bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
People are forgetting the tax rate will drop, now it is around $75.00 per thousand. A home assessed at $100,000 is paying $7,500. The tax rate will drop. I believe Hoboken tax rate was low. I do remember reading homes that were assessed at $350,000 were paying around $6,000 after their 2013 reval.

You obviously don't have a clue as to how property taxes are levied. NO ONE is paying an effective rate of 7.5%. Please stay out of the conversation, lest you confuse people even more.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
People are forgetting the tax rate will drop, now it is around $75.00 per thousand. A home assessed at $100,000 is paying $7,500. The tax rate will drop. I believe Hoboken tax rate was low. I do remember reading homes that were assessed at $350,000 were paying around $6,000 after their 2013 reval.

You obviously don't have a clue as to how property taxes are levied. NO ONE is paying an effective rate of 7.5%. Please stay out of the conversation, lest you confuse people even more.

It is obvious you do not receive a tax bill, the municipal, school, county, library, and open space is listed on the tax bill. The difference it is listed in hundreds, but most people use thousands. I go through the taxes every year with the Business Administrator. $75.00 was last year's rate. The county did not strike the rate yet. By the way, I did not see you at the last budget hearing.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
People are forgetting the tax rate will drop, now it is around $75.00 per thousand. A home assessed at $100,000 is paying $7,500. The tax rate will drop. I believe Hoboken tax rate was low. I do remember reading homes that were assessed at $350,000 were paying around $6,000 after their 2013 reval.

You obviously don't have a clue as to how property taxes are levied. NO ONE is paying an effective rate of 7.5%. Please stay out of the conversation, lest you confuse people even more.

jcgurl wrote:
Yes, upon doing further research (i.e.: talking to my dad who is the mayor of a small town in New York and who has overseen 2 property revals), from what I understand, they are not seeking to raise substantially more taxes but simply redistribute them fairly. The city will still be collecting the same gross amount of taxes more or less, but if they collect $2000 more per year from me, they will be collecting $2000 a year less from another property owner (to oversimplify). Therefore, I'm supposing that my tax bill isn't going to triple as I had assumed. Right now I'm paying $5000+ a year on a property worth about $600,000 but only assessed at $73,000. (Thanks GrovePath for the link!)

Please feel free to correct or confirm this train of thought. I am still quite nervous.

Yvonne wrote:
People are forgetting the tax rate will drop, now it is around $75.00 per thousand. A home assessed at $100,000 is paying $7,500. The tax rate will drop. I believe Hoboken tax rate was low. I do remember reading homes that were assessed at $350,000 were paying around $6,000 after their 2013 reval.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
People are forgetting the tax rate will drop, now it is around $75.00 per thousand. A home assessed at $100,000 is paying $7,500. The tax rate will drop. I believe Hoboken tax rate was low. I do remember reading homes that were assessed at $350,000 were paying around $6,000 after their 2013 reval.

No.

Yvonne wrote:
People are forgetting the tax rate will drop, now it is around $75.00 per thousand. A home assessed at $100,000 is paying $7,500. The tax rate will drop. I believe Hoboken tax rate was low. I do remember reading homes that were assessed at $350,000 were paying around $6,000 after their 2013 reval.

jcgurl wrote:
Yes, upon doing further research (i.e.: talking to my dad who is the mayor of a small town in New York and who has overseen 2 property revals), from what I understand, they are not seeking to raise substantially more taxes but simply redistribute them fairly. The city will still be collecting the same gross amount of taxes more or less, but if they collect $2000 more per year from me, they will be collecting $2000 a year less from another property owner (to oversimplify). Therefore, I'm supposing that my tax bill isn't going to triple as I had assumed. Right now I'm paying $5000+ a year on a property worth about $600,000 but only assessed at $73,000. (Thanks GrovePath for the link!)

Please feel free to correct or confirm this train of thought. I am still quite nervous.

bunny22 wrote:
They'll probably more than double. What 2.1 percent of $600,000? I'm curious how accurate these appraisals will be. Are they going to come in at an exaggerated number or do they go off of Zillow sales comps plus condition of the house?

DanL wrote: enough squandering of tax payer money on bogus lawsuits. jersey city now must pay $1m plus interest and legal fees, eat the whole cost of the now worthless reval, eat the city's own legal expenses of over $300,000 and now go out and hire another reval company to start over. we now will have a tax increase. thank you jersey city council members for funding this fiasco. Quote:

Stringer wrote:

Judge rules against Jersey City in reval contract case

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
on April 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, updated April 14, 2016 at 5:45 PM

JERSEY CITY ? Jersey City has lost the breach-of-contract case filed by the assessment firm hired in 2011 to oversee the long-stalled citywide property revaulation, with the judge presiding over the case using the decision to slam Jersey City's "unfair" tax system.

Hudson County Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz ruled this afternoon that the city showed bad faith when Mayor Steve Fulop stopped the reval in 2013 and ordered the city not to pay West New York firm Realty Appraisal Co. the remainder of its $3.2 million contract.

The city must pay the firm $984,511 plus interest and attorney's fees dating to Realty Appraisal's October 2015 settlement offer, Schultz ruled.

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

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Jersey City says it will move forward with property revaluation

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on April 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM, updated April 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM

Jersey City, here comes the reval.

One day after the city lost a breach-of-contract case related to the long-stalled property revaluation, and nearly two weeks after New Jersey tax officials ordered the city to get a reval done by November 2017, the city announced it is moving ahead with the process.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _r.html#incart_river_home

I guess it finally became obvious to City Hall that this was a losing battle. And, what's with the insistence that revaluations are going to result on old timers losing their homes?!? If a longtime homeowner is unable to afford his tax bill that means they are sitting on a property that has appreciated a LOT. In that case, they could borrow against their appreciation, or could take out a reverse mortgage, or they could sell. They have OPTIONS. Nobody is losing their home, and no boogeyman is coming to take anyone's home away. More importantly, this situation would be avoided, or ameliorated, by conducting revals regularly and frequently, as required by law.

neverleft wrote:
Jersey City says it will move forward with property revaluation

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on April 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM, updated April 15, 2016 at 12:23 PM

Jersey City, here comes the reval.

One day after the city lost a breach-of-contract case related to the long-stalled property revaluation, and nearly two weeks after New Jersey tax officials ordered the city to get a reval done by November 2017, the city announced it is moving ahead with the process.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... _r.html#incart_river_home

thor800 wrote:
Do properties in greenville really pay $6k in taxes on a $150k value property ? Hard to imagune these were ever valued highly enough even at a 1% rate to warrant that.

thor800 wrote:
Do properties in greenville really pay $6k in taxes on a $150k value property ? Hard to imagune these were ever valued highly enough even at a 1% rate to warrant that.

Where has the Hudson County Taxation Board been since 1988? This is the first time I have seen a piece about their non-action.

nj.com 11/19/2015: "The Division of Taxation is reluctantly taking this action because the Hudson, Middlesex and Union county tax boards have failed to do what they are supposed to do," Treasury spokesman Joe Perone said. "The state has been more than patient in trying to convince the county tax boards to meet obligations, but they have been lax in enforcement because revaluations are unpopular."

hero69 wrote:
wouldn't it be fairer if nj cities were allowed to move away from relying on property taxes, and started relyimg more on sales and personal income taxes.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

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

You're pretty incoherent, but it doesn't matter. The reval is about fairness within the tax base, what's outside is irrelevant. The abated properties pay PILOTS that were set relative to what the tax would have been under the assessment system, not relative to the under assessed older properties.

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
It's official. The city lost it's case.Link


Best quote from the judge:
"The evidence in this trial is clear and convincing," the judge said. "The city simply does not want a revaluation. Period."

brewster wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:

enough squandering of tax payer money on bogus lawsuits. jersey city now must pay $1m plus interest and legal fees, eat the whole cost of the now worthless reval, eat the city's own legal expenses of over $300,000 and now go out and hire another reval company to start over.

we now will have a tax increase.

thank you jersey city council members for funding this fiasco.

Not to mention all the councilmembers who failed to represent the interests of their non DT constituents.

Can't wait to see Fulop field this one in a gubernatorial debate: "Mayor Fulop, can you explain why you squandered millions of your citizens dollars to cancel a revaluation already a decade and a half late, and perpetuating the tax inequity of the wealthiest ward being subsidized by the working class areas of your city?"

heights wrote:
If When the reval does take place the mayor's property tax will double if the assessment is based on the property value of his purchase price.