jcgurl wrote:
I would definitely love to hear anyone's thoughts on when to sell... before, during or after?

jcgurl wrote:
Thanks Dan L and Brewster for the links but they appear to access the same database that doesn't work..............

SOS wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Hoboken isn't JC, but there was a lot of apocalyptic talk before their recent reval, and the world did not in fact end.

JCgurl http://tax1.co.monmouth.nj.us/cgi-bin ... &out_type=0&district=0906

Hoboken is a mile square city - it's much more homogeneous in terms of geographic distribution of housing value compared to JC. Hoboken isn't JC and you can't really compare the two.

Monroe wrote:

The point is that revals result in revenue stable funds going to the city; some gain, some lose.

JSleeze wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Agreeing with bodhipooh. My question though is why is JC's tax rate similar to that of the suburbs? That seems off. NYC's is much less than 1%, while the suburbs are around 2%.

Should taxes in a dense urban city with shitty schools be the same rate as a suburb with great schools, etc?

This generalization is unfounded because suburban tax rates vary tremendously.

Taxes depend on what percent of the tax base is residential, how many students are in the public schools, how much aid the municipality and school district get from the state, how rich the place is generally, and what kind of tax toleration the town has.

Millburn's Equalized Tax Rate is 1.8 because the town is rich, has a big mall, and actually only spends $15,600 per pupil. (Millburn gets virtually no state aid. Its spending is roughly at Adequacy)

West Orange's ETR is 3.8 because the town gets virtually no state aid despite having high need ($700 per student), isn't that rich (in fact its real estate market is in clear decline) wants to spend $17,700 per student on its schools anyway, doesn't have that much non-residential property.

West Orange's taxes would be even worse if it didn't have a large private school population.

Glen Ridge's taxes are 3.1 because it has virtually no non-residential property, a quarter of its population is in the public schools, and it gets virtually no state aid. Even though GR is affluent, its taxpayers can't keep up and school spending is only $14,600 per student. (this is below Adequacy)

Bloomfield's taxes are 3.6 because doesn't have a lot of non-residential property, and is ripped off on state aid ($3100 a student for a relatively poor population). Bloomfield isn't high spending though; its schools spend only $13,100 per student.

Bloomfield's spending is way below Adequacy.

I could go on and on....

Your knowledge and explanation of the system is quite impressive, but you miss the point: the system is broken. Sure, suburbs are being overburdened by underfunded urban districts - but before we go about rearranging the furniture, why don't we address the gaping hole in the roof (through which all of our $$ is being sucked out): the need for consolidation.

There are waaaaaayyyyy too many school districts in NJ (603 vs. 28 for Maryland.) There are waaaaaayyyyy too many municipalities with far too many overpriced police chiefs and underutilized cops, school administrators, public works employees, et al. There is no need for 2/3 of the towns in NJ and probably 3/4 of the school districts to exist. Many (most?) services currently being provided by towns of 5,000 or fewer people (some of which showed up on the NJ.com list of towns with police chiefs making more than $200k) could be provided by their counties or in conjunction with a neighbor via consolidation or shared services. NJ is the most densely populated state in the country - ideal for reaping economies of scale and efficiencies given the relatively close proximity people have with each other - and yet we choose to go in the exact opposite direction. Baffling, really.

brewster wrote:
Hoboken isn't JC, but there was a lot of apocalyptic talk before their recent reval, and the world did not in fact end.

JCgurl http://tax1.co.monmouth.nj.us/cgi-bin ... &out_type=0&district=0906

jcgurl wrote:
Well, if that happens, we're outta here. My hubby got laid off a while back and we can barely make it as is. I wonder if we should cash out before the real estate values go down. Presumably, there will increased supply of property for sale once the valuation kicks in?

Also, can anyone tell me where to check the assessed value of my property? This link doesn't appear to work:

http://www.njactb.org/

jcgurl wrote:
So, does anyone have any thoughts on how the reval will impact property values and how drastic tax increases could be? Has anyone experienced this process in other municipalities?

135jc wrote:
My point Brewster was that the abated properties downtown are paying their fair share. They are not getting some free ride as you theorize. It will be the older properties that feel the pain whether it be downtown or elsewhere.

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Agreeing with bodhipooh. My question though is why is JC's tax rate similar to that of the suburbs? That seems off. NYC's is much less than 1%, while the suburbs are around 2%.

Should taxes in a dense urban city with shitty schools be the same rate as a suburb with great schools, etc?

This generalization is unfounded because suburban tax rates vary tremendously.

Taxes depend on what percent of the tax base is residential, how many students are in the public schools, how much aid the municipality and school district get from the state, how rich the place is generally, and what kind of tax toleration the town has.

Millburn's Equalized Tax Rate is 1.8 because the town is rich, has a big mall, and actually only spends $15,600 per pupil. (Millburn gets virtually no state aid. Its spending is roughly at Adequacy)

West Orange's ETR is 3.8 because the town gets virtually no state aid despite having high need ($700 per student), isn't that rich (in fact its real estate market is in clear decline) wants to spend $17,700 per student on its schools anyway, doesn't have that much non-residential property.

West Orange's taxes would be even worse if it didn't have a large private school population.

Glen Ridge's taxes are 3.1 because it has virtually no non-residential property, a quarter of its population is in the public schools, and it gets virtually no state aid. Even though GR is affluent, its taxpayers can't keep up and school spending is only $14,600 per student. (this is below Adequacy)

Bloomfield's taxes are 3.6 because doesn't have a lot of non-residential property, and is ripped off on state aid ($3100 a student for a relatively poor population). Bloomfield isn't high spending though; its schools spend only $13,100 per student.

Bloomfield's spending is way below Adequacy.

I could go on and on....

tommyc_37 wrote:
Agreeing with bodhipooh. My question though is why is JC's tax rate similar to that of the suburbs? That seems off. NYC's is much less than 1%, while the suburbs are around 2%.

Should taxes in a dense urban city with shitty schools be the same rate as a suburb with great schools, etc?

tommyc_37 wrote:
Agreeing with bodhipooh. My question though is why is JC's tax rate similar to that of the suburbs? That seems off. NYC's is much less than 1%, while the suburbs are around 2%.

Should taxes in a dense urban city with shitty schools be the same rate as a suburb with great schools, etc?

bodhipooh wrote:

If you live across the river, even if your taxable NY income is around 300K as a couple, you are looking at about 10K in additional income tax. Assuming a 1.5 MM property, you are at worst breaking even, and at best saving money, by living across the river in NYC. This is particularly true if you factor in things like better schools, and city services, when compared to JC. The crazy property taxes in NJ are slowly erasing some of the reasons to live on this side.

Ultimately, we need to get this reval done so we can remove all the confusion and uncertainty about the local RE market. Incredibly, it seems like a lot of homeowners are completely unaware of the looming issue, and how it will affect them.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
So...safe to say that once the reval happens, property values in DTJC are going to decline overall -- right? Or am I over simplifying it?

I can't imagine owning a decent 2-3 bedroom property in DTJC and paying $20k in taxes, every year, for very little services or low quality services. Poor schools. Being woken up at 3am 3x per week by garbage trucks. What exactly would I be receiving for $20,000 each year? That's insane.

A comparable property in Brooklyn would be paying $5k/year.

With taxes that high, I struggle to understand why somebody would consider buying in JC over other similar neighborhoods in the area, specifically across the river?

Which leads me to my (I guess obvious?) prediction that prices will simmer down in JC post-reval.

If you buy across the river you are stuck paying the NYC income tax, which is substantial. But I agree that once people realize what will happen, prices will fall. Good time to sell now.

tommyc_37 wrote:
So...safe to say that once the reval happens, property values in DTJC are going to decline overall -- right? Or am I over simplifying it?

I can't imagine owning a decent 2-3 bedroom property in DTJC and paying $20k in taxes, every year, for very little services or low quality services. Poor schools. Being woken up at 3am 3x per week by garbage trucks. What exactly would I be receiving for $20,000 each year? That's insane.

A comparable property in Brooklyn would be paying $5k/year.

With taxes that high, I struggle to understand why somebody would consider buying in JC over other similar neighborhoods in the area, specifically across the river?

Which leads me to my (I guess obvious?) prediction that prices will simmer down in JC post-reval.

135jc wrote:
Yes it exists in downtown but downtown has all the new construction so far. These properties are assessed much closer to their true value. Once the revale occurs the building with abatements will actually be getting a true discount compared to other properties

135jc wrote:
Hamhock. That's is a joke right? The new downtown properties are supporting the city. It's certianly not the 1980s assessed properties paying taxes on 25% of their actual market value