Browsing this Thread:
6 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
I have read city ordinances on tax abatements. It is not uncommon for this administration to give a 20 or 30 year tax abatement for 100 units and say only 3 school age children will live in these units. That is the same garbage that Bret Schunder and his council said when towers were going up at Newport. There will be no school age children. This is a joke. Before the buildup, the first supertinendent, Elena J. Scambio appointed by the state said, she would merge and close schools. Scambio was referring to P.S. #16 and #3 as one example. There is a need for more schools now and these buildings are not paying. Dr. Scambio made her comments on public record. I suggest you look at what she said. It is the school taxes and the future cut in state aid that will destroy this city. Tax abatements are not helpful to this city.
Posted on: 2016/11/12 0:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Misleading. JC pays taxes against market value - the city equalization rate brings the assessed value (baselined at 1988) up to current maket values. Another way of looking at this is the JC equalization rate of 23.66% says property values have increased ~4x on average across JC since 1988. Where downtown is underpaying - is that house values have likely increased much more than 4x since 1988, whereas the rest of JC hasn't. The big tax break is given to downtown residents - particularly those with older properties. And it's the rest of JC that's subsidizing that tax break. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2016/Hudson.pdf
Posted on: 2016/11/11 23:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
And the more people you have, the bigger the tax base. Thank you, Captain Obvious ;) Quote: Let me remind you, affordable housing pays nothingto the board of ed. ...no, they just pay less property tax, because the building has an abatement. They don't pay zero, just less. And again, they shop here, they buy services here, some of them work here, they go to the restaurants and bars, and so forth. They're generating all sorts of economic activity, which is beneficial to JC as a whole. And again, if we actually take your argument seriously, then we ought to calculate the precise per capita cost of services, and chase anyone whose property taxes fall below that line out of town. Is that what you want? Should we chase poor people out of JC, because they receive more in services than they pay in taxes? Quote: The ratable base is artificially low because one third of the ratable base is exempt from the county's formula. Uh, hello? Huge swaths of JC are underpaying their property taxes because we haven't done a reval in almost 30 years. At least when there's an abatement, it's a deliberate choice, based on wanting to improve a specific neighborhood and/or offer affordable housing. Quote: This past week, Senator Steve Sweeney was on News 12 NJ and he said his agenda is equality school funding. OMG NOOOOOOO!!!! Oh, wait. I'm a rational human being. I'm going to wait until I see what he actually plans, before making a judgment.
Posted on: 2016/11/11 21:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
As far as I can tell, that's only the case in DTJC. For all of JC, assessments are way off -- they're 27% of market value. And most of that is downtown. That didn't happen overnight; it's taken decades. There should be no question whatsoever that it is a tax break, and one that is unfair to our neighbors. Why should the rest of NJ help out JC, when its residents basically refuse to pay its taxes? Quote: No one ever imagined the values would have gone from the 2004 values to the current values. Meaning what, exactly? People are entitled to be exempt from property taxes, because they didn't expect the value of their homes to appreciate? How does that work? Quote: It could be surmised that the current values may be unsustainable and we are headed for another slump. Meaning what, exactly? People are entitled to be exempt from property taxes, because the value of their homes might drop someday? How does that work? Quote: The erratic movement of the market hardly supports the proposition that there have been huge tax breaks. The fact that a lot of people (including me) are about to get whacked with massive property tax increases absolutely supports the proposition that people have received huge de facto tax breaks. Quote: Furthermore, the values of the homes, do not necessarily reflect the conditions of the neighborhood. You can't be serious. The factors you list, like the quality of local schools, are without question factored into property values. Good schools and safe streets enhance property values. If someone paid through the nose for a JC condo, and still doesn't think the schools are good, then they are paying for other aspects like commute time to NYC and/or local shops and amenities and/or prices relative to other nearby neighborhoods and/or proximity to parks, and so on. Or, to put it another way: If we made the public schools in DTJC as good as those in Princeton or Milburn overnight, do you really think property values would stay the same? Obviously not -- they'd go up, because the quality of the schools is already factored into real estate prices.
Posted on: 2016/11/11 21:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Taxes are based on services. The more people you have in a community especially school age children, the more services. As it is, Mayor Fulop has bonded nearly $100 million since he became mayor and has spent $85 million since he took office. We are hiring more police, expanding the fire department and have more city personnel. This does not include the school children that need more schools. Let me remind you, affordable housing pays nothingto the board of ed. There is a 5% surcharge to the county after Secaucus sued JC. The ratable base is artificially low because one third of the ratable base is exempt from the county's formula. It is the county not city that strikes the tax bill. This past week, Senator Steve Sweeney was on News 12 NJ and he said his agenda is equality school funding. JC is screwed with all of these tax abatements. After reval, loss of school funding and now a tax on open space, there will be many angry homeowners.
Posted on: 2016/11/11 21:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Your statement here is illogical. If a building gets a tax break in exchange for putting in affordable units, then a) we're usually talking renters, b) the rent is going to be controlled, usually for decades and c) those renters won't have to deal with property tax increases. Meanwhile, the units are specifically designed to be affordable. Many will be occupied by current or perhaps former residents, or by people who work in JC or Hudson County. Plus, they will be spending money in JC on food, in shops, for local services.... Quote: You are bringing in more people who need more services but are exempting those people from paying the bills. Are you saying that we should not want poor people living in Jersey City? After all, they demand services, but pay lower tax rates. How fascinating. Quote: Government is taking from one group to give a freebie to another group. ...yes, it's called "redistribution," and it's one way to attempt to rebalance income inequality. It's also built into the entire property tax system. A married couple without kids who owns a $1.5 million dollar townhouse is not using 6 times more city resources than a single mother with 3 kids living in a $250k apartment. And which household pays more in property taxes...? Quote: I suggest you read the public notices every December/January when JC sell the tax liens of homeowners. They are paying for other people's affordable housing. lol If someone has incurred a tax lien, that means they have failed to pay their taxes. That means they are not, in fact, paying for anyone else's services, let alone their own. You really should rethink your arguments.
Posted on: 2016/11/11 20:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Our taxes are around $77 per thousand. If any tax abated property was a true ratable then it would be part of the ratable base and the tax rate would be around $50 per thousand. Our taxes are artifically high because tax abated properties are eliminated from the ratable base by the county. Secaucus does a lot of development and that have a lower ratable base because nothing is eliminated from the ratable base.
Posted on: 2016/11/10 22:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Dolomiti,
The values of real estate has gone up significantly relatively recently. From 2000 through 2004 DTJC brownstone prices were somewhere between $250k to $550k. At the height around 2007 brownstones were somewhere in the $700k to $1mm range, of course depending on the typical variables. However, they slumped after the crash to $400k to $750, where they stayed for several years and then in the last two years definitely sky rocketed. However, no one ever imagined the values would have gone from the 2004 values to the current values. It could be surmised that the current values may be unsustainable and we are headed for another slump. The erratic movement of the market hardly supports the proposition that there have been huge tax breaks. Furthermore, the values of the homes, do not necessarily reflect the conditions of the neighborhood. Even at the height of the market in 2007, homeowners with children were not confident enough in the school system to stay and send their children to the local public schools. That's an integral component of assessing real estate values, not necessarily the prices the homes demand through a volatile market. [quote] Dolomiti wrote: [ Yeah... no. That's not how it works. When and where those conditions are in effect, they are reflected in the value of the property, which is used as a basis for the property tax. Property values have gone up, without this being reflected in the taxes collected. This has resulted in a de facto tax break. There was no benefit 28 years ago, when the last reval was done. The benefit was minimal 15 years ago, when property taxes were rising. The benefit today is significant for many people today. And the people who have owned their homes for 28 years have gotten the maximum break possible in this situation. So while I can sympathize with people because they have a low income, and yes it would suck to be driven out because your property taxes went up (even though they are deductible from federal taxes), the simple fact is that some people have gotten a huge break over the years.
Posted on: 2016/11/10 21:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Anyone claiming that abated properties are getting a full ride is telling you a lie. Abated properties are paying an effective tax rate that is higher than the one paid by most (if, not all) DTJC non-abated homeowners. You could argue that the city is benefitting to the detriment of local schools or other county municipalities (due to the fact they get to keep almost all of the abated tax money) but that does NOT mean the residents are getting a free ride. While most of DTJC is paying effective rates of 1% or less, abated properties are paying effective rates that range from that all the way to 2%.
Posted on: 2016/11/10 20:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
So many people have your view Dolomiti but there is never enough affordable housing because as taxes rises who can afford to live here? You are bringing in more people who need more services but are exempting those people from paying the bills. Their services are transferred to low income people who lose their homes as taxes rises. Government is taking from one group to give a freebie to another group. I suggest you read the public notices every December/January when JC sell the tax liens of homeowners. They are paying for other people's affordable housing.
Posted on: 2016/11/10 19:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yeah... no. That's not how it works. When and where those conditions are in effect, they are reflected in the value of the property, which is used as a basis for the property tax. Property values have gone up, without this being reflected in the taxes collected. This has resulted in a de facto tax break. There was no benefit 28 years ago, when the last reval was done. The benefit was minimal 15 years ago, when property taxes were rising. The benefit today is significant for many people today. And the people who have owned their homes for 28 years have gotten the maximum break possible in this situation. So while I can sympathize with people because they have a low income, and yes it would suck to be driven out because your property taxes went up (even though they are deductible from federal taxes), the simple fact is that some people have gotten a huge break over the years. Quote: In the meanwhile we've been giving developers tax abatements. So it's pretty hard to tell a constituent that they've been under paying real estate taxes when we've been giving tax abatements to developer predicated on the notion that these are blighted areas. I don't have a problem with that -- IF the abatements are used for an acceptable political end. E.g. if a building gets an abatement in exchange for adding a certain number of affordable units, or to encourage building in an area that is not doing well (and the new building does not displace a large number of current residents), that works for me. If they are getting an abatement with no strings attached and in a popular neighborhood, that's a different story.
Posted on: 2016/11/10 18:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This on the county issue.
Posted on: 2016/11/10 14:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Now that both issues have passed, an additional tax will be added to homeowners. Senator Sweeney was on News 12, this week and said his next issue is equality funding for schools in NJ. This is a Democrat not a Republican bringing up this issue. Now homeowners will be looking at a massive tax increase.
Posted on: 2016/11/10 14:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/7/4 16:37 Last Login : 2021/11/4 21:55 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
586
 |
I voted yes to both questions and I am actually more concerned by the lack of oversight of Hudson county taxes (~1/3 of property taxes bill) that represented the lion share of my property taxes increase this year. How are these guys held responsible for service efficiency?
Posted on: 2016/11/10 0:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I disagree with you that anyone's been getting huge tax breaks. When people moved here 15 to 30 years ago, there was high crime, bad schools (which there still is), flooding issues, which there still are and a host of other issues making JC less desirable and not warranting higher real estate taxes. In the meanwhile we've been giving developers tax abatements. So it's pretty hard to tell a constituent that they've been under paying real estate taxes when we've been giving tax abatements to developer predicated on the notion that these are blighted areas. Quote:
Posted on: 2016/11/9 21:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I would only point out that if a brownstone is valued at 1.5 MM, the correct updated tax levy will be over 30K. If they have been paying 13K for the past 10 years, they can cry me a river. The rest of the city (particularly, poorer residents) have been subsidizing their taxes. If your taxes are going up 17K, I doubt the extra $300 would make much of a difference.
Posted on: 2016/11/9 20:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Or, not. If you're already paying $20,000 on real estate taxes, you're not even going to notice an additional $300. Hopefully, though, people will notice more funds going into public parks. Quote: Also be mindful here are people who bought their homes 14 years ago and they never imagined their values would have gone up this month. Sorry not sorry, but even as someone who has benefitted, and is looking at a nice whack in my own taxes, I have no sympathy for those individuals on this particular basis. Some people have spent 10, 20, almost 30 years as the beneficiaries of lax property tax policies -- basically getting a huge break on their property taxes. People deserve sympathy if their incomes are low. They don't deserve sympathy if they were totally unprepared for an inevitable increase in property taxes. By the way, the reval is not exactly a state secret. At least some of the people who voted for #2 were fully aware that the reval was in the works.
Posted on: 2016/11/9 20:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I disagree with you. If people knew how much their new and increased real estate taxes are going to be, they would feel less inclined to take on an additional $200 to $400 in taxes. It's relative to how much MORE taxes people are able to pay. Brownstones DTJC typically go for $1.5mm on average. Real estate taxes on those homes will go from approximately $13k to $22k a year. The additional $300 to $400 will be more of an issue at that point. I think the results would have been very different if the reval was already done before this was put before the constituency. Also be mindful here are people who bought their homes 14 years ago and they never imagined their values would have gone up this month. So while they have increased their equity, that's not the same as increasing their cash flow. Many of the people who moved here 14 years ago, moved here for a less expensive urban option. The exponential rise in real estate values was not anticipated by anyone. Quote:
Posted on: 2016/11/9 19:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I think this is a faulty interpretation: if you own a one million dollar brownstone, the $200 additional tax ($16.66 / month) should not be an imposition. Regardless, the DTJC constituency will be in shock when their new assessments are announced, but that is 1 year out.
Posted on: 2016/11/9 18:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yes. I can't believe people voted for the Historic Trust Fund, without knowing how much there property is going to be assessed and how much their real estate taxes are going to increase. I bet if the constituency knew how much their new real estate taxes are going to be they would not have voted for this.
Posted on: 2016/11/9 18:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
In case it's not clear:
Both Jersey City Public Questions won.
Posted on: 2016/11/9 17:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yes, in fact I am. My concern is based upon sales over the last three years. Quote:
Posted on: 2016/11/9 15:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Did she read the ballot that was mailed to every voter in Jersey City before hand? I did and all of my neighbors did. I was in the voting booth for about 30 seconds. Hey Yvonne stay away from Matsikoudis you are better then that. We know you love and care about JC. . .
Posted on: 2016/11/9 13:05
Edited by neverleft on 2016/11/9 13:22:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
As I was waiting on line to vote I saw a neighbor and we started to talk. I told her to watch out for JC questions 1 and 2. After she voted she returned to me and said she could not read those questions, the size was too small so she did not vote on public questions. So moving the elections to November which did pass will not help the elections, it will be more names.
Posted on: 2016/11/9 12:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Fortunately, 20 is a pretty easy number to work with. Are you really worried your house is going to be reassessed for a million more dollars? Quote:
Posted on: 2016/11/8 20:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes. Because experience teaches us that when a government says "small" and assures us that it would be solely for parks, that's an iron-clad promise!
Posted on: 2016/11/8 20:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
LOL Thanks
Posted on: 2016/11/8 16:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Matsikoudis
Posted on: 2016/11/8 16:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I voted NO for question No. 2:
Ballot Question No 2 asks constituents to commit to paying $20 for every $100,000 their home is ASSESSED at for GREEN & OPEN SPACE. VOTE NO. For one this is IN ADVANCE of the reval, so you don't know what your home is worth. Two, this comes AFTER we let all of these developers build big huge tall buildings. Three, this comes AFTER years of giving developers ABATEMENTS. So why should the constituency pay more NOW??? Let the developers pay it.
Posted on: 2016/11/8 16:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Vote YES for 2 city questions
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hate to say it, but long lines today are probably from people thinking about 2 state and 2 JC questions on ballot
People near me did not know about Gas Tax questions? I am sure people will miss BOE candidates and questions if not specifically looking because of how they are placed on ballot. I know, ballots are mailed, but who really looks at the letter.
Posted on: 2016/11/8 16:18
|
|||
|
||||