Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
42 user(s) are online (24 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 42

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 (2) 3 »


Re: Explanation of abatements
#56
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 8:31
From jc
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 11
Offline
Resized Image


Monroe, you pay no property tax in NJ, why are you concerned with it?

Posted on: 2015/11/21 11:31
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#55
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/12/28 8:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 62
Offline
????

PILOT money does contribute to the schools.

Here's a homework assignment for you.

What proportion of a local municipality's spending is for municipal services versus the local public school system?

In Jersey City, the school district's budget is approximately $665 million, while the municipalities is: $418 million***

665/(665 + 418) = 61%


Please tell me of another municipality where more than 60% of local government expenditures is for public education? Surely you will find some among the other 564 municipalities in NJ, but not many. I bet you can count them on your fingers.

The J.C. school district spending is over $22,000/child per year. That amount puts the school district in the 99th percentile in the state for local school spending. 99th percentile.

Finally, who living in Jersey City or for that matter in New Jersey is not paying already high taxes?

The school district complains that state funding is flat (as opposed to cut for many other municipalities). NJS state tries to pull the wool over locals, including a local CPA blogger, that PILOTS do not contribute (as in zero, nada, none) to local public schools, and Yvonne kvetches on about the municipal finances.

Why isn't there more focus on how well the school is spending your tax dollars?

50% more money is spent on the schools than the city. The municipality discloses a lot of financial information (http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/officialdocuments/). Not so for the local school district. Why do you think that is so? Have you read the last school audit?


***The $418 million and 61% figures are conservative, because I did not account for the county taxes collected (pass through) by Jersey City that are included in the remaining $418 million budget. If I did, the proportion of school spending would be even higher.

Posted on: 2015/11/21 11:30
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4098
Offline

Posted on: 2015/11/21 10:39
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#53
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/12/28 8:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 62
Offline
Ralph_Abutts (me) wrote:
"PILOT money does contribute to the schools."

Monroe's response:
"Not true. PILOT money goes into the regular coffers, which only covers 16% of the school costs anyway."

???????

::::Sigh::::

Posted on: 2015/11/21 10:14
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#52
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 8:31
From jc
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 11
Offline
Despite his whining, Monroe pays no property tax in the state of NJ.

Posted on: 2015/11/21 8:40
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4098
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
PILOT revenue afffords the City Council to appropriate as much money as it currently does to the JC public school district. PILOT money does contribute to the schools. The blogger's explanation is not correct despite the pretty visualizations.


Not true. PILOT money goes into the regular coffers, which only covers 16% of the school costs anyway, the rest is paid for by other state taxpayers mostly with a little from the Feds.

Posted on: 2015/11/21 8:12
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#50
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/12/28 8:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 62
Offline
PILOT revenue afffords the City Council to appropriate as much money as it currently does to the JC public school district. PILOT money does contribute to the schools. The blogger's explanation is not correct despite the pretty visualizations.

Posted on: 2015/11/21 7:54
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/5/15 10:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4098
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
It's really a wealth tax, in a way and not what the notional concept of property tax is about.


No offense, but that "notional concept' is naive, and often used as a cudgel by guys like Monroe. Often you hear "I don't have any kids at all, why do I need to pay for theirs?" You no more "get out what you pay in" in city services than you do in SS. It's one of the many forms of "socialism" in our society that no one thinks of as such, and what makes it work.

Yes, it's a wealth tax, whether paid by landlords or indirectly by tenants. Wealth taxes are a great idea and unfortunately are hard to implement outside of this context, since non RE wealth can be moved out of reach of the taxman pretty easily.


I'll give you props for using 'cudgel' though, even if it doesn't apply to me.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 17:48
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
Quote:

JC_User wrote:
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%



Would either of you care to explain what the L.H. Brownstone Charge of $4060-ish that is semi-annual on the Grand Street Property, or the Pinnacle Tower charge that is on all the 20 2nd Street locations? Unsurprisingly you are trying to obfuscate the facts, no one is paying $700 a year to the government to live in a 1 million dollar home.




And the Zillow real-estate listing from which the numbers were allegedly taken state the "2014 taxes" for 305 Grand St, #303 at $11,789 - these are probably technically Pilot payments.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/305 ... -NJ-07302/108622747_zpid/

As some posters on this thread really likes percentages and rates: $11,789 is 21,711% of the $543 payment suggested above...




As I later explained, the tax figure I quoted was the one listed under "tax history". The figure you quote was in the detailed description of the property, which I did not check, since the data should have been listed elsewhere. And, regardless, the point remains: at 11.7K, that amounts to less than 1.3% of property value. Still underpaying. All the DTJC homeowners benefiting from the current situation will of course argue against the facts. It doesn't matter. At some point, the revaluation WILL happen. And, when it does, many, many people will have to swallow the pill of property tax bills that will double or triple. It sucks, but it is inevitable. I am sure many will claim undue hardship, and unfairness, never stopping to reflect on the fact they have benefited for years under the current system.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 17:36
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Bravo bodhipooh, glad to see someone else besides me understands the numbers, and how they represent such a regressive tax. What I can't understand is not only where are the activists, but where are their Councilpersons?

As for the abated properties, is that tax quoted the actual PILOT, or tax paid in addition to the PILOT?


Property taxes are an interesting concept - you could also argue (which I don't support - just making the point) they unfairly tax higher value properties, assuming valuations are up to date and there's a level playing field, which is clearly not the case in Jersey City. Accepted practice is for property taxes to be assessed on the valuation of a home - but is that really fair? If the idea is that each homeowner should contribute to the city's budget, does the couple living in a $1.5 million brownstone on a 2500 sf lot consume more or less services than the family of six with four school aged children living in a house in an other part of town on a bigger lot? Should the fact that the latter house is worth 10% of the former because of unfortunate location drive the tax equation? It's really a wealth tax, in a way and not what the notional concept of property tax is about. Again - this is the system we have and I accept that, but it's something I've always found curious.


I get what you are saying, and I would say I sometimes want to agree with your take: if I take so little from the government, why should I pay an absurd amount of taxes for things and services I will likely never need. There is no easy answer, of course. Just like peaceniks are probably annoyed to pay federal taxes that go to pay for the military, or infertile couples could argue school taxes are infinitely unfair for them. It's a collective good, and because of that, we all pay towards it. In the case of local property taxes, I see no difference between what you call a wealth tax and the usual income taxes. In fact, income taxes are more of a wealth tax in that as you climb up the tax brackets, you pay MORE for each dollar you earn. In the absence of a better system, the "flat" property tax is the most equitable solution.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 17:29
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%



Would either of you care to explain what the L.H. Brownstone Charge of $4060-ish that is semi-annual on the Grand Street Property, or the Pinnacle Tower charge that is on all the 20 2nd Street locations? Unsurprisingly you are trying to obfuscate the facts, no one is paying $700 a year to the government to live in a 1 million dollar home.


It cold be an honest mistake. We have an abatement but there are two components to our "tax"bill - the PILOT for our condo and a property tax bill for our parking space. Those amounts look in the ballpark of a parking space tax bill, based on my experience.


Thanks, T-Bird. It was an honest mistake, but even when corrected with the PILOT data it proves the point that those properties are paying an affective rate of about 1%.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 17:02
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#45
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%



Would either of you care to explain what the L.H. Brownstone Charge of $4060-ish that is semi-annual on the Grand Street Property, or the Pinnacle Tower charge that is on all the 20 2nd Street locations? Unsurprisingly you are trying to obfuscate the facts, no one is paying $700 a year to the government to live in a 1 million dollar home.


I made a mistake with regards to the two abated properties, but I didn't have access to the information regarding PILOTs. Still, even if we assume that the PILOT is as you stated (and, really, I have no reason to not believe you) we are talking about ~9K for a ~900K property, which continues to prove my point that DTJC is paying around 1%, while other areas are paying double or three times that rate. The inequality can not be denied.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 17:00
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#44
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4852
Offline
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
It's really a wealth tax, in a way and not what the notional concept of property tax is about.


No offense, but that "notional concept' is naive, and often used as a cudgel by guys like Monroe. Often you hear "I don't have any kids at all, why do I need to pay for theirs?" You no more "get out what you pay in" in city services than you do in SS. It's one of the many forms of "socialism" in our society that no one thinks of as such, and what makes it work.

Yes, it's a wealth tax, whether paid by landlords or indirectly by tenants. Wealth taxes are a great idea and unfortunately are hard to implement outside of this context, since non RE wealth can be moved out of reach of the taxman pretty easily.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 15:56
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#43
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/2/6 23:31
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 30
Offline
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%



Would either of you care to explain what the L.H. Brownstone Charge of $4060-ish that is semi-annual on the Grand Street Property, or the Pinnacle Tower charge that is on all the 20 2nd Street locations? Unsurprisingly you are trying to obfuscate the facts, no one is paying $700 a year to the government to live in a 1 million dollar home.




And the Zillow real-estate listing from which the numbers were allegedly taken state the "2014 taxes" for 305 Grand St, #303 at $11,789 - these are probably technically Pilot payments.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/305 ... -NJ-07302/108622747_zpid/

As some posters on this thread really likes percentages and rates: $11,789 is 21,711% of the $543 payment suggested above...



Posted on: 2015/11/20 15:46
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#42
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/30 9:44
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 118
Offline
Does anyone know where to find the tax revenue broken out by Ward (excluding PILOTs)?

Posted on: 2015/11/20 15:12
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#41
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/18 21:18
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1485
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Bravo bodhipooh, glad to see someone else besides me understands the numbers, and how they represent such a regressive tax. What I can't understand is not only where are the activists, but where are their Councilpersons?

As for the abated properties, is that tax quoted the actual PILOT, or tax paid in addition to the PILOT?


Property taxes are an interesting concept - you could also argue (which I don't support - just making the point) they unfairly tax higher value properties, assuming valuations are up to date and there's a level playing field, which is clearly not the case in Jersey City. Accepted practice is for property taxes to be assessed on the valuation of a home - but is that really fair? If the idea is that each homeowner should contribute to the city's budget, does the couple living in a $1.5 million brownstone on a 2500 sf lot consume more or less services than the family of six with four school aged children living in a house in an other part of town on a bigger lot? Should the fact that the latter house is worth 10% of the former because of unfortunate location drive the tax equation? It's really a wealth tax, in a way and not what the notional concept of property tax is about. Again - this is the system we have and I accept that, but it's something I've always found curious.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 14:37
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#40
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/18 21:18
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1485
Offline
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%



Would either of you care to explain what the L.H. Brownstone Charge of $4060-ish that is semi-annual on the Grand Street Property, or the Pinnacle Tower charge that is on all the 20 2nd Street locations? Unsurprisingly you are trying to obfuscate the facts, no one is paying $700 a year to the government to live in a 1 million dollar home.


It cold be an honest mistake. We have an abatement but there are two components to our "tax"bill - the PILOT for our condo and a property tax bill for our parking space. Those amounts look in the ballpark of a parking space tax bill, based on my experience.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 14:27
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#39
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4852
Offline
Bravo bodhipooh, glad to see someone else besides me understands the numbers, and how they represent such a regressive tax. What I can't understand is not only where are the activists, but where are their Councilpersons?

As for the abated properties, is that tax quoted the actual PILOT, or tax paid in addition to the PILOT?

Posted on: 2015/11/20 13:27
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#38
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/5/26 16:32
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 197
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%



Would either of you care to explain what the L.H. Brownstone Charge of $4060-ish that is semi-annual on the Grand Street Property, or the Pinnacle Tower charge that is on all the 20 2nd Street locations? Unsurprisingly you are trying to obfuscate the facts, no one is paying $700 a year to the government to live in a 1 million dollar home.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 12:10
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#37
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/5/26 16:32
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 197
Offline
Quote:

jcwalkingman wrote:
Not to drift off topic too much, but does anyone know how an abated tax rate transfers to a new owner during a resale of an abated property? Are "taxes" reassessed when the abated property is transferred? I heard from someone that the abatement rate (generally 1.65% of assessed value) is applied to the property's sale price when the property is transferred to a new owner, but this doesn't seem to make sense since most assessments are below market value.


For a new abatement I believe it is 1.65% of the initial selling price, but every abatement is probably different. I live in a two family home, with a 5 year abatement and that number works out exactly to what our taxes were the first year. They have changed negligibly over the past 3 years, but it isn't enough for me to really care of figure out why.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 11:43
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#36
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4075
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
It is pretty sad that people will resort to all kinds of obfuscation to try and hide the fact that they are getting a sweet deal by not having to pay their fair share of property taxes. Of course, this has been aided and abetted by all recent mayors.

Disappointingly, Fulop did the unthinkable and cancelled the reval (of course, not doing so would have affected residents of his power base, DTJC) but I am glad the state is now looking to force the matter. Of course, you have scoundrels like Ralph Abutts who will actively try to argue against facts and truth, but there is nothing like good, ol' solid data to back up what is a plainly visible fact for anyone who objectively looks at this matter.

The data below is pulled from Zillow's list of Recently Sold properties. I randomly picked properties and looked at their selling value (i.e., their market value) and then looked at the most recent tax bills. Almost every DTJC property I found was paying effective tax rates of 1% (or, lower!) while those in areas outside of DTJC were paying effectives ranging from 1.8 to over 4 percent.

DTJC (non abated properties)

220 Columbus
Sold: 1.05 MM
Tax: 11K
Effective rate: 1.05%

342 5th St
Sold: 714 K
Tax: 8.6K
Effective rate: 1.2%

317 10th St
Sold: 907 K
Tax: 10K
Effective rate: 1.1%

222 Grand Ave
Sold: 1.35 MM
Tax: 9K
Effective rate: 0.67% (!! talk about criminally low assessment!)

656 Jersey Ave
Sold: 1.6 MM
Tax: 14.6K
Effective rate: 0.91% (another winner!)


Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%


A handful of properties in 07304:

249 Randolph Avenue (bought and flipped after extensive renovations)
Sold in April 2015 for 98,4000
Taxes on that value were $4,669
The effective rate: 4.74%

363 Randolph Ave (similarly as the one above, bought and flipped for profit)
Sold in December 2012 for 84,000
Taxes on that value were $3,161
Effective tax rate: 3.76%

145 Harrison Ave
Sold: $207,500
Taxes: $4,542
Effective tax rate: 2.19%


So, tell me again how DTJC is not under assessed and paying their fair property tax levy.

And, as a complete aside, but related to the topic: I don't get why so called "community activists" aren't all over this issue. For those who wish to see an improvement to the poor and uneducated, or the areas "ignored by the city", this should be a rallying cry: fair taxation at the local level. If you want to see Greenville, Lafayette, The Heights and other areas improve rapidly, activists should be clamoring and demanding the revaluation, making those areas more affordable, which would in turn drive gentrification. As it stands, you have properties in DTJC worth 2 to 4 times what other properties are worth in those areas, but paying the same or lower amount of taxes. Talk about inequality.


Very good, you are just missing Steven Fulop's home on Ogden Avenue which has a tax rate of 1% based on sales price.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 9:19
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
It is pretty sad that people will resort to all kinds of obfuscation to try and hide the fact that they are getting a sweet deal by not having to pay their fair share of property taxes. Of course, this has been aided and abetted by all recent mayors.

Disappointingly, Fulop did the unthinkable and cancelled the reval (of course, not doing so would have affected residents of his power base, DTJC) but I am glad the state is now looking to force the matter. Of course, you have scoundrels like Ralph Abutts who will actively try to argue against facts and truth, but there is nothing like good, ol' solid data to back up what is a plainly visible fact for anyone who objectively looks at this matter.

The data below is pulled from Zillow's list of Recently Sold properties. I randomly picked properties and looked at their selling value (i.e., their market value) and then looked at the most recent tax bills. Almost every DTJC property I found was paying effective tax rates of 1% (or, lower!) while those in areas outside of DTJC were paying effectives ranging from 1.8 to over 4 percent.

DTJC (non abated properties)

220 Columbus
Sold: 1.05 MM
Tax: 11K
Effective rate: 1.05%

342 5th St
Sold: 714 K
Tax: 8.6K
Effective rate: 1.2%

317 10th St
Sold: 907 K
Tax: 10K
Effective rate: 1.1%

222 Grand Ave
Sold: 1.35 MM
Tax: 9K
Effective rate: 0.67% (!! talk about criminally low assessment!)

656 Jersey Ave
Sold: 1.6 MM
Tax: 14.6K
Effective rate: 0.91% (another winner!)


Now, let's look at DTJC abated properties that were recently sold:

305 Grand St
Sold: 925 K
Tax: $543.00
Effective rate: 0.06% (<- that's not a mistake!)

20 2nd St
Sold: 1.15 MM
Tax: $647.00
Effective rate: 0.056%


A handful of properties in 07304:

249 Randolph Avenue (bought and flipped after extensive renovations)
Sold in April 2015 for 98,4000
Taxes on that value were $4,669
The effective rate: 4.74%

363 Randolph Ave (similarly as the one above, bought and flipped for profit)
Sold in December 2012 for 84,000
Taxes on that value were $3,161
Effective tax rate: 3.76%

145 Harrison Ave
Sold: $207,500
Taxes: $4,542
Effective tax rate: 2.19%


So, tell me again how DTJC is not under assessed and paying their fair property tax levy.

And, as a complete aside, but related to the topic: I don't get why so called "community activists" aren't all over this issue. For those who wish to see an improvement to the poor and uneducated, or the areas "ignored by the city", this should be a rallying cry: fair taxation at the local level. If you want to see Greenville, Lafayette, The Heights and other areas improve rapidly, activists should be clamoring and demanding the revaluation, making those areas more affordable, which would in turn drive gentrification. As it stands, you have properties in DTJC worth 2 to 4 times what other properties are worth in those areas, but paying the same or lower amount of taxes. Talk about inequality.

Posted on: 2015/11/20 9:13
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1134
Offline

best projections yet. though, I believe you are estimating the effective property tax rate of 2.1% since that cannot be computed until the city gets a complete market valuation. others think it is closer to 1.6% once all said and done, but your calculations are valid.

for people that want to plan ahead, this is a good place to start. we did.

and as you illustrate, I believe that the failure to do the reval makes investing in a home in greenville or lafayette more costly than it would be if taxed equitably.


Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I've been following this topic on JCList for 7 years now, and still don't fully understand it.



Hey, Wishful_Thinking, what do you mean or refer to with "the city's general tax rate of 7.434%"??

As for tax rate, it is quite simple to figure out. Normally, in just about every city in the US, your property taxes are determined by multiplying the estimated market value of your property by a given property tax rate. So, for example, if the property tax rate for County Sunshine is 2.2%, and your home is determined to be worth $200,000, your property tax levy would be $4,400. In JC, there is a complicated system of equalization rates and assessed values that obsfucate the matter. In the end, if you want to know if you are over/under paying, you can do some simple math: look at your property tax paid for a given year (say, 2014) and divide that number by the market value of your property. That would tell you the relative property tax rate you are paying. In the case of some/many/most brownstones in DTJC, you will find that they are often paying something close to 1% (i.e., a 1 MM brownstone is paying 10K in taxes) when in reality, they should be paying 21K (this is based on the understanding that the effective property tax rate is about 2.1%). What will happen immediately after a revaluation is that every home (excluding those in other arrangements, such as PILOTs and other tax abatement schemes) will be reset to pay the same effective tax rate. So, a home in Greenville or Lafayette currently 5K, but worth only $200,000, will see a reduction in their tax bill and will now pay 4.1K.

Posted on: 2015/11/19 22:48
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#33
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/7 23:24
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1178
Offline
Obviously no one is as smart as Dan Levin. But most of us perceive the development downtown as increasing property values, especially downtown. Yes there are other factors at play and conceivably it could reach a glut where properties crash. That is why I said "to the extent" which you omitted. But we've seen where the prices have gone.

And it will hurt downtown, because downtown properties are the ones where housing price will increase the most with the development. The developments downtown will increase property values of downtown properties more than they will increase the values of properties in Greenville. So when the reval comes the downtown properties will pay more, and the abated properties, which have brought about the rise at least in part, don't pay any increase.

Posted on: 2015/11/19 22:38
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 18:13
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1134
Offline
your statement that "these new developments are driving an increase in property values" is an opinion at best bordering on pure fiction. numerous other factors come into play.

and this statement does not make sense - " If they are abated they keep their current rate while surrounding properties pay more. To that extent they actually help taxpayers outside of downtown at the expense of the downtown taxpayers."



Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
If the city is getting more money from the PILOTS then they don't make taxes higher for everyone else. Yvonne keeps repeating the mantra "They are not ratables" but that doesn't answer the question. Again, the city gets more, the county gets less, and the schools get none. The state aid makes up most if not all of the revenue from the PILOT for the schools.

There is value to having property as part of the ratable base because a) if there is a tax increase, it is spread out more thinly (although it also means that cuts are spread out more thinly) and b) to the extent these new developments are driving an increase in property values, their value would be reflected in the eventual revaluation. If they are abated they keep their current rate while surrounding properties pay more. To that extent they actually help taxpayers outside of downtown at the expense of the downtown taxpayers.

Posted on: 2015/11/19 22:33
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/7/21 23:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 199
Offline
Not to drift off topic too much, but does anyone know how an abated tax rate transfers to a new owner during a resale of an abated property? Are "taxes" reassessed when the abated property is transferred? I heard from someone that the abatement rate (generally 1.65% of assessed value) is applied to the property's sale price when the property is transferred to a new owner, but this doesn't seem to make sense since most assessments are below market value.

Posted on: 2015/11/19 22:28
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/6/7 23:24
From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1178
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Joshua, I realize you are benefiting from an abatement. But stop with the nonsense. After the 1988 reval the city went from $800 million to around $6.5 billion in ratables. The tax rate dropped for $212 per thousand to around $30 per thousand. We are below the $6.5 billion figure because the new development is tax abated. It is not added to the county's formula when the county strikes the budget. It is still one dollar for every $5 million needed to raise taxes. It is the reason our taxes increased to around $75 per thousand. Yes, spending has increased especially under Fulop, just check the city's website on budgets. But our ratable base on paper is less than 1988 which is totally ridiculous.


As I've said before, I have owned both conventionally taxed property and abated property. The abated property, a 2 bedroom apartment pays more than the rateable property, a 3 story brownstone. Maybe that will change at the reval. The abated property is about a 10% discount off what it would be conventionally taxed.

In any event both properties pay more than you did for a brownstone on the park.

Posted on: 2015/11/19 22:15
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#29
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/12/28 8:51
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 62
Offline
JPHurst, the school is getting 'none' because the city council decided to regardless of the city's sources of revenue. If the city had no pilot revenue, the school funding outcome would be the same, if not worse. However it is nearly none as the city did pony up another 2% of school funding not too long ago.

As for city finances, you touched upon this earlier. The city is in no position to make a significant increase in its contribution to the school district. The city has a state imposed spending, tax, and debt limit caps. That is not true of the school district. Additionally, the city is not permitted, per statute to maintain a budget surplus. However, it is ok for school districts to do so.

By law, both are to publicly disclose a budget and an audit, annually. The city complies, however, the school district is lacking...sorely so.

Posted on: 2015/11/19 19:40
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Wishful, just ignore bodi as what he writes is inaccurate. There are not two different tax rates, or percentages as he asserts. The revaluation affects the assessed (equalized)value of the property. The tax rate is a constant value for all.

The fallacy is that he was implying that downtowners pay a lower rate (%) and that Bergen Lafayette was carrying water for them, much like I am carrying water for Warren Buffet who pay s amuch lowerincome tax rate than I.


You are really showing your ignorance, or your malice. I can't decide which. Of course everybody is paying the same rate right now. But everyone is paying the same rate based on screwed up valuations. You are insane if you are actually arguing that downtown is not under assessed. Of course, I already caught you in a previous lie when you tried to argue that rate is meaningless and that total tax paid should be the basis for comparison.

Posted on: 2015/11/19 19:21
Print Top


Re: Explanation of abatements
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3201
Offline
Hey, Wishful_Thinking, I figured out why you quoted that rate. That rate is based on the market value to assessed value ratio, which is 30.02. If you multiply the rate you quoted (7.434) by .3002, you will end up at the effective tax rate, which is ~2.2, as mentioned before.

This conversation elucidates a point I was trying to make: the current system of assessed values, equalization rates, etc. is an obfuscation of what should be a simple and straight forward thing: property value * property tax rate = property tax levy.

Of course, people like Ralph_Abutts would love nothing more than keeping the current status quo, where DTJC is criminally under assessed. There is no simpler way to illustrate the current situation than putting it this way: the current system assumes that all properties in JC have appreciated in the same manner since the last reval of 1988.

Now, let those words sink in. Who could rationally argue and agree with that premise!? It would be disingenuous and wholly dishonest to believe DTJC and waterfront properties have appreciated at the same rate as Greenville, Lafayette or the Heights.

Posted on: 2015/11/19 19:18
Print Top




« 1 (2) 3 »




[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