hamhock wrote:
How out of whack is it, minus the (obvious) fairness issue? Like, if Downtown were an actual separate city on its own, would the property taxes be too low to sustain public services for itself?

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
I don't see Christie having an anti-Fulop, anti-Jersey City agenda.

Really?! You can?t see how Christie has an anti-Fulop agenda??

Sweeney is Christie?s guy. Christie is trying to help him out. Both of them are huge piles of garbage posing as humans.

Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
I'm sure that people here can think of ways that Christie has hurt (or not helped) Jersey City, but Christie has given corporations relocating to Jersey City large tax breaks and has given large tax breaks to Jersey City developments.

Journal Squared, for instance, is getting $93 million in tax breaks.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _journal_square_resi.html

I know I can be a broken record on state aid, but Christie has preserved and slightly increased Jersey City's education aid, even while Jersey City is overaided and numerous districts across NJ are severely underaided.

Christie has had Matthew Boxer's 2010 report on the unfairness of tax abatements on his desk for years and has done nothing to reform NJ's PILOT policies. Since JC exploits the PILOT law like no other city, this can be read as another favor to JC.

Christie has ignored some of his own Republican allies, like Sen. Mike Doherty and Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, to preserve JC's state aid and maintain the status quo PILOT law.

There are going to be people who believe Fulop's protests about "bullying" and see ordering the reval as Christie just trying to hurt Fulop, but the "hurt Fulop" theory looks bogus to me.

I know how weird it is for an egotistical monster like Christie to do something that looks like Good Governance, but we are all going to have to suspend our disbelief on this one.

Christie gives all companies relocating tax breaks. That isn?t JC specific.

While Christie is correct that a reval needs to happen, the timing is specific and the city was singled out specifically.

stateaidguy wrote:
I don't see Christie having an anti-Fulop, anti-Jersey City agenda.

stateaidguy wrote:
I'm sure that people here can think of ways that Christie has hurt (or not helped) Jersey City, but Christie has given corporations relocating to Jersey City large tax breaks and has given large tax breaks to Jersey City developments.

Journal Squared, for instance, is getting $93 million in tax breaks.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _journal_square_resi.html

I know I can be a broken record on state aid, but Christie has preserved and slightly increased Jersey City's education aid, even while Jersey City is overaided and numerous districts across NJ are severely underaided.

Christie has had Matthew Boxer's 2010 report on the unfairness of tax abatements on his desk for years and has done nothing to reform NJ's PILOT policies. Since JC exploits the PILOT law like no other city, this can be read as another favor to JC.

Christie has ignored some of his own Republican allies, like Sen. Mike Doherty and Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, to preserve JC's state aid and maintain the status quo PILOT law.

There are going to be people who believe Fulop's protests about "bullying" and see ordering the reval as Christie just trying to hurt Fulop, but the "hurt Fulop" theory looks bogus to me.

I know how weird it is for an egotistical monster like Christie to do something that looks like Good Governance, but we are all going to have to suspend our disbelief on this one.

hero69 wrote:
is any governor considered raising the gasoline tax and using the increased monies to reduce property taxes and/or better fund government needs. isn't nj gas absurdly cheap!

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Comps of recent property sales in that area ?

This does not always work, There was a property sold a few months ago down the block from me for 300k and another abandon property 8 months ago that sold for 40k.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

Comps of recent property sales in that area ?

This does not always work, There was a property sold a few months ago down the block from me for 300k and another abandon property 8 months ago that sold for 40k.

Comps of recent property sales in that area ?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
????.., they are continuing the gross inequity of jersey city property taxes where the poorest areas of the city pay to subsidize the wealthiest.

I see people on nj.com saying the same thing. Where is this happening? Below are a few similar properties from all over Jersey City?. 25 X 100 lot, 2 story, 2 unit. Is the argument that houses sell for a lot more in highly developed parts of the city so their taxes should be higher? And in the under developed area?s their taxes should be much lower? Don?t we all use the same city services in the same way? Gee the under developed area?s seem to use them more?fire, emt, and police response.

That's EXACTLY how property taxes work everywhere else in the US. Property taxes are based on property values. This is not some sort of novel idea. It is, essentially, a FLAT TAX, where the same rate is assessed against the value of each property.

The argument that poorer areas use as much, or more, city services could be extended to cover other forms of taxation. Why should I pay for school taxes if I don't have kids in public school? Why should I pay for Obamacare if I never get sick? Why shouldn't the poor woman with three kids have to pay more for school taxes than the one with a single kid? We don't do taxes that way in this country. More expensive houses pay more taxes, just like higher earners pay more in taxes that lower earners, even though they likely rely less on government largesse. That's just the way it works.

Fulop bullsh*t aside, it doesn't seem fair to me to have your taxes raised due to property appreciation. That's a paper gain not a cash gain and yet you have to pay the taxes.

But hey, government gotta get paiiiiiiiiiiiiid

brewster wrote:


Your basic error is calling it tax on appreciation. It's not. It's a tax on VALUE.

They're getting the same services from the city that taxes are supposed to pay for. If staying where you are is more meaningful than taking the cash and moving, it's easy to extract the cash to pay taxes. But having your cake and eating it too is unfair.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
it'd be much fairer to have the taxes on real estate appreciation be paid upon a sale, not before. Market value appreciation is not cash in hand and yet taxes are cash out of pocket.

But it'd be much fairer to have the taxes on real estate appreciation be paid upon a sale, not before. Market value appreciation is not cash in hand and yet taxes are cash out of pocket.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Fulop bullsh*t aside, it doesn't seem fair to me to have your taxes raised due to property appreciation. That's a paper gain not a cash gain and yet you have to pay the taxes.

But hey, government gotta get paiiiiiiiiiiiiid

Yeah they do it like that in CA and other places, where taxes only go up upon sale. It's called "welcome neighbor, you're fucked!" You have people owning identical properties with the new resident paying taxes many times that of the longtime one. How fair is that?

Over the 19 years I've been here, on average properties have appreciated each year far more than their annual taxes. People gotta suck it up. And making taxes fair is a completely different issue from reducing gov't waste. I'm all for the latter, but all these excuses for tax unfairness is ridiculous.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Fulop bullsh*t aside, it doesn't seem fair to me to have your taxes raised due to property appreciation. That's a paper gain not a cash gain and yet you have to pay the taxes.

But hey, government gotta get paiiiiiiiiiiiiid

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
????.., they are continuing the gross inequity of jersey city property taxes where the poorest areas of the city pay to subsidize the wealthiest.

I see people on nj.com saying the same thing. Where is this happening? Below are a few similar properties from all over Jersey City?. 25 X 100 lot, 2 story, 2 unit. Is the argument that houses sell for a lot more in highly developed parts of the city so their taxes should be higher? And in the under developed area?s their taxes should be much lower? Don?t we all use the same city services in the same way? Gee the under developed area?s seem to use them more?fire, emt, and police response.

That's EXACTLY how property taxes work everywhere else in the US. Property taxes are based on property values. This is not some sort of novel idea. It is, essentially, a FLAT TAX, where the same rate is assessed against the value of each property.

The argument that poorer areas use as much, or more, city services could be extended to cover other forms of taxation. Why should I pay for school taxes if I don't have kids in public school? Why should I pay for Obamacare if I never get sick? Why shouldn't the poor woman with three kids have to pay more for school taxes than the one with a single kid? We don't do taxes that way in this country. More expensive houses pay more taxes, just like higher earners pay more in taxes that lower earners, even though they likely rely less on government largesse. That's just the way it works.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
????.., they are continuing the gross inequity of jersey city property taxes where the poorest areas of the city pay to subsidize the wealthiest.

I see people on nj.com saying the same thing. Where is this happening? Below are a few similar properties from all over Jersey City?. 25 X 100 lot, 2 story, 2 unit. Is the argument that houses sell for a lot more in highly developed parts of the city so their taxes should be higher? And in the under developed area?s their taxes should be much lower? Don?t we all use the same city services in the same way? Gee the under developed area?s seem to use them more?fire, emt, and police response.

That's EXACTLY how property taxes work everywhere else in the US. Property taxes are based on property values. This is not some sort of novel idea. It is, essentially, a FLAT TAX, where the same rate is assessed against the value of each property.

The argument that poorer areas use as much, or more, city services could be extended to cover other forms of taxation. Why should I pay for school taxes if I don't have kids in public school? Why should I pay for Obamacare if I never get sick? Why shouldn't the poor woman with three kids have to pay more for school taxes than the one with a single kid? We don't do taxes that way in this country. More expensive houses pay more taxes, just like higher earners pay more in taxes that lower earners, even though they likely rely less on government largesse. That's just the way it works.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
????.., they are continuing the gross inequity of jersey city property taxes where the poorest areas of the city pay to subsidize the wealthiest.

I see people on nj.com saying the same thing. Where is this happening? Below are a few similar properties from all over Jersey City?. 25 X 100 lot, 2 story, 2 unit. Is the argument that houses sell for a lot more in highly developed parts of the city so their taxes should be higher? And in the under developed area?s their taxes should be much lower? Don?t we all use the same city services in the same way? Gee the under developed area?s seem to use them more?fire, emt, and police response.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
I can't believe that Fulop would waste Jersey City (and state) resources fighting this.

I don't know how the appeals process works, but any objective person (who understands math) will see how inequitable JC's taxes are and will side with the state.

The appeal will be futile and at best just delay the inevitable. The appeal will just prolong uncertainty about how high taxes will rise downtown and then, by causing delay, just let real estate prices diverge even more from official assessments.

Like a few other people here, I don't understand why there isn't any fury about the lack of equitable taxation from people who live in sections of JC where values haven't increased that much since 1988. There are people who are overpaying by thousands of dollars a year.

Good point, Fulop is using city funds on legal fees to stop a reval. These funds could have gone into the city to improve it. All so he could kick the can down the road for the next mayor.

Exactly!

Gov Christie is absolutely pulling politics with this maneuver. He wants Fulop to take a hit so that his buddy Sweeney can be the next in line. That doesn't negate the fact that Fulop is playing politics with the wallets of those in BeLa, Greenville, Journal Square and the Heights.

It's one giant pissing contest which means there's at least two dicks involved...

Fulop should take the hit, he's the one who's using city funds to delay a much needed reval for political reasons. Sure, Christie doesn't like Fulop but this still needs to be done.