corybraiterman wrote:
Their idea of what looks like a nice carpet is awful. I loathe that puke green color in any room.

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SRhia wrote:
Looks like another Dixon renovation: 22 W Hamilton Pl. Gorgeous!

Stunning! I know everyone around seems to love hating on "the Australians" but every single one of the renovations they have done is incredible. No detail is spared, and all of them are simply beautiful.

They're an investment firm, plain and simple. The work looks great but I've seen it and it's medium-quality IMO.

It ought to look great - the rent is $8995/month! Sheesh!

They now own 5 houses on my block including 2 recent purchases across the street from me. They come in with all-cash offers and no contingencies, so they basically win on most bidding wars.

Their contractors are incredibly obnoxious with power tools sometimes starting around 7:30 a.m. and they block off parking spaces like they own the street.

And they're rentals. We've had some great renter neighbors but most of them don't seem to have the least bit of interest in getting to know their neighbors. Too bad, their loss. But it changes the vibe of the block when it changes from owners to renters...

The word I have from 2 different Real Estate agents is that they're starting to sell some of their improved properties. Interesting...

SRhia wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:

The word I have from 2 different Real Estate agents is that they're starting to sell some of their improved properties. Interesting...

Interesting... Is it because they can see the popping of the bubble coming soon?

Do you know what kind of prices they're asking?

bluehorse wrote:
But are families buying single families? Have they stopped fleeing to the suburbs? Or was Dixon the only one buying the last five years?

SRhia wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:

The word I have from 2 different Real Estate agents is that they're starting to sell some of their improved properties. Interesting...

Interesting... Is it because they can see the popping of the bubble coming soon?

Do you know what kind of prices they're asking?

jcneighbor wrote:

The word I have from 2 different Real Estate agents is that they're starting to sell some of their improved properties. Interesting...

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SRhia wrote:
Looks like another Dixon renovation: 22 W Hamilton Pl. Gorgeous!

Stunning! I know everyone around seems to love hating on "the Australians" but every single one of the renovations they have done is incredible. No detail is spared, and all of them are simply beautiful.

SRhia wrote:
Looks like another Dixon renovation: 22 W Hamilton Pl. Gorgeous!

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

blanquiita wrote:

My neighbors across the hall gutted their apt when they bought it and put in all high-end fixtures. I doubt very few, if any, permits were pulled. Their place is now worth several thousand dollars more than mine at this point, yet we pay the exact same in property taxes.

The fitting and fixtures of a property don't come into the equation - It's how many bedrooms, bathrooms and square feet you have.
You could have solid gold door handles or the newest 'whiz bang' oven or appliances - It's the skin and bones fixed structure that gets assessed and of course, location location location!

The house / apartments' 'cosmetic dressing' is what many people get screwed (over paying) on when buying new or used properties - It's like having a bread loaf with cinnamon cooking in the oven to give a homely feel (smell) when you have an 'open for inspection' of a property up for sale!

My parents in central Jersey had a reval a few years ago, and a renovated kitchen that includes new cabinets and appliances will result in a higher assessment, as will finishing a basement. In my parents case, a bathroom renovation added $7k to the assessed value. I know a number of people in JC who put various home improvement projects on hold when Healy announced the reval. Contractors' phones started ringing in earnest when Fulop canceled the reval.

If I understand correctly, a renovation does not immediately increase your assessment and hence taxes in JC - that would be a spot assessment and would theoretically cause everyone else's taxes to go down because the total amount collected is fixed. Only after a city-wide reval will assessments and then taxes be adjusted to reflect improvements. What I don't understand is how or if comparable sales or neighborhood characteristics effect assessment. Might a freestanding house with a driveway in the Heights get assessed more because it has parking and more windows than a row house in DTJC?

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

blanquiita wrote:

My neighbors across the hall gutted their apt when they bought it and put in all high-end fixtures. I doubt very few, if any, permits were pulled. Their place is now worth several thousand dollars more than mine at this point, yet we pay the exact same in property taxes.

The fitting and fixtures of a property don't come into the equation - It's how many bedrooms, bathrooms and square feet you have.
You could have solid gold door handles or the newest 'whiz bang' oven or appliances - It's the skin and bones fixed structure that gets assessed and of course, location location location!

The house / apartments' 'cosmetic dressing' is what many people get screwed (over paying) on when buying new or used properties - It's like having a bread loaf with cinnamon cooking in the oven to give a homely feel (smell) when you have an 'open for inspection' of a property up for sale!

My parents in central Jersey had a reval a few years ago, and a renovated kitchen that includes new cabinets and appliances will result in a higher assessment, as will finishing a basement. In my parents case, a bathroom renovation added $7k to the assessed value. I know a number of people in JC who put various home improvement projects on hold when Healy announced the reval. Contractors' phones started ringing in earnest when Fulop canceled the reval.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

blanquiita wrote:

My neighbors across the hall gutted their apt when they bought it and put in all high-end fixtures. I doubt very few, if any, permits were pulled. Their place is now worth several thousand dollars more than mine at this point, yet we pay the exact same in property taxes.

The fitting and fixtures of a property don't come into the equation - It's how many bedrooms, bathrooms and square feet you have.
You could have solid gold door handles or the newest 'whiz bang' oven or appliances - It's the skin and bones fixed structure that gets assessed and of course, location location location!

The house / apartments' 'cosmetic dressing' is what many people get screwed (over paying) on when buying new or used properties - It's like having a bread loaf with cinnamon cooking in the oven to give a homely feel (smell) when you have an 'open for inspection' of a property up for sale!

blanquiita wrote:

My neighbors across the hall gutted their apt when they bought it and put in all high-end fixtures. I doubt very few, if any, permits were pulled. Their place is now worth several thousand dollars more than mine at this point, yet we pay the exact same in property taxes.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

Kelcey wrote:
Quote:

The amazing thing about this place is it is currently assessed
at 185900 and is paying only $13819.81 in taxes. A similar (actually a little smaller) brownstone in Hoboken is paying $26700.

yep, if a regular person did the kind of gut remodels that they are doing, taxes would go through the roof. They are clearly paying off the right folks, as it doesn't seem like the properties they have renovated experience increases.

A former neighbor gut renovated his historic brownstone near VVP a couple years ago - basically as soon as Fulop stopped the reval. The renovation easily bumped the market value of the house well north of $1.5 million. The work was completed over a year ago, but I just checked the tax records online. He's still paying just $12,000 a year in property tax. I don't think he bribed anyone - he's not the type. But I am fairly certain the contractor he hired to do the job was shrewd enough to avoid pulling certain permits.

Kelcey wrote:
Quote:

The amazing thing about this place is it is currently assessed
at 185900 and is paying only $13819.81 in taxes. A similar (actually a little smaller) brownstone in Hoboken is paying $26700.

yep, if a regular person did the kind of gut remodels that they are doing, taxes would go through the roof. They are clearly paying off the right folks, as it doesn't seem like the properties they have renovated experience increases.

The amazing thing about this place is it is currently assessed
at 185900 and is paying only $13819.81 in taxes. A similar (actually a little smaller) brownstone in Hoboken is paying $26700.

SRhia wrote:
The carriage house in the back is on the market. Looks so cute!!!

Quote:

SRhia wrote:
Looks like they're having an "investor day/tour" at 237 Montgomery Str. Initially I thought it was an open house (door open, lady with balloons on stoop), so I asked if I could go in and take a look. Nope, for investors only - most people there are in suits, or shirts with ties.

Apparently, there's a small "carriage house" in the back of the house (sitting at the end of the empty lot next door). It's a 2-bed and and 2-bath. It was renovated by Dixon as well, and will be on the market shortly (separate entrance from 237 MOntgomery).

Imagine how great this whole thing (brownstone up front + carriage house in the back, plus a small yard) would be for a family. DROOLING!!!!!!!!

SRhia wrote:
Looks like they're having an "investor day/tour" at 237 Montgomery Str. Initially I thought it was an open house (door open, lady with balloons on stoop), so I asked if I could go in and take a look. Nope, for investors only - most people there are in suits, or shirts with ties.

Apparently, there's a small "carriage house" in the back of the house (sitting at the end of the empty lot next door). It's a 2-bed and and 2-bath. It was renovated by Dixon as well, and will be on the market shortly (separate entrance from 237 MOntgomery).

Imagine how great this whole thing (brownstone up front + carriage house in the back, plus a small yard) would be for a family. DROOLING!!!!!!!!

SRhia wrote:
Looks like they're having an "investor day/tour" at 237 Montgomery Str. Initially I thought it was an open house (door open, lady with balloons on stoop), so I asked if I could go in and take a look. Nope, for investors only - most people there are in suits, or shirts with ties.

Apparently, there's a small "carriage house" in the back of the house (sitting at the end of the empty lot next door). It's a 2-bed and and 2-bath. It was renovated by Dixon as well, and will be on the market shortly (separate entrance from 237 MOntgomery).

Imagine how great this whole thing (brownstone up front + carriage house in the back, plus a small yard) would be for a family. DROOLING!!!!!!!!

ProdigalSon wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Affordable housing, and rent control, should come with certain income requirements that should be verified continually. Otherwise, you get the scams and abuses you see now.

What, and have the wealthy & middle class cutout of the deal? Politically that would be the end of it. I especially love the arguments I've seen over the years that if the middle class lost their rent stabilized units they wouldn't be able to afford the private schools and weekend houses that make city life possible, and then they'd HAVE to move out to Teaneck.

My other favorite story was the couple who were so sure of stabilization=owning that they spent hundreds of thousands combining 2 units into one fabulous place only to find that they ran afoul of the then new decontrol parameters.

Could you post a link to that story. Sounds like a bunch of morons.

Economists argue passionately about most issues, but not about rent regulation. When the American Economic Association polled its members in 1992 on a variety of topics, the proposition that elicited the greatest consensus -- 93 percent agreement -- was that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' The most quotable summary of the research comes from a Swedish economist, Assar Lindbeck, the former chairman of the Nobel Prize committee for economics: ''Next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities, as the housing situation in New York City demonstrates.''

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Affordable housing, and rent control, should come with certain income requirements that should be verified continually. Otherwise, you get the scams and abuses you see now.

What, and have the wealthy & middle class cutout of the deal? Politically that would be the end of it. I especially love the arguments I've seen over the years that if the middle class lost their rent stabilized units they wouldn't be able to afford the private schools and weekend houses that make city life possible, and then they'd HAVE to move out to Teaneck.

My other favorite story was the couple who were so sure of stabilization=owning that they spent hundreds of thousands combining 2 units into one fabulous place only to find that they ran afoul of the then new decontrol parameters.

bodhipooh wrote:
Affordable housing, and rent control, should come with certain income requirements that should be verified continually. Otherwise, you get the scams and abuses you see now.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
What has happened though is that laws have warped this legal relationship to where tenants have more right to the property; rent control a common example 'squatters rights' as an extreme example, than the people who actually hold legal title.

As pointed out by others in this thread, this causes a major disincentive to build, renovate, or maintain existing property. A property investor sees lots of risk but not much in the way of rewards. Who does end up as 'landlords' are those who are of a dark nature: Bribes, strong-arm tactics, legal maneuvers, etc... anything possible to wring out income out of a property whilst it falls apart..

This discussion just reminded me of the recent gas explosion in the East Village. A landlord cuts dangerous corners and people die. Before the two missing men were even found, the rent-regulated tenants were already on TV whining about how there was no place for them to go at their existing, ridiculously low rents. Why do these tenants assume that property owners should just offer them a place to live in perpetuity at a loss? This was one of those situations where I had no sympathy for the landlord or tenants. They deserve each other.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I checked the 5 properties in my neighborhood - 2 on Griffith Street, 3 on Sherman Avenue - that they bought. All wood-framed rowhouses (2 family?), all relatively well maintained. 152 Sherman Avenue a particularly nice. Griffith Street has some particularly trashy rentals with real low-class residents; these are not them. Hopefully their m.o. is to improve, as opposed to demolish, these houses. It would be nice if they sold them, as my corner of the Heights would really benefit by having more resident owners who care about the appearance of their properties and the street.

Quote:

loco wrote:
Gentrification is bad and if you don't believe that then having this conversation with you is pointless because we have fundamentally different opinions of right and wrong.

We've had conversations about gentrification on this message board - here in JC you will find a much different take on it than in NYC, with a lot more people - myself included - hoping to see more gentrification as it brings in a more diverse mix of people, with expectations of amenities, new stores etc., that follow.

loco wrote:
Gentrification is bad and if you don't believe that then having this conversation with you is pointless because we have fundamentally different opinions of right and wrong.

MDM wrote:
What has happened though is that laws have warped this legal relationship to where tenants have more right to the property; rent control a common example 'squatters rights' as an extreme example, than the people who actually hold legal title.

As pointed out by others in this thread, this causes a major disincentive to build, renovate, or maintain existing property. A property investor sees lots of risk but not much in the way of rewards. Who does end up as 'landlords' are those who are of a dark nature: Bribes, strong-arm tactics, legal maneuvers, etc... anything possible to wring out income out of a property whilst it falls apart..

hero69 wrote:
renters do have rights, you know!