claim that there is some sort of “party” that needs to end?

Quote:

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.

Amazon isn’t charging sales tax in NJ because of an arbitrary idea of “level playing field.” They are charging sales tax in NJ because Gov. Christie gave Amazon a tax break to move a location to NJ. Now that Amazon has a hub in NJ, they are required to charge sales tax. Had they not taken the tax break to put in a warehouse, that wouldn’t have happened.

Additionally, Amazon isn’t property. Nobody has a requirement to spend a monthly sum with them to live.

How is it a market distortion if the prices are based on the existing tax levels?

Quote:

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.

That is a bit of double-speak. You say that people were surprised by the actual tax prices and that developers under-estimate and that people should check with the tax assessor’s office. Well, if they check with the tax assessor’s office, why would they be surprised? If you say people are doing their homework then how does that equate to just taking the developer’s word for it, which leads to surprise?

Posted on: 2013/7/1 14:48
Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and f___ the prom queen.
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1103
Offline
Quote:

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.

“You knew what you were getting into when you bought it” works with every other purchase made in this country. Why would it be different now?

The resale value of the property with the overpriced taxes is not depressed. It was sold at the price it sold at because of the taxes. The price of the house would likely have been higher when the person was purchasing it if the taxes were lower.

Quote:

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.

Again, I don’t know what is fair or not. I know that it doesn’t seem fair that a lot of people will have their taxes raised so that people which seem capable of affording the higher taxes (if they couldn’t afford it, they wouldn’t have purchased it) get to now receive a government windfall.

This isn’t a civil rights issue where certain people are being held down. This is a consumer issue. Some people pay more than others. Those people that are paying more believe it’s unfair simply because someone else is getting it cheaper. I’m just not sure that it is.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 14:36
Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and f___ the prom queen.
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/23 14:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 767
Offline
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. 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.

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.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 14:24
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3533
Offline
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.

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.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 14:07
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2337
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 13:25
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1103
Offline
Quote:

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?




I'm not offering a solution. I am pointing out the problem with the idea that the reval is "fair."

Posted on: 2013/7/1 13:22
Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and f___ the prom queen.
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/22 15:28
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 677
Offline
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?



Posted on: 2013/7/1 13:14
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 17:43
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1103
Offline
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.

Quote:

brewster wrote:
Pebble, I very nearly speechless. Almost nothing you say makes any sense or has a basis in reality. You sound like someone who's water meter was broken complaining that's it's unfair to fix it because ti was that way when you bought the house.

Firstly, there's plenty of people with historic homes all over JC paying far more than their ratio 33 share. If you'd bother to do some homework like I have rather than just letting off an opinion you'd know this. My building paying a 43 share is over 100 years old. As I've pointed out upthread, new construction gets assessed at market/3.3, which is theoretically accurate. But it's high relative to the low tax older properties Downtown that have appreciated drastically, outstripping the 3.3 inflation formula.

As for A, B & C, move along, nothing to see here. higher price SHOULD mean higher tax!! That's the basis of the whole system. Nothing complicated or mysterious.

I repeat, property owners ALL OVER JC, including some newer construction, are subsiding the undertaxed properties. And that's simply wrong.

You can go with the ad hominum attacks all you want. I think it speaks more to your inability to present an argument to what I’ve presented.

Buying my house, I looked at taxes, interest rate, sales price, number of years on the mortgage, etc. I like knowing what my bills are. I didn’t buy saying, “Hey, these taxes will go down and I’ll get a windfall property value increase!” If anything, I just expect taxes to go up every single year since nothing ever gets cheaper.

Quote:

mwa7368 wrote:
I would do this with any other service. If I go to Starbucks and pay $3 for a coffee but someone else comes in and pays $2 because he's been going to Starbucks for a few years longer than me and somehow contributed to the early development of the company, that's supposed to be ok?? What planet do you live on? Free Sh*t for everyoneland? The idea that I was responsible and originally budgeted to pay a certain amount of taxes and that should absolve me of any right or care to expect equal tax responsibility is complete garbage! I'm shocked at the socialist views that have been expressed in this thread. Wake up you live in the US not Cuba!
By the way, I'm also planning for my property value and my taxes to go up in the next twenty years. Maybe I'll get lucky and have a bunch of socialists running things then and be able to drink from the public teat. Yeah, my taxes won't go up because I helped build the city back in 2010. No sense.

Obviously, I’m not in the “free Sh*t for everyoneland” since I’m all for some people paying higher taxes. Additionally, if Starbucks decided that Jack should only pay $2 because he’s been a customer forever then who am I to argue? Total dollars that Jack has spent at Starbucks over the years compared to you would certainly be an argument Starbucks could make.

Have you never had a friend own a deli or retail store? Have you never heard of family discounts? What about employee discounts? Heck, forget about employee discounts, have you ever used a coupon or purchased something from the sales rack? That is someone paying a different price for the exact same item. The concept that two people pay the same price everywhere is quite an odd point of argument.

I also contend that you have no idea what socialism is. I’m arguing about as conservative a concept as it gets. It is about free market and the absence of government adjusting the market price of property.

If you budgeted to pay the higher taxes then you were on board with those rates. Now you find out your neighbor is paying less. It seems to me that you are the one arguing to get something for nothing.

Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
...On the flip side, a home that's paying more than it's fair share in tax will see it's value depressed.


So if someone bought a building (or buildings) in say the Heights over the past 5 years -- they got it cheaper than they would have if it had been taxed less -- so they stand to make a lot more profit if there is a reval and they then sell -- not to mention they will be saving a bundle on their taxes.

The higher the tax is, the lower the price of the property. That is usually how things go. Obviously, there are certain towns that have quite a high level of home and tax. It’s one of those basic economics covering supply and demand.

Working within one area of a city, there is a flat price point. If you increase the taxes on one property, you’ve just decreased the value of that property. If you’ve decreased the taxes on another property, you have increased that property’s price.

Those with higher taxes want to flatten the playing field, so to speak. What they are looking to do is increase their property value by having the state come in and decrease their bill while increasing the bill of someone else and thrusting their property value downward. This is all under the argument of “fairness.”

Quote:

mwa7368 wrote:
What percentage of people do you really think said, "you know what? I'm gonna buy in JC because I want to fix it up."? Do you think maybe they said, " I'm gonna buy in JC because I think my property is going to appreciate like crazy and I'm gonna make a ton of money." Or they just bought cause it was cheap and convenient? You don't get rewarded for that. Your thought process is completely flawed.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
While it is nice to believe that everything should be fair, I'd like to see those that bought in earlier to the area spend less. Those people helped pave the way for the new development.


You may not agree with the logic, but that doesn’t make it flawed. I also didn’t inherently state that making JC better is the only reason someone has purchased. Any home owner should know that making the area they’ve purchased better increases their home’s value.

As for getting a reward… I recall buying the first iPhone and getting the unlimited data plan. A couple of years later, I picked up the iPhone 4. I was grandfathered into the unlimited data plan and paid a lot of money less than some friends of mine. Your argument seems to be that AT&T should have just raised my rates regardless of the understood agreement in place. Additionally, AT&T wanted to reward the customers that first purchased the iPhones by allowing them to maintain this lower rate for a longer period of time.

I’m not even arguing a new concept. I’m talking about what’s been going on in every level of business since people first started trading.

Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
...On the flip side, a home that's paying more than it's fair share in tax will see it's value depressed.


So if someone bought a building (or buildings) in say the Heights over the past 5 years -- they got it cheaper than they would have if it had been taxed less -- so they stand to make a lot more profit if there is a reval and they then sell -- not to mention they will be saving a bundle on their taxes.


Can't really speak to the Heights, I'm only speaking from my experience downtown. When I sold my condo, I had to price it lower than comparable properties in the same neighborhood because of the ridiculous tax on it - around $9000 at the time for 1,000 square feet. And this wasn't even new construction. This was a historic building that had been converted into condos, so Pebble's argument that only new construction gets higher taxes is flat-out wrong. I don't think Pebble is even a homeowner. He sounds like a renter talking out of his ass.

It’s a nice strawman to claim I’m a renter but that would be quite far from the truth.

Yes, your condo price is lower because the taxes are higher. That’s the price point.

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.

Your current residence was priced as such because of the taxes, just as the condo you sold was. If you suddenly change the taxes on each property, the price of the homes will suddenly change.

Someone that recently purchased could end up taking a massive hit to their property value. Someone else already living in a home might find that they can no longer live somewhere they’ve been for years.

This isn’t as simple as saying that someone is paying too much. It’s an adjustment of every single resident’s finances.

Posted on: 2013/7/1 13:06
Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and f___ the prom queen.
Print Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/23 14:47
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 767
Offline
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
...On the flip side, a home that's paying more than it's fair share in tax will see it's value depressed.


So if someone bought a building (or buildings) in say the Heights over the past 5 years -- they got it cheaper than they would have if it had been taxed less -- so they stand to make a lot more profit if there is a reval and they then sell -- not to mention they will be saving a bundle on their taxes.


Can't really speak to the Heights, I'm only speaking from my experience downtown. When I sold my condo, I had to price it lower than comparable properties in the same neighborhood because of the ridiculous tax on it - around $9000 at the time for 1,000 square feet. And this wasn't even new construction. This was a historic building that had been converted into condos, so Pebble's argument that only new construction gets higher taxes is flat-out wrong. I don't think Pebble is even a homeowner. He sounds like a renter talking out of his ass.

Posted on: 2013/6/28 23:23
Print Top




« 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 8 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

remember me

Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2015