Adonis wrote:
The simple fact is that jersey city residents, in general, do not pay their fair share of taxes.
But they'll rail against all the other people that don't pay their fair share.

Yvonne wrote:
JCGuys, I have been saying this for years. During the 1990s at an abatement hearing, I said the state might raise our contributions to the Board of Ed, then our payments were frozen at $72 million. The people in the administration laughed and said I was exaggerating. Well, in 2005, the state allowed the contribution to rise and we are now paying $112 million. That is $40 million more in 10 years. I can easily see the state saying we must pay $120 million more. This is the reason I am against affordable housing. It brings in more school age children and the families do not contribute to the school system via abatements. Also, it is a federal list who gets these homes, it is not JC residents.

dtjcview wrote:
Apols Brewster - I should have linked the thread on liens. But yep - there's a multitude of ways of structuring the debt that keeps the homeowner in their home. A lot of municipalities in other states have already done this.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
...
People sitting on super valuable property that has appreciated in value to the point where they can no longer afford their taxes can "cash in" their chips, take the money, and go cry "woe me" tears in a more affordable place.

There are plenty of potential fixes out there for this issue. If you have an open mortgage, bank will typically pay off the liens and add it to your mortgage. The city could issue a zero-coupon (no recurring interest) lien redeemable on property sale or transfer. Or provide a reverse mortgage payment facility. Bottom line - there are ways to keep people in their homes without having lienholders seize property through debt collection. And I think those facilities should be put in place before the reval - at least for groups like seniors, the disabled and vets.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
...
People sitting on super valuable property that has appreciated in value to the point where they can no longer afford their taxes can "cash in" their chips, take the money, and go cry "woe me" tears in a more affordable place.

There are plenty of potential fixes out there for this issue. If you have an open mortgage, bank will typically pay off the liens and add it to your mortgage. The city could issue a zero-coupon (no recurring interest) lien redeemable on property sale or transfer. Or provide a reverse mortgage payment facility. Bottom line - there are ways to keep people in their homes without having lienholders seize property through debt collection. And I think those facilities should be put in place before the reval - at least for groups like seniors, the disabled and vets.

bodhipooh wrote:
...
People sitting on super valuable property that has appreciated in value to the point where they can no longer afford their taxes can "cash in" their chips, take the money, and go cry "woe me" tears in a more affordable place.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I think we also need to look closely at the situation of people who lose their homes due to escalating taxes - what is that about? If the value of your asset so exceeds your income that you can't pay the taxes on it, how did you get there? And should the property tax system be changed to accommodate you at other peoples' expense?

Yvonne wrote:
What happened to the concept of affordable taxes? It is truly not fair that local taxpayers are forced to house and educate others at the expense of losing their own homes. Let me repeat, affordable takes takes in everyone. It is not limited to JC residents. Some residents in affordable housing are not even American citizens. At least in NYC, everyone pays a sales tax and an income tax so affordable housing is not the same as JC. I find it disturbing that 2,300 regular homeowners went into tax lien in 2013.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
This is a fair assessment. DTJC would suffer more than say Greenville, but all would suffer none the less if Abbot funding disappears. Owners of long term tax abated properties would be the only ones unaffected.

It's better to do something now than let the problem compound itself by kicking the can down the road.

Just a guess based on small sample observation, but if 'suffer' means being unable to afford one's home, DTJC might suffer much less than poorer neighborhoods. Pulling a kid out of private school, day care instead of nanny, cutting back on vacations, making a lump sum mortgage payment and refinancing are options that free up money, should taxes go up. Just a guess...

What % of DTJC kids are currently in private schools? What happens when all these DTJC families can't afford the private schools because their taxes doubled or tripled and flood the public school system? Not saying that is a reason to stop the reval but a reality that should be addressed.

And the alternative is to keep shafting the other wards? Because, honestly, right now, DTJC is getting a great deal: real estate continues to appreciate higher, real estate taxes are below what they should be, which in turn make their properties that much more attractive to potential buyers, who can afford higher mortgages since they pay little in taxes.

The reval has to happen. Putting it off is only perpetuating the relative tax abuse perpetuated on residents outside of DTJC, while compounding the problem. It will be painful, but the more they wait, the more painful it will be. But, the bigger issue for DTJC (and all of JC, really) is the question of the future of Abbott funding. Right now, living downtown is very attractive to young families who can opt for free PreK and relatively low BOE school taxes. If those were to go away, that will severely impact real estate values in JC.

dtjcview wrote:
...

Why not simply build one big NJ affordable housing city - move all low income families into it, and let them fend for themselves? That fair? Because that's what your solution sounds like.

landshark wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
This is a fair assessment. DTJC would suffer more than say Greenville, but all would suffer none the less if Abbot funding disappears. Owners of long term tax abated properties would be the only ones unaffected.

It's better to do something now than let the problem compound itself by kicking the can down the road.

Just a guess based on small sample observation, but if 'suffer' means being unable to afford one's home, DTJC might suffer much less than poorer neighborhoods. Pulling a kid out of private school, day care instead of nanny, cutting back on vacations, making a lump sum mortgage payment and refinancing are options that free up money, should taxes go up. Just a guess...

What % of DTJC kids are currently in private schools? What happens when all these DTJC families can't afford the private schools because their taxes doubled or tripled and flood the public school system? Not saying that is a reason to stop the reval but a reality that should be addressed.

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
This is a fair assessment. DTJC would suffer more than say Greenville, but all would suffer none the less if Abbot funding disappears. Owners of long term tax abated properties would be the only ones unaffected.

It's better to do something now than let the problem compound itself by kicking the can down the road.

Just a guess based on small sample observation, but if 'suffer' means being unable to afford one's home, DTJC might suffer much less than poorer neighborhoods. Pulling a kid out of private school, day care instead of nanny, cutting back on vacations, making a lump sum mortgage payment and refinancing are options that free up money, should taxes go up. Just a guess...

Yvonne wrote:
I am one of the original voters who said yes to an income tax. The public was promised the state would use this money for public schools. The state has failed in that promise. The same promise was made on the sales tax and state lottery. All of this money collected and still people are paying local taxes to the school system.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...

You're ignoring the fact that other taxpayers are covering your costs. Is it fair that many towns in NJ get 10% of their school costs covered by the state, while JC and other towns get 80 or 90% of their costs paid for by the state?
...

How about crunching the real numbers - say what percentage total tax revenue each community contributes to welfare, education, policing, housing, etc of low-income families? Think the affluent gated NJ municipalities are doing comparatively fine. There's a reason why property tax rates are around 2% of property value across all NJ. People are contributing their fair share.

Pay your own fair share. Tax rates aren't based on real estate values, but on the cost of running your own town. JC pays 16% of the school costs, where my hometown pays 90%. Is that fair that we subsidize your school costs? Great deal for you, though, I'd defend it as well were I you. What's the JC graduation rate, btw?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
...

You're ignoring the fact that other taxpayers are covering your costs. Is it fair that many towns in NJ get 10% of their school costs covered by the state, while JC and other towns get 80 or 90% of their costs paid for by the state?
...

How about crunching the real numbers - say what percentage total tax revenue each community contributes to welfare, education, policing, housing, etc of low-income families? Think the affluent gated NJ municipalities are doing comparatively fine. There's a reason why property tax rates are around 2% of property value across all NJ. People are contributing their fair share.

Monroe wrote:
...

You're ignoring the fact that other taxpayers are covering your costs. Is it fair that many towns in NJ get 10% of their school costs covered by the state, while JC and other towns get 80 or 90% of their costs paid for by the state?
...

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Having other taxpayers carrying 75% of your own school bill would still be a sweetheart deal, but not as sweetheart as 84% I suppose.

Why not starve the inner-city kids while they're corralled in the ghettos while you're at it?

Virtually none of the costs of JC schooling is controlled locally - it's all state/federally mandated or negotiated by state - free pre-k, classroom sizes, pay and pensions - you name it. State and Federal should cover 100% of school costs. Period. Shifting the burden to local tax is simply taxing the poor - and selectively increasing property taxes already among the highest in the nation. Tbh - I liked some of the things Christie has done for NJ like the 2% cap - but this latest Republican tax increase proposal is quite frankly disgusting.

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop has exteneded two developments in which affordable was near the end of their term for tax abatements. Salem Lafayette housing abatement should have expired in 2016 but he gave that abatement another 30 years. In addition, at the last council meeting, he gave another affordable housing 6.28% payment. In the 1970s and 1980s, the city required 15% payment to the city. Since affordable housing pays one third of their income for housing, it doesn't matter what rate they are paying, it is still one third for the residents. This is a sweetheart deal to the developer. But these affordable housing are bringing in children and does not pay one dime to the board of ed. In 2013, 2,300 taxpayers went into tax lien. These were regular taxpayers without tax abatements. Affordable housing comes at cost to other taxpayers, it is a heavy expense.

Monroe wrote:
Having other taxpayers carrying 75% of your own school bill would still be a sweetheart deal, but not as sweetheart as 84% I suppose.

Following up on a face to face case he made to teachers last month, the Republican Assemblyman laid out two parts of his comprehensive proposal for pension reform that address the area of school funding and abatements:

- No community is allowed to fund less than 25 percent of their school budget through the local tax levy (some communities fund less than 15 percent of their school budget, while others fund more than 90 percent); and
- No community whose local school budget is funded more than 50 percent by federal and state aid can abate school property taxes on new development.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
The solution is pretty simple - fix what's broken with abatements, fix what's broken with Abbott and school funding, fix what's broken with Mount Laurel. Tying different objectives together - like tying abatements to school funding - is a recipe for failure.

Personally I think schools should be fully funded by state and federal, since that's really where policy is set - NCLB, Title I, Abbott, common core, NJEA...it's only because the state is on a fast-track to bankruptcy that this is an issue.

You cannot fix what is broken with tax abatements, they are legal contracts. You don't renew them as Fulop did with several abatements in his term.