heights wrote:
[quote]
Hopefully this will result in more city services, equipment, and employees.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
'If the judge in the Realty Appraisal case rules that its contract is valid, [JC officials] argue, the reval could proceed immediately. And that's precisely why he shouldn't be allowed to oversee the trial, [JC officials] argue. "The judge knows his taxes could decrease while long time Jersey City residents could see a huge tax increase, depending on his ruling..."'

Please... This is really getting embarrassing - I supported Fulop, but am increasingly souring on him and less likely to look favorably on any Gubernatorial run he has in mind, if he keeps blatantly favoring one group of JC residents over all the others. It's time for the reval, and time for a) everyone to pay their fair share; and b) to match the city's expenditures to the tax levy.

Stringer wrote:

Judge denies Jersey City's bid for another delay in reval trial

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
February 16, 2016 at 3:46 PM

JERSEY CITY — The closely watched trial between Jersey City and a West New York revaluation firm began today following a last-minute effort by the city to stall proceedings for another 45 days.

Hudson County Superior Court Judge Francis B Schultz ruled against the city this morning after its attorneys argued that they needed time to review 60,000 emails they recently found on the city's servers that they believe are integral to the case.

Schultz said the city's request to re-open discovery in the trial came too late and didn't satisfy state law that forbids discovery from being re-opened except under exceptional circumstances. The emails have been on the city's servers since before the lawsuit was filed and should have been accessed prior to today, he said.

"The city just didn't look hard enough," he said. "Somebody was very, very lazy in the city's camp."

Schultz's decision paved the way for opening statements to begin. The city's attorneys are giving their opening argument this afternoon.

Read more:  http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... delay_in_jersey_city.html

Monroe wrote:
Jersey City tries to make the case that the judge should leave, because he owns in Port Liberte and may pay less because of a reval. I guess JC should recuse because Mayor Fulop owns in the Heights and his may go up in a reval?

JC_User wrote:
...

To neutralize the potential argument against him while avoiding putting off local JC voters, would he not restart the reval process before the primary/election, but ensure that the results are not available/posted until after it? But maybe that's what you were saying all long.

Given that it will take a year to ramp up and then execute a reval it should not be difficult to cause such a timing.

JCMan8 wrote:
Governor elections won't take place until November 2017. I bet Fulop will do everything humanly possible to delay this "sticker shock" until after that date.

bodhipooh wrote:
From everything I have read, I am pretty certain the tax rate will end up around 2.1%. All those DTJC homeowners paying effective rates of under 1% will be shellshocked when they get a bill of that is over double their current bills. You could almost feel bad for them, but then again you remember that they have enjoyed the gravy train for far too long, and much of that against someone else's benefit.

As for effect, consider that every 100K in a 30-year mortgage translates to about $450 / month, so 5.4K per year. A difference of 11K in property tax is the equivalent of a 200K mortgage difference.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Remember, the city (along with the school board and county) set a tax levy, not a tax rate. If we get a reval, and assesed values more than double, the city will collect too much money based on the current effective 2% tax rate. Therefore, the tax rate will go down so the city only collects its tax levy. No one knows what the new tax rate will be until they complete the reval. I suppose it's possible to estimate but it would take a lot of estimations and assumptions.

...
The assumption is that the Jersey City equalization rate is in the right ballpark City-wide. I'd buy a 30% increase on total value of ratables, but not double. Using 2% as a baseline is reasonable - if anything it's likely to come in under that number on an individual downtown property.

Maybe I wasnt clear in my past post, but I agree that the 2% baseline is way too high and is likley to be a lot lower in a reval (maybe less than 1%). I'm not sure I'm understanding the 30% increase on total assessed value... More in the ballpark would be a 230% increase average. Relember, the reval will mean assessed value = market value (in theory). If assesed values are currently only 30% of market value on average, it will take a ~230% increase to get back to 100%.

What you are describing is what the equalization rate does - and is baked into the effective tax rate of ~2%..

JC was assessed at $6b city-wide in 1988. The equalization rate basically says that it is 27.63% of true (current) value $21.6b. The effective rate change will be proportional to difference between actual current value and that $21.6b.

Column [2]*[3]/100 =[1] in attached link.

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2015/hudson.pdf

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Remember, the city (along with the school board and county) set a tax levy, not a tax rate. If we get a reval, and assesed values more than double, the city will collect too much money based on the current effective 2% tax rate. Therefore, the tax rate will go down so the city only collects its tax levy. No one knows what the new tax rate will be until they complete the reval. I suppose it's possible to estimate but it would take a lot of estimations and assumptions.

...
The assumption is that the Jersey City equalization rate is in the right ballpark City-wide. I'd buy a 30% increase on total value of ratables, but not double. Using 2% as a baseline is reasonable - if anything it's likely to come in under that number on an individual downtown property.

Maybe I wasnt clear in my past post, but I agree that the 2% baseline is way too high and is likley to be a lot lower in a reval (maybe less than 1%). I'm not sure I'm understanding the 30% increase on total assessed value... More in the ballpark would be a 230% increase average. Relember, the reval will mean assessed value = market value (in theory). If assesed values are currently only 30% of market value on average, it will take a ~230% increase to get back to 100%.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Remember, the city (along with the school board and county) set a tax levy, not a tax rate. If we get a reval, and assesed values more than double, the city will collect too much money based on the current effective 2% tax rate. Therefore, the tax rate will go down so the city only collects its tax levy. No one knows what the new tax rate will be until they complete the reval. I suppose it's possible to estimate but it would take a lot of estimations and assumptions.

...
The assumption is that the Jersey City equalization rate is in the right ballpark City-wide. I'd buy a 30% increase on total value of ratables, but not double. Using 2% as a baseline is reasonable - if anything it's likely to come in under that number on an individual downtown property.

JCGuys wrote:
Remember, the city (along with the school board and county) set a tax levy, not a tax rate. If we get a reval, and assesed values more than double, the city will collect too much money based on the current effective 2% tax rate. Therefore, the tax rate will go down so the city only collects its tax levy. No one knows what the new tax rate will be until they complete the reval. I suppose it's possible to estimate but it would take a lot of estimations and assumptions.

dtjcview wrote:
Ballpark - it would rise to ~2% of property value. If someone is paying $11k on a $1m million property, their taxes could double to ~$22k.

One theory put forward by Fulop and others is that extra $10k forms a major part of affordability - ~25% of a $500k mortgage yearly payment. Overnight your $1m property may be worth $750k.

Quote:

AlexC wrote:
Wouldn't taxes on homes in Hamilton Park that are now valued at ~1 million, go way up? I pay about 11k in taxes, how much would that go up? 40k?

Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Does anyone have an idea of how fast the reval would get restarted? And once it is restarted how quickly it would be completed? I do think this is going to have a huge impact on the value of many homes downtown.

What type of impact are you expecting?

tern wrote:
But it's a chicken and egg situation here, if my $2 million (allegedly what its worth) brownstone is going to attract a $40,000 tax bill, then it's not going to be worth $2 million anymore, I think at the high end in particular the reval will have a real dampening impact on house prices downtown.

Robin.

AlexC wrote:
Wouldn't taxes on homes in Hamilton Park that are now valued at ~1 million, go way up? I pay about 11k in taxes, how much would that go up? 40k?

Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Does anyone have an idea of how fast the reval would get restarted? And once it is restarted how quickly it would be completed? I do think this is going to have a huge impact on the value of many homes downtown.

What type of impact are you expecting?

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

ProdigalSon wrote:
Does anyone have an idea of how fast the reval would get restarted? And once it is restarted how quickly it would be completed? I do think this is going to have a huge impact on the value of many homes downtown.

What type of impact are you expecting?

ProdigalSon wrote:
Does anyone have an idea of how fast the reval would get restarted? And once it is restarted how quickly it would be completed? I do think this is going to have a huge impact on the value of many homes downtown.