Monroe wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
my taxes are sky high, while JC taxes are quite low.

Please tell us the numbers, what is the actual rate, as in tax/actual $ value in your town of residence? I do hope you are not using the ridiculously low taxes of some Downtown properties as your point of reference. Other wards are paying 3x as much per $.

My town (Millburn/Short Hills) gets 11% of its school costs (which is about 25% less per student than JC, btw) from NJ. JC gets 75% of the cost of its schools from the state. Hence our local real estate taxes are sky high because of it, since school costs are considerably more than half of township expenses. And this is with a giant ratable in the form of the Mall at Short Hills. Despite that, taxes average about $20,000/year, the highest in NJ and among the highest in the USA.

So every NJ taxpayer contributes to keeping JC taxes artificially low, especially those who are forced to pay more to their own towns while keeping your taxes low.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
my taxes are sky high, while JC taxes are quite low.

Please tell us the numbers, what is the actual rate, as in tax/actual $ value in your town of residence? I do hope you are not using the ridiculously low taxes of some Downtown properties as your point of reference. Other wards are paying 3x as much per $.

Monroe wrote:
my taxes are sky high, while JC taxes are quite low.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S ... 3980604579030813844524056

The owner said he is pleased. "It was never about making money, not that I wanted to lose money," he said. The club itself, after stalling during the recession, now has 175 members, with a current full initiation fee of $250,000, and could top out at 250 members or so next year, Fireman said. The average member age is a surprisingly young 42. He said he expects a residential tower near the clubhouse, a delayed part of the original plan, to break ground within a year. "If that plays out like we hope it will and I break even on the whole thing, I'd be thrilled."

Mao wrote:
Dear Monroe:

What does the fact that JC got a tax abatement from "other Jersey taxpayers" have to do with this issue. I raised an issue about property tax equity. The half billion is taken, I think, from income taxes. True this is a bit of a redistribution. On the other hand, there are a lot of people employed on the Jersey City waterfront so JC provides a business environment where these taxed wages occur. Personally, I am for school choice (vouchers!) so that the biggest drain on the budget (schools) is more efficient.

You make a point about the fact that the golf course does not generate the need for services- but still the fact is that the land could alternatively have been developed as very nice housing. Also, new wealthy construction is relatively light on the services you describe- fire, police, schools.

Why would you not want the golf course taxed equitably. I suppose it could make it uneconomical. But lots of things are uneconomical in different places.

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
I did a quick google search. Per this article, they got a 5 year tax abatement.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index ... _on_green_and_in_ele.html

There are also a couple of articles of what they were planning to build before the housing market collapsed.

http://www.hudsonreporter.com/view/fu ... July-4-on-remediated-land

All I can say is, if they plan on building a casino, there better NOT be any tax abatements doled out. Also, there better be some sort of revenue sharing program that goes directly for property tax relief for the rest of us and other community reinvestment.

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
All I can say is, if they plan on building a casino, there better NOT be any tax abatements doled out. Also, there better be some sort of revenue sharing program that goes directly for property tax relief for the rest of us and other community reinvestment.