JCGuys wrote:
...
What we should have is mandatory rolling revals to prevent these imbalances from forming in the first place.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
@Brewster - zero sum might extend to property values if JC was the only place on the planet where people buy property. Money can quite easily go elsewhere. And while overtaxed properties will certainly become more affordable - it doesn't mean they'll significantly appreciate in value if demand doesn't increase. As far as billions goes - there are ~1600 properties for sale on Trulia in 07302 at an average of $600k. 10k+ homes losing $100k in value isn't outrageous.

Read what Bodhipooh said, same as what I've said in this thread before, it's all about the monthly budget for most buyers. Lower taxes means more money available to spend on a mortgage. So after taxes drop, people will think they can snap up places that are cheap AND have low taxes, but given a steady demand, that leads to higher prices as people bid properties up.
...

dtjcview wrote:
@Brewster - zero sum might extend to property values if JC was the only place on the planet where people buy property. Money can quite easily go elsewhere. And while overtaxed properties will certainly become more affordable - it doesn't mean they'll significantly appreciate in value if demand doesn't increase. As far as billions goes - there are ~1600 properties for sale on Trulia in 07302 at an average of $600k. 10k+ homes losing $100k in value isn't outrageous.

dtjcview wrote:
There is some truth to the fear that a sudden reval could wipe millions if not billions off property values. Property tax is a zero-sum game, but valuations are not.

dtjcview wrote:
There is some truth to the fear that a sudden reval could wipe millions if not billions off property values. Property tax is a zero-sum game, but valuations are not. And if values plummet - the first thing people will do - is start appealing their taxes.

Is there a precedent for say a rolling reval - Top/bottom 10% first, next 10% and so on? That way we don't risk a sell-off.

SOS wrote:
[quote]

Why not give credit to the Jersey Journal since they gave you your information?

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... y.html#incart_2box_hudson

Yvonne wrote:
Now there is no quote button, I knew there would be a reval down the road but the only way to soften the blow would be to stop the tax abatements give-away. That is the one thing I have been talking about. The other thing that made the reval worse in 1988, was the transfer of commercial taxes on homeowners. Commercial business including the Jersey Journal building received a major reduction in taxes.

Yvonne wrote:
The reval court date has been post phoned, actually, it was slated to start early this year. The new date is now 2/16/16.

Yvonne wrote:
First, I never said to stop the reval, I spoke about what happened in 1988. I personally believe Fulop put off the reval so he would not get flak from his supporters once their taxes go up while he is giving 30 tax abatements. Second, when your taxes go up you are in a bind unless you have cash available. The normal thing is to do a tax appeal but in order to do a tax appeal you must pay the taxes first. That is the catch. People in 1988 were paying $2,000 to $3,000 in taxes and saw the bill go up to as much as $16,000, which was the amount I received. Those without the funds did not appeal and lost their homes, this in turn lead to Schundler asking Trenton to change the laws on the reserve on uncollected taxes. It became a vicious cycle. On the plus side, a friend I know brought a beautiful renovated home on Varick Street for $150,000. There was an abundance of homes for sale.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I truly feel sorry for you Brewster, in your attempt to smear me, you are clueless about what I stated. If you go any any city's budget, there is a line item always on sheet 3 called "Reserve for uncollected taxes." The state requires all taxes to be paid including people who fail to pay theirs. Let me give you an example - if ten people went to dinner and only 9 paid, the restaurant still would require a payment for 10th. That means the 9 who paid must cough up the money for the 10th person. Taxes are treated the same way, we the taxpayers must pay for taxpayers who do not pay their bills. Before, the bulk lien sale became law, every mayor had to place a reserve in the budget for taxpayers who do not pay. After the 1988 reval, that figure grew to around $30 million. To be honest, I don't recall the exact figure but it was around that or higher. Every $1.00 is $5 million to be raised.
By selling the tax bulk lien as a unit, Schundler was able to place that money in the budget instead of raising the funds from taxpayers. This is the reason, Schundler needed state law. He was able to cut taxes just using this method.
Honestly, I did not favor this law, because it only required six months behind in taxes before the city sold your lien. But it had an effect of wiping out the reserve required by taxpayers.
Interesting, I just check the last budget, Fulop did not do a tax lien and we the public put in close to ten million in reserve. When I checked Healy's budgets he had around $1.6 million in reserve. So I am now guessing Fulop is holding onto those properties as a special bundle for developers. I am not wrong. If you want to go after me, first learn the subject.

How does any of that contradict what I said, or have any relevance to the reval? This digression started with your claim that somehow this securitization made things worse for people already in tax arrears due to the 88 reval, and made them "lose their homes".

I don't even understand what it is you want. To stop the reval? that's insane. There's gross injustice going on right now, a very regressive situation where the wealthy are paying a far lower tax than the working class. Whatever jihad you have against PILOTS has nothing to do with the city needing a reval desperately. Could the rate come down if you got your way with abatements? possibly, but we'd still need to equalize assessments.

Yvonne wrote:
I truly feel sorry for you Brewster, in your attempt to smear me, you are clueless about what I stated. If you go any any city's budget, there is a line item always on sheet 3 called "Reserve for uncollected taxes." The state requires all taxes to be paid including people who fail to pay theirs. Let me give you an example - if ten people went to dinner and only 9 paid, the restaurant still would require a payment for 10th. That means the 9 who paid must cough up the money for the 10th person. Taxes are treated the same way, we the taxpayers must pay for taxpayers who do not pay their bills. Before, the bulk lien sale became law, every mayor had to place a reserve in the budget for taxpayers who do not pay. After the 1988 reval, that figure grew to around $30 million. To be honest, I don't recall the exact figure but it was around that or higher. Every $1.00 is $5 million to be raised.
By selling the tax bulk lien as a unit, Schundler was able to place that money in the budget instead of raising the funds from taxpayers. This is the reason, Schundler needed state law. He was able to cut taxes just using this method.
Honestly, I did not favor this law, because it only required six months behind in taxes before the city sold your lien. But it had an effect of wiping out the reserve required by taxpayers.
Interesting, I just check the last budget, Fulop did not do a tax lien and we the public put in close to ten million in reserve. When I checked Healy's budgets he had around $1.6 million in reserve. So I am now guessing Fulop is holding onto those properties as a special bundle for developers. I am not wrong. If you want to go after me, first learn the subject.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
[quote]
This story was so big, the selling of liens, that I conclude you are a newbie who did not live here during that period of time. Fulop's supporters are such phonies.

No one doubts liens were sold, that happens all the time as a normal matter of city business. We're disputing the story about "people losing their homes" as a result of the reval. If they did they were underwater and they had no equity in their property, and therefore didn't own squat, the bank did. That doesn't describe typical longtime residents.

FYI, when a property is seized and sold to satisfy a lien, the city and lienholder don't get the whole value, they get what they're owed and the owner (or bank) gets the rest. But that doesn't sound as apocalyptic as "people lost their homes!!"

Yvonne wrote:
[quote]
This story was so big, the selling of liens, that I conclude you are a newbie who did not live here during that period of time. Fulop's supporters are such phonies.

papadage wrote:
Just pointing out that you are a lazy loudmouth. You also claimed there were real news stories of Muslims celebrating 9/11. Your track record is suspect.

And for your information, you old bag, I lived here all my life. I was born in Christ Hospital, went to PS11 and Prep, and was in the pilot classes for both the G&T program and then the first AEP class. I do not need to prove my bona fides to a crank.

You made the affirmative statement. Prove it.