blanquiita wrote:
Stupid question: What was the point of people going door-to-door if they don't have to enter the premises?

I had someone from the city come to my apt. I let the guy in so he could see I had a 1-bedroom, 1-bath apt. One of my neighbors told the surveyor he had a 1-bedroom, 1-bath apt when I know for a fact he has a 2-bedroom, 2-bath apt. Obviously the city has records as its been a 2-bedroom, 2-bath apt for almost 30 years.

I am worried about the neighbor who gutted his apt and rebuilt it without permits. He wouldn't let the surveyor in. While it is true he has a 1-bedroom, 1-bath apt, he made improvements to make his apt worth several thousands of dollars more than mine, yet we pay the same taxes.

How is the city going to compensate for that? Let me guess, they won't.

Yvonne wrote:
Don't forget the downtown property 109 Grand St. that is now a 3 unit condo, Brewster and the total taxes are $48,000.

JParkhurst wrote (elsewhere):
We own a row house in the VVP area and we then purchased our condo in Gulls Cove. The two bedroom ?abated? Gulls Cove pays several thousand more in taxes than the two FAMILY brownstone.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

mwa7368 wrote:
If its new downtown then it's overtaxed, I'm overtaxed!

Everything is relative, perhaps you're just comparing to undertaxed properties. what is your real tax rate, tax/market value? The metric the County uses is the "Ratio", 100 x assessment /market value. I think it's supposed to be 32.4 for 2014. they allow a 15% margin of error before declaring it high enough to appeal.

I have a property in the Heights that's paying 3.48% of it's purchase price in 2012, with a ratio of 46.7. That's 3 1/2 times the tax rate that Yvonne was paying, and many Downtown pre-88 properties are paying. Can you top that?

Cmon, non-Downtowners, tell us your numbers! Or tell us anybodys you want, you can look it up here:http://tax1.co.monmouth.nj.us/cgi-bin ... &out_type=0&district=0906

mwa7368 wrote:
If its new downtown then it's overtaxed, I'm overtaxed!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

mwa7368 wrote:
I don't see how it's fair that people who moved to JC in the last 10 years or so that don't have abatements should have to pay full value while the rest piss and moan they can't afford it.

Just to clarify, it has nothing to do with when you bought at all, just where and what. Sales DO NOT change the assessment, but condo-ing creates a "new property" that gets a new assessment. Pre-88 properties that have not been majorly renovated or condo converted have not had their assessments changed in 27 years. If it's Downtown, then it's probably under taxed, if it's in another ward, it's likely overtaxed.

So a new property or conversion with no abatement should be paying around 2.4% of value, $2m Downtown brownstones are often paying 1%, and older houses in Greenville can be paying 3-4%.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
...
This conversation took place several years ago probably around 2012.

Might need this too...

Yvonne wrote:
...
This conversation took place several years ago probably around 2012.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Basically, the condos are the properties that are paying the most taxes to government.

Untrue. Recent condos should be paying very close to the "official" 2014 effective tax rate of 2.291%. This is lower than many properties in the other wards who are paying north of 3%. But I will concede that due to high value, apparently ~$700k, they're individually paying more in dollars than many homes. But I doubt they cumulatively outpay the many thousands of homes in wards ABCD&F.

Yvonne wrote:
Basically, the condos are the properties that are paying the most taxes to government.

JPhurst wrote:
Given the long time it's been, a revaluation would definitely cause some hardship to several downtown property owners, particularly those who are real-estate rich but cash poor. Still, the longer you put it off, the more problematic it is. Unless the mayor hopes that it can be delayed so long that a) some of the abated properties become part of the ratable base, and b) some other areas of the city appreciate in value so as to even out the valuations. I just don't see reval being held off that long.

Brewster, I do agree with you that the purpose of revaluation is fairness within the ratable base. However I do think the glut of abated properties downtown is problematic. The higher value of downtown properties is a result of the overall development boom. So the abated properties have at least some effect on the higher valuation of older properties downtown. If all of these properties were part of the ratable base, then at least the increased value of downtown could be spread amongst everyone. As it stands, many of the properties that have led to increased value downtown are exempt from the increase for the length of their abatement.

brewster wrote:
Out of curiosity, i just ran a mortgage calculator on how much more an overtaxed property might sell for if it's taxes dropped. Let's say our taxes on a $300k house paying $9k in tax (very common) dropped to $6k. Assuming the buyer has a certain fixed budget for mortgage and taxes together, that $3k saved frees an additional $250/month for mortgage. That would, with a 4% 30 year loan, create additional home value of $52,400. In other words, that unfair overtaxing is potentially robbing homeowners citywide of 1/7 the value of their properties. This calculation of course begs the question of the buyer needing a bigger down payment, but you get the idea.

The reverse of this calculation is what terrifies Downtown owners of older properties, and why Yvonne sold her Brownstone on Van Vorst Park that was taxed at 1% to walk away with as much profit as possible.

mwa7368 wrote:
I don't see how it's fair that people who moved to JC in the last 10 years or so that don't have abatements should have to pay full value while the rest piss and moan they can't afford it.

Monroe wrote:
A reval will result in some owners taxes going up, others going down, and some staying the same. The amount received in tax revenue will be the same. That's the way it works, no?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
You will never achieve fairness if a third of the ratables are outside the ratable base.

And you will never achieve respect if you can't understand something as simple as "The reval is about fairness WITHIN the ratables". Insisting on discussing what's outside the ratables is changing the subject, which seems to be your goal. As far as I can tell, most people don't understand the reval issue precisely BECAUSE of people like you who have DELIBERATELY muddied the waters for years, making it seem more complex than it is.

Yvonne wrote:
You will never achieve fairness if a third of the ratables are outside the ratable base.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Here is the problem, we are asking seniors to use reverse mortgage to pay their taxes while the present administration is giving out 30 tax abatements to developers in prime locations. This city is playing the game of saying who have wealth and who should struggle to pay taxes.

Yvonne, abatements have absolutely nothing, repeat, NOTHING to do with the reval. The reval is about fairness WITHIN the ratables. PERIOD!! Whatever merits the abatements do or don't have, and the potential to increase the ratable base by reducing them, it does not change the RELATIVE TAXES of those WITHIN the ratable base. That's what a reval is for. We would need it even if we eliminated all current and future abatements tomorrow.

DanL: among the many differences between you and Yvonne, you have not made a career of accusing other people of dodging taxes while paying a fraction the rate that many others in the city were. Her standard response to this is: "I paid the taxes I was billed". Which ,of course, is as irrelevant as most of her comments.

Yvonne wrote:
Here is the problem, we are asking seniors to use reverse mortgage to pay their taxes while the present administration is giving out 30 tax abatements to developers in prime locations. This city is playing the game of saying who have wealth and who should struggle to pay taxes.

Yvonne wrote:
Then I guess the Hudson County Board of Taxation must be flawed too, because they strike the budget based on the city's ratable base. I suggest you watch last year's caucus meeting when Fulop told the council that there would be a tax cut based on expired tax abatements. In simple English, when an abatement expires it becomes a ratable.