Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sweeney said 'Don't bother, it'll never get out of committee'-do you really think Sweeney and (now) General Assembly head and Hudson County boss Prieto are going to push this, lol?
Posted on: 2015/8/2 15:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Christie has had this abatement report on his desk for 5 years. Has he actioned any of it?
http://www.nj.gov/comptroller/news/docs/tax_abatement_report.pdf
Posted on: 2015/8/2 13:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
First, those funds are tiny $ compared to the redistribution of state taxes for education. ONE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, just to Newark. Next, the Abbott deal is the result of activist judges-the same ones that let Torricelli get replaced on the ballot, even though it went against state law. Christie can't do anything about that. And structural, schmucktural. PILOTS shouldn't be given in areas that are undergoing high demand. I'm fine with a tax abatement or PILOT in Greenville. Lining developers pockets while screwing other taxpayers is great only for the developers and Fulop, when he has his hand out for campaign cash for 2017.
Posted on: 2015/8/2 12:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The structural issues around PILOTS and Abbott are at the state level. Beating up Fulop and JC is stupid, pointless and simply political point-scoring. Why hasn't Christie tackled those issues? http://www.njslom.org/letters/2015-0629-taxpayers-dollar.html http://www.njslom.org/SG-Property_Taxes.html Fair-minded people now recognize that the next advance in property tax relief has to involve ending the State?s taking of Energy Tax Receipts and CMPTRA funds that are meant to be distributed to municipalities for property tax relief.
Posted on: 2015/8/2 12:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Nonsense. There are plenty of poor kids in districts outside of Abbott that would benefit perhaps from free preK, while that money is educating kids living in 600K condos in Newport. And Fulop giving away PILOTS in areas that don't need them is just putting money in rich developers pockets while screwing taxpayers in other towns.
Posted on: 2015/8/2 11:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Glib response. Active segregation policies may have stopped, but ghettos remain. Mount Laurel doctrine in NJ is a good start in redressing the imbalance - but there's still a long way to go. Interesting that the Pep Boys development with 20% affordable housing could be classed as "builders remedy" under Mount Laurel. State and Federal programs like ESEA, NCLB act and Abbott have attempted to level the playing field on the education front. Most people would agree with the objectives - but the results fall way short. Tying the objectives of fair education, affordable housing and urban development through federal, state and local finances has created a gordonian knot that has probably achieved little except political horse-trading. And now some daft state senator now wants to tie urban abatements to education funding? Don't we have enough knots to unravel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Laurel_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district
Posted on: 2015/8/2 8:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Racial segregation ended years ago, and the billions of dollars a year that gets diverted to support inner city education is more than paying their fair share-and a waste at that, given the results.
But I do want an affordable flat at the St. Remo! Or in Aspen! Put me on the list!
Posted on: 2015/8/1 23:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Some numbers from South NJ. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/ph ... o-NJs-new-COAH-study.html Redressing the generations of racial segregation would be a start. Until then, the rest of the state needs to pay its fair share.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 22:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The former mayor of Secaucus Anthony Just, sued JC over the tax abatements. I actually helped his attorney. Then Secaucus was paying the highest percentage to the county with a population of around 10,000 residents, it is now 16,000 residents. Just sued due to the unfairness to Secaucus and wanted more money paid to the county. JC receives 100% of the abatement but a settlement was reached to give the county 10%. There was infighting because Tom DeGise did not get along with the present mayor then and the figure was reduced 5%. This is for new abatements. Developers pay 100% to JC and an extra 5% to the county. Nothing is paid to the board of ed.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 21:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This is probably true and unfair to the suburbs. PILOT payments go to the city but County and School receive none of it. Is this correct?
Posted on: 2015/8/1 21:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No. Quote: Mayor Fulop is continuing adding 30 year tax abatements? Yes. Quote: I am sure Senator Doherty, who attacked Fulop on the taxes he pays on his home is thinking of ways to increase JC taxes. Agreed.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 21:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2014/12/21 14:43 Last Login : 2015/11/15 0:07 From Harsimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
399
 |
[quote]
JCGuys wrote: Is there something that the city could do now to better prepare the coming shock when property taxes soar? [/quote Decrease the number of children in the schools by building affordable housing in the suburbs. And please, don't respond with the bullsh!t that "they" wouldn't fit in, blah, blah. At one time "they" were Catholics and Jews, now "they" are Asians.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 14:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The Senator is looking for everyone to pay their fair share, not to have some pay the share of others. Correcting PILOT's wouldn't add to JC taxes, but would reduce JC taxpayers sponging off suburban taxpayers.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 13:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Do you have a crystal ball? Mayor Fulop is continuing adding 30 year tax abatements? I am sure Senator Doherty, who attacked Fulop on the taxes he pays on his home is thinking of ways to increase JC taxes.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 13:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yup! Is there something that the city could do now to better prepare the coming shock when property taxes soar? Hint: new high density development that will grow the ratabale base, which will generate more in taxes for the county, school, and city than it costs to provide services to them. The folks in these new developments that can afford the $3000 rents are probably sending their kids (if they have them) to private school. Maybe Jersey City will lose its Abbot district status just in time for when all the tax abatements expire.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 3:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It is a sweet deal and when the state leaves, they will be left holding the bag or in this case millions more in taxes.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 1:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yvonne, JC taxpayers have a very sweet deal. They pay a smidge over 16% of the cost of running all JC schools, at a per student cost 25% over the state average.
Posted on: 2015/8/1 1:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
When the state took over, JC paid 50% of the budget which was $90 million. McCann tried to cut the budget and the state made a deal. The amount was frozen to $72 million and it stay that way until 2005. The school elections was the reasons those caps were removed. But returning to your question, the state poured in a lot of money but those funds became frozen and did not to up. Now over $60 million goes to charter schools, so in essence, the public schools have less. It is the reason supplies, school bands, sports, etc are not in the public schools.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 23:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Just how much has state aid increased during that time, Yvonne? It's close to a half billion dollars a year now, and likely to go up due to mandated free preK, even for the young, wealthy families moving into downtown.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 22:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
JC became a abbot district based on the income of residents. It had nothing to do with tax abatements. But since 2005, the amount of money local taxpayers have paid to the school system increased from $72 million to 110 million.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 22:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
'It's all Fulop's fault'? Are you kidding? Outside of some locals he's been treated with kid gloves. Jeez. The Port Authority truck police action, firing his hand picked police chief, the Akil deal, his drunk driving/no show job buddy on the Council-no one outside of Hudson County knows any of this.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 22:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That doesn't make sense. If a city like Camden can attract investment dollars with abatement, do you really want to take that away from them? At this point, they need all the help they can get. How else will they ever recover and become a non-Abbot district without generous incentives to attract development. I also never understood how a wealthy city like Hoboken is an Abbot district. The average property values are much higher in Hoboken than in Jersey City. Why is New Jersey so provincial that no one can see beyond 1 sq mile of their town. The State has serious issues, but somehow it's all Steve Fulop's fault.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 21:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
As taxes continue to go up across the state expect there to be pressure to prevent Abbott district cities from giving PILOTS. PILOTS artificially reduce lower school tax receipts, while pushing the costs onto other taxpayers across the state.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 20:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Taxpayers should not be in the business of guaranteeing a developer a profit especially while the city is selling the tax liens of homeowners who are paying full taxes. You know the real estate market, any development with an abatement is worth more than without an abatement. Sorry, there is no fine print telling me my job is the protect developers. When I brought my home interest rates were 17% and banks did not want to lend money. Now we are financing some developers with redevelopment loans, giving abatements plus tax credits. The system is rigged. This feels like the Mafia, not the free enterprise system.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 20:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I respectfully disagree. Do you think abatement a should be banned in Jersey City only or should it be statewide? If it's statewide, I can live with that. But would be opposed of taking away this important tool to attract development from Jersey City but no where else, Yvonne.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 19:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
There is no reason for tax abatements: JC has 1 & 9, the turnpike, lite rail, PATH, near the airport, close to New York City. We don't need to entice, development is happening all over Hudson County, many without long term abatements. Development only happens when the stock market is hot. Right now the interest rates are low. Developers ask for it because they know they will get it.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 18:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Have you seen all the construction around town for the last 30 years?! Of course the ratable base went up and will go up again next year too. Why would any sane person doubt the veracity of a rising ratable base in Jersey City. On tax abatements... I don't like the subjectivity of it. It's an issue that needs to be resolved at the state level. I would love to see it set by state formula, rather than having local politicians playing kingmaker with developers. For example, if you build in a redevelopment area, you're automatically granted a max of a 10-year abatement with a PILOT payment based on a formula established by the state. The only input local officials would have on the abatement process would be whether to establish an area in need of redevelopment requires an abatement or not. Right now the current process gives too much leeway to the politicians in each locality. I do understand the necessity for tax abatements. Without it, the state would be a lot less lucrative place for attracting the development dollars it needs. The idiotic article from a week back that concluded that the city would collect $80 million more without abatements is deeply flawed: much of the development simply would not have been built had tax abatement had not been in place. Each tax abated development undergoes an underwriting process to determine the PILOT payment. Which to the best of my knowledge provides more revenue to the city than had the property remained vacant in its current state. And one day too these properties would join the ratable base when the abatements expire. I just wish they were for less than 30 years, so they can join the tax rolls quicker but this is a state issue by not clearly defining the parameters of the program to ensure everyone on the state is on a level playing field. On a side note, I personally hope Jersey City is court ordered to do a reval every 3 years, so we don't run into this problem again and Yvonne gets to pay her fair share of taxes!!
Posted on: 2015/7/31 17:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I am talking about the ratable base. Simply put some abatements probably granted under Schundler have expired. When a tax abatement expired it becomes a ratable. Tax abatements are not ratable, they are contracts. They only become ratables when they expired. It is the reason I always call the hudson county board of taxation to find out our ratable base. In 2014, the ratable base was $5,932,776,544. So JC ratable base increased.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 17:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Are you deliberately trying to confuse people about the difference between "assessed value" and market value? For non-Yvonnes reading: at this time the former is roughly 31% of market value, and a reval would put it at market. But by law after properties are revalued the total tax collected by the city must stay the same. They would simply reset the fudge factor on the assessed value to zero and adjust the tax rate to bring in the same amount.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 16:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Ratable base
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I am sure everyone got their email for Steve Fulop on the budget and how the ratable base went up. So call the Tax Administrator at the county and yes, Fulop is correct. The ratable base did go up because some tax abatements expired. That information is missing from his email. Every time an abatement expires, the ratable base increase and taxes decreases. While the 2015 table will not be available from the county until later, JC is now worth $5,997,768,597. If reval were to happen we would be worth $20.2 billion.
Posted on: 2015/7/31 16:34
|
|||
|
||||