Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
178 user(s) are online (173 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 178

more...




Browsing this Thread:   8 Anonymous Users




« 1 (2) 3 4 5 »


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

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.


Define "fair". Why should other munis pay for JC schools? Why should individuals pay for city/county/school services they don't use? Why shouldn't there be a uniform property tax rate across all NJ?

"Fair" is relative to your own personal perspective.

Posted on: 2015/8/6 14:57
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
So, I guess you are OK that 2,300 JC taxpayers went in tax lien in 2013, Adonis. Just wondering if you live in a tax abated building?

Posted on: 2015/8/6 14:30
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/8/6 23:41
Last Login :
2020/8/26 11:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 559
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/6 5:44
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/8/6 23:41
Last Login :
2020/8/26 11:59
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 559
Offline
Quote:

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.


Yvonne I think you are the only one that pays attention to details around here. Kudos to you.

Posted on: 2015/8/6 5:09
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2023/7/17 17:42
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Banned
Posts: 5775
Offline
Quote:

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.


Yet somehow the same shrill cries of "you're going to force seniors out of their homes" is still heard. Some people are very attached to their worldviews that include "taxes, bad, always".

There was a article in the NYTimes today about how NYC doesn't want to pony up what the state thinks is it's share of MTA capital funds. All NYC needs to do is raise it's insanely low residential RE tax a fraction. Maybe from 1/5 our to 1/3 ours. But that's as politically untouchable as the NJ gas tax.

Posted on: 2015/8/6 4:30
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#99
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/6 1:21
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#98
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2023/7/17 17:42
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Banned
Posts: 5775
Offline
Quote:

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.


I can just cut and paste all the things I've said before!

Agreed that no one should be forced from their homes, but we're talking about people with either very high equity, or they've wrung the cash from their homes already and don't really deserve a tax break at the expense of others.

Finance is not my area of expertise, but what the city should do is create a system of tax liens that basically act like a reverse mortgage. You can defer the tax increase, but you still owe it to the city, with interest, at transfer of the property. These liens could then be combined into bonds and sold, thus converting future recovery of the deferred taxes into todays cashflow. Everybody wins, right?

Posted on: 2015/8/6 0:44
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#97
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3932
Offline
Quote:

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.


I agree with you that some very focused, narrowly defined groups should receive some protections. Those you mention would fit the bill.

Posted on: 2015/8/6 0:04
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#96
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 23:05
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#95
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3932
Offline
Quote:

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?


Is that a real question? It happened to a lot of people during the runup to the last bubble. And, it has likely happened in every area that has experienced gentrification at a fast rate. If you had bought a property in DTJC in the early 80s, it has likely appreciated five fold in the 30+ years since then. Some properties may have even appreciate ten fold. If the revaluations were happening every 10 years, as they are legally required, your property should be paying 5 to 10 times the amount of tax (assuming a flat tax rate assessed against actual value, not the voodoo crap system used right now) and I can guarantee you lots of people who would have bought in the 80s couldn't afford that increase. Except for senior citizens, for whom a move could be a burden, I have little sympathy for people in that situation. If a person can't afford their property taxes, how about selling the property (which has appreciated tremendously) and, thus, realize the profit. Just because someone wants to stay put and live somewhere they can no longer afford, it does not mean they get to live that dream. 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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 22:42
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#94
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 797
Offline
Quote:

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.

What do you mean by "affordable" taxes? Are you talking solely about property taxes?

I believe it's generally agreed that while property taxes, like all taxes, are regressive they are not nearly as regressive as consumption and income taxes. If you look at this study http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf New Jersey's % of total revenue from property taxes is considerably higher than the nation average (37% vs 22%), while our other taxes are on par, except for "other". How do you envision a fairer tax structure - more progressive property taxes? At the end of the day property is wealth, not income or consumption, so perhaps a flatter property tax structure is equitable, and higher taxes on discretionary spending ( read, the gas tax!) is needed if NJ is to rely less on property taxes.

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?

Posted on: 2015/8/5 19:08
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#93
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/30 14:44
Last Login :
2023/9/18 21:02
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 129
Offline
Quote:

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.


You have to admit that large numbers of DTJC parents sending their kids to private school keep taxes lower for all than they otherwise would be. But to Monroe's point it is other NJ towns who would feel that pain worse than JC as things currently are structured.

No doubt the reval needs to be done and the Abbot funding needs to be addressed. I am just really worried about the school system collapsing with a flood of new students coming in and taxes skyrocketing on all to cover those students.
Not sure which part of the mess it is best to fix first.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 17:23
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#92
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

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.


"Mega Ghetto", NJ would solve Abbott and Abatements at a stroke. Only one city would qualify. I'm sure there's some contaminated wasteland we can start building it on.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 15:54
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#91
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3932
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 15:54
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 14:24
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#89
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/30 14:44
Last Login :
2023/9/18 21:02
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 129
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 14:03
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

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.


Clearly the state cannot manage its finances. It's easier to pass the buck than do their job.


Posted on: 2015/8/5 13:57
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

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?


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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 13:53
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 13:41
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2015/8/5 13:19
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 13:04
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Quote:

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.


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?

The left loves to say people should pay 'their fair share'. Is paying only 16% of school costs in JC a fair share for JC taxpayers?

Don't worry, though, it's not likely to change. Any threat to Abbott funding will be opposed by the NJEA, as the threat to any teachers losing their jobs will be enough to stop the Legislature from pushing any changes to the status quo-special interest groups, and all that.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 12:33
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
I guess the truth is hard for you to understand, Sommerman, I saw many neighbors lose their homes over taxes. And many residents in affordable housing hide their income. If you don't marry but live together, only one income is reported. It is similar to the school lunch program, what the families put on paper is taken as Gospel. There is no followup.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 12:32
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/12/21 14:43
Last Login :
2015/11/15 0:07
From Harsimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 399
Offline
Quote:

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.


Periodically, I need to look up certain words because I find their definitions hard to remember. Three of them are:

jejune
inchoate (this one I can't pronouce either)
odious (I always think of smelly)

guess which word your post caused me to look up.


Posted on: 2015/8/5 12:28
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 12:05
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 12:03
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 14:11
Last Login :
2020/10/5 21:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4652
Offline
Having other taxpayers carrying 75% of your own school bill would still be a sweetheart deal, but not as sweetheart as 84% I suppose.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 11:33
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Let's look at Ciattarelli's proposal in a little more detail:

- 25% minimum school budget contribution from local taxes. A $54m increase in local contribution ($667/4 - $112) - or ~12% increase in your tax bill.

- 50% minimum school budget contribution before any new abatement can be awarded. A $221m increase in local contribution - or ~50% increase in your tax bill.

Depending on who's numbers to believe ($10m-$52m) - even if we could collect immediately on all abated properties - we couldn't hit the 25% target without increased taxes to homeowners. And as Yvonne points out - we can't collect on existing abatement contracts until they expire.

This is simply a cynical play to raise taxes on inner city communities to fund state shortfalls elsewhere. Christie's 2% cap - gone. Attracting jobs and development to inner cities - gone. Give me the millionaire's tax or gas levy anyday.


http://politickernj.com/2015/07/gop-a ... elli-targets-jersey-city/
Quote:

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.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 10:23

Edited by dtjcview on 2015/8/5 10:39:21
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
3/21 23:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5375
Offline
There are over 100 tax abated properties in JC. These are contracts and if the state take away school funding, those properties are protected but not the regular taxpayer. Even rent controlled properties are protected, they can only to up according to the rent controlled mandates which are between 1% to 4% each year.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 2:15
 Top 


Re: Republican state senator slams Jersey City on tax abatements
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/8/17 1:45
Last Login :
2020/8/26 13:40
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3141
Offline
Quote:

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.


Again you are barking up the wrong tree and at the wrong people. You should target your rhetoric at Trenton not city hall.

The purpose of abatements is to spur development. The simplest fix would be to restrict their state-wide use by zip code tied to a metric such as average home value or income. The biggest issue though is clear governance - and the report linked in the earlier post covers that.

Posted on: 2015/8/5 0:56
 Top 




« 1 (2) 3 4 5 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017