Brigid wrote:
Hi, my 3rd article is now posted and it is specifically about PILOTs - the pros and cons. The link is here: http://civicparent.org/2014/02/17/tax ... -sides-of-the-same-pilot/

This may make sense from a municipal governance perspective, but does it make sense from the perspective of the public schools or other city services that lose revenue due to PILOTs?

Brigid wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
[quote]
We can continue to argue about ratables, % of properties being abated, etc., but IMO the more important question is what is driving JC's continued use of abatements? Is there a legitimate concern the level of development has not reached a critical mass, to sustain returning properties more quickly to the tax levy?

I'd love to know the city's stance on this, too. Case in point?there is an abatement at 9th & Brunswick that was up for 1st reading ordinance at this past Tuesday's City Council meeting. I assume it passed (though am not positive), so I assume it'll be up for 2nd reading at the next meeting. It's a 20-year abatement in Hamilton Park; on its face, I simply don't understand why any development in Hamilton Park needs an abatement at this point, though perhaps the city can make a case. Either way, I think many people need to be asking the city about it.

JSleeze wrote:
Brigid - from the examples you give, it seems like you are missing a very basic element in the equation: PILOTs are revenue. Developments with abatements pay PILOTs - which are every bit as much revenue in the city budget as property taxes are. Your simple math seems to indicate that the city would have to wait the term of the abatement for revenue from new development to hit the budget and that the full cost of service increases are borne by the unabated tax payer.

Every proposed abatement has an estimated cost of incremental services and PILOT revenue must cover these costs. Additionally, while PILOT revenue may only be 21% of the overall budget, PILOT revenue as a percentage of "taxes" on property (PILOT payments plus traditional property taxes) is roughly 35%.

That's the dirty little secret Yvonne doesn't want you to recognize: as a whole, people with abatements pay higher percentages in PILOT payments than the eatable folks pay in property taxes.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
[quote]
We can continue to argue about ratables, % of properties being abated, etc., but IMO the more important question is what is driving JC's continued use of abatements? Is there a legitimate concern the level of development has not reached a critical mass, to sustain returning properties more quickly to the tax levy?

Yvonne wrote:
One of the things I suggested you do is talked to the Hudson County Board of Taxation, the Administrator is Don Kenny. On page 6 of 2012, 2013 is not out yet, it has the ratable base. That base shows $2.7 billion (tax abatements) is excluded from the ratable base. It is the reason our taxes goes up every year, it is the county not the city that strikes the budget. The county excludes all abatements. Therefore when Don Kenny strikes the budget, 2.7 billion is excluded and only 5.8 billion is the value. This is roughly $71 dollars per thousands. If all property was included perhaps the tax rate would be $50 per thousand. In order to do a valued report, you must include that $2.7 missing ratable base. The only thing I can compare this to is Secaucus, it has done a lot of spending in the last 5 years, but their tax rate has stabilize, Secaucus is fortunate to have an increasing ratable base. But unlike JC, there are no abatements so spending increases are absorbed by the ratable base that is not abated.

Yvonne wrote:
One of the things I suggested you do is talked to the Hudson County Board of Taxation, the Administrator is Don Kenny. On page 6 of 2012, 2013 is not out yet, it has the ratable base. That base shows $2.7 billion (tax abatements) is excluded from the ratable base. It is the reason our taxes goes up every year, it is the county not the city that strikes the budget. The county excludes all abatements. Therefore when Don Kenny strikes the budget, 2.7 billion is excluded and only 5.8 billion is the value. This is roughly $71 dollars per thousands. If all property was included perhaps the tax rate would be $50 per thousand. In order to do a valued report, you must include that $2.7 missing ratable base. The only thing I can compare this to is Secaucus, it has done a lot of spending in the last 5 years, but their tax rate has stabilize, Secaucus is fortunate to have an increasing ratable base. But unlike JC, there are no abatements so spending increases are absorbed by the ratable base that is not abated.

Brigid wrote:
Hi - the 2nd article in this series is now posted on CivicParent.org.

http://civicparent.org/2014/02/10/tax ... n-conventional-taxpayers/

In this post I looked at the ratable base and how abatements affect the tax rate.

Brigid wrote:
Yvonne: The 2 articles you provided in this thread were what I used as primary source/context for my post. I'm familiar with them both, have read them, and cited with footnotes in my blog post where I reference them. Just wanted to clarify this for benefit of anyone else reading this thread.

Yvonne wrote:
I think the article written by the State Comptroller is more accurate than Brewster. I have attached two independent sources of that are free of politics and have no political agenda.

JSleeze wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Brigid, you have no idea how abatements started.

Since she didn't talk about the origin of abatements in Jersey City, how the hell do you think you know whether or not Brigid knows how they started? More important - why do you feel it's necessary to spew the Britt shundlah, jirry mccayan history lesson that you just can't stop yourself from delivering. Give it a rest - you have become a caricature of yourself. Whether or not Newport needed/received/asked for an abatement 30+ years ago has little to nothing to do with anything.

Why don't you listen to someone for a change rather than flapping your gums endlessly at the drop of every hat, telling the same old history lessons that are typically of little relation to the topic at hand. You might learn something.