Browsing this Thread:
6 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Way to answer a question I didn't ask. I asked you to justify your constantly repeated claim that "JC taxes are high". You are so loud, but much of what you say is fictional. In addition to claiming our tax rate is high you spend so much time saying abated properties are leeches, yet you were the one paying far less per dollar of market value of your VVP property than ANY abated Condo. I think you refuse to use the quote button because it would be obvious how you obfuscate rather than answer direct questions about your statements.
Posted on: 2015/7/29 15:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Brewster, everything I said is on the county's web site. $2.8 billion is sheltered from the ratable base. The county tax assessor use a figure less than $6 billion to strike the figure. You have two choices: call the assessor or look up the information.
Posted on: 2015/7/29 12:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
Joined:
2015/3/26 18:00 Last Login : 2018/12/2 20:56 From Jersey City. Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
31
 |
oops, I meant 3 to 4k per year.
Posted on: 2015/7/28 17:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You'd have been paying a lot more if you were paying the current 2.29% taxes. But the city would be getting less at the expense of the county and schools. Where in JC did you move that anyone is paying $48k a year in tax? Port Liberte? That calculates to a $2.5m property.
Posted on: 2015/7/28 17:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
Joined:
2015/3/26 18:00 Last Login : 2018/12/2 20:56 From Jersey City. Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
31
|
I agree with jclistforum that the idea that tax abatements are not all bad. I lived in a tax abated condo and paid 360k in 2005. My taxes where $5800 per year. 1.6% of purchase price and 20 year abatement. Sold in 2014 for 425K. That new owner is now paying more in taxes because its based on the purchase price.
Also, the PILOT starts to rise after year 10 in order to slowly creep up to where it should be without the abatement. At least that was the deal at my old condo building. In 2014 I moved to another part of JC and everyone around me is paying 3k to 4k a month in taxes and some of my neighbors are upset about a new condo project nearby that has an abatement. Those new condos (which has said will be market rate) will be paying more in taxes then most people in the area.
Posted on: 2015/7/28 16:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
the abatements dont show up in the rateable base. however, they do reduce the amount which the city needs to raise through taxes.
If one reads the city budget for 2014, Line item 6 (sheet 3) is the amount the city needs to raise through taxes. This is computed as Total Appropriations (Line item 4) minus Anticipated revenues. Anticipated revenues includes the PILOTs from the abated properties. So although they dont show up in the rateable base (denominator) in the tax calculation, they affect the numerator and reduce the overall tax rate. I am new to the forums and have noticed a general theme against abatements because of what seems like a general assumption that abated properties pay less taxes. However, this does not always hold. On most abated properties in dtjc, the taxes are computed as a percentage of sales price unlike other properties where the taxes are computed using the assessed value. If we take an example, if you have a new property selling for 1mio, the tax on that using say 1.5% of sales price (can be on abated properties) is 15,000. If we take an older non abated equivalent property, it is quite possible that its assessed value is only 200K. The tax rate would have to be 7.5% for it to be comparable in taxes to the abated property. Given the current real estate prices in dtjc and that a reval has not been done in years, it is quite possible that non abated properties are paying less in taxes than comparable abated properties. Again, this is just an example to show that it is not always clear that abatements are bad for taxes etc. I think the bigger concern about these is if it is being done in a transparent manner and there is some one on both sides (the government and the public) who is actually going through the numbers, assumptions and making a rational choice.
Posted on: 2015/7/28 16:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yvonne, what about proving your oft repeated claim JC taxes are "high" instead of ignoring when your hyperbole is called out. Whenever I say there's inequality in taxes you reply the problem is instead they're too high. I can prove taxes are unfairly distributed, can you prove they're high?
Posted on: 2015/7/28 15:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The budget will be voted on tonight so the city can mail out the 3rd quarter tax bills.
Posted on: 2015/7/28 13:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Or we could leave him alone so he can figure out how much I owe him in 4 business days.
How is there no thread on the missing Q3 tax bills ?
Posted on: 2015/7/28 2:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Call the County Tax Assessor about our budget. The information comes from him.
Posted on: 2015/7/28 1:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
bluff & bluster > facts and figures - Yvonne's Theorem.
Posted on: 2015/7/28 1:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Please define "high" and prove that our taxes are such. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. When I look at the tax rates of northern NJ towns and cities ours are more or less right in the middle. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/taxrate.shtml
Posted on: 2015/7/28 0:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Show us your math Yvonne - and explain how it differs from the statement in the OP.
Quote:
Posted on: 2015/7/27 20:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Baloney, our taxes are high because those abatements are not ratables, close to one-third of the city is now tax abated, meaning they are not a ratable. Only ratables are considered when the county board of taxation strikes the budget. Also, it makes some property more valuable than others. If two condos sell for $500,000 but one has an abatement and other other does not, which one has the advantage? It is not government business to make some properties more valuable than others.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 20:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Seems like there's an argument over $80 million that we don't have - and if we try to collect we might end up with zero or less.
- City, County and JC schools have budgets of around $600m each - $1.8 billion total. $80 million is under 5% - less than the typical yearly increase over the past 10 years. - The state pays $420 million to JC schools. If the city contribution is increased, the state will cut school funding. - Other states and municipalities offer abatements, including NYC. JC needs to be competitive, or risk losing the $120million or so in PILOT taxes. Don't think it's wrong to be challenging abatements. But it's not the money-tree some people make it out.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 20:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
No reading comprehension issues at all. You simply lack the basic understanding to know that the buildings in Newport did little for your property value. The fact is, buildings asked for them and ultimately got them. They got them from the worthless mayors that you elected and rooted for. Once that genie was out of the bottle, it is pretty darn hard to put it back in. You can keep kicking the can or go with absurd insults about reading comprehension, but facts are facts. You are part of what caused the problems to begin with. To bemoan the road taken now after you've made a profit off of it is hypocritical at best and downright disingenuous at worst.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 20:17
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I guess you have a reading comprehension problem, the buildings were already built in Newport. Also Dixon Mills was renting, no long term tax abatement, Society Hill, full of contaminated soil, no long term tax abatement. Colgate closed their factory saying the land was too valuable, they did not ask for an abatement. Either take reading comprehension course or go to the public library and get old copies of the Jersey Journal which covered these stories.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 20:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
Without a lot of those abatements, the luxury towers wouldn't have been built and you wouldn't have made the money you made selling your house. Are you willing to give back your profit on the house? You benefited from the abatements... Considering what downtown was about 20 years ago, your definition of "worse" might be the worst definition of the word ever iterated.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 19:12
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Newark Avenue had traffic, it was horse and carriage.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 18:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2010/5/26 20:32 Last Login : 2023/9/14 15:34 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
214
|
If you think about it, Newark Avenue has gone all the way back to the original with no cars on it?
Posted on: 2015/7/27 17:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You are right all things change, it went from bad to worse.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 17:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
And things changed. We know longer ride in horse drawn buggies either...
Posted on: 2015/7/27 13:42
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I said this before but it is worth repeating, LeFrak one of the first developers did not ask for an abatement, he received a $40 million UDAG grant, the largest at the time. After the first 4 buildings were up, Cucci won and asked for affordable housing. Then LeFrak asked for an abatement. 270 units became affordable out of 1,500. Similarly, Colgate closed their factory because they said their land was too valuable. After Cucci won, the state said JC needed to add $20 million for the board of ed because it was underfunded by the previous mayor, McCann. Cucci approached Colgate to ask them to prepay their taxes, so Colgate asked and received an abatement. In 1989, McCann won again, and he started to use abatements as a rubber stamp and all mayors have continue, it is a way to raise money. At the same time in the 1980s when early development started, Dixon did not receive an abatement neither did Society Hill which developed on contaminated land.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 12:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Does anyone know where / when the full "User friendly" document will be available? There is another $500+ million, give or take, to look at as well.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 12:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Or, and this is especially true in the first few towers that went up, there would be no tax money at all coming in because those buildings would still be empty warehouses and parking lots.
There is more than one way to look at this...
Posted on: 2015/7/27 11:11
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Common sense says do not hurt the revenue by giving tax abatements. I don't believe the tears from developers they need tax breaks, they are near the PATH, turnpike, airport, 1 & 9, and NYC. You don't need to sell the city, it sells itself. It was the reason Industry came here first, until they discovered cheap labor elsewhere.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 0:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If you run for mayor I will seriously vote for you since you know how to fix all the problems in the city.
Posted on: 2015/7/27 0:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Friendly User Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The Friendly User budget shows $80 million is not collected from developers in tax abatements.
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... art_2box_hudson_index.ssf
Posted on: 2015/7/26 22:47
|
|||
|
||||