Ralph_Abutts wrote:
"not taxed" != "abatement"

"Abatement is a reduction in the level of taxation faced by an individual or company. Examples of an abatement include a tax decrease, a reduction in penalties or a rebate. If an individual or business overpays its taxes or receives a tax bill that is too high, it can request an abatement from the tax authorities."
Abatement Definition | Investopedia
www.investopedia.com/terms/a/abatement.asp

An innumerate person wrote:
The taxes are high because abatements are not included in the ratable base. Several billion dollars are not there so when the county strikes the budget, it is based on ratables, not abated buildings.

bodhipooh wrote:
Market conditions change. It just so happens that real estate market conditions in JC have improved tremendously over the past two years, with year-over-year valuation going up over 15%, while the city budget has grown very little, so the total tax rate needed to cover government costs has continued to drop.

Mao wrote:
The high property tax issue for JC is the reason that we should enact a payroll tax.

tern wrote:
I understand taxes are going to go up a lot on many downtown properties, but there is a big difference between 1.7% and 2% (or 2.2% as I believe Bodipooh speculated in some of his earlier missives).

The fact is we just don't know what the rate we will be, the only thing we can say is that if the appraisals are done correctly a $1 million house downtown should end up paying 4 times as much as a $250,000 place in the heights. Now if the heights house is actually valued at $500,000 (extended over the whole heights), it 'reduces' the downtown home's tax to only twice what the heights house is paying.

If you have been watching the market in the past two years it is not just downtown prices that are on the boil.

Robin.

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
When we live in one of the states with the highest taxes in the nation, I doubt people want to cough up another 1% or even .5%, unless the increase is offset by a reduction somewhere else.

just my $0.02

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
It still amazes me that people thought the taxes they were paying on some of these DTJC properties was correct....

hero69 wrote:
i was looking at properties for sale and i noticed that prices in the heights seemed to have jumped significantly. i almost fell backwards when i saw the prices! if owners are realizing such prices, that should have an mitigate the impact of the reval on downtown

tern wrote:
I understand taxes are going to go up a lot on many downtown properties, but there is a big difference between 1.7% and 2% (or 2.2% as I believe Bodipooh speculated in some of his earlier missives).

The fact is we just don't know what the rate we will be, the only thing we can say is that if the appraisals are done correctly a $1 million house downtown should end up paying 4 times as much as a $250,000 place in the heights. Now if the heights house is actually valued at $500,000 (extended over the whole heights), it 'reduces' the downtown home's tax to only twice what the heights house is paying.

If you have been watching the market in the past two years it is not just downtown prices that are on the boil.

Robin.

tern wrote:
The way house prices have appreciated over the past couple of years will naturally lead to a fall in the tax rate, otherwise they are going to be collecting double the taxes they were previously.

Bodipooh bandies this 2% figure about, but it is based on nothing more than his own speculation.

1 or 2 family houses in the heights are now worth $400,000+, every one or two family in Journal Square is now worth $600,000+, if they all pay 2% the city would end up with too much money!

Robin.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
...

There are a few pockets in DT that are "just enough" higher that they didn't have standing water during Sandy. I think this links properly:

https://project.wnyc.org/100yr-zones-p ... ml#15.24/40.7225/-74.0380

For Sandy - the map may be correct wrt basement flooding. But street-level flooding has been nowhere near as extensive anytime in the past decade - at least not west of Marin and north of Columbus. In this area, Sandy would have looked more like 3-4m on this link: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/new-york.shtml

The sewers were the conduit for much of the flooding allowing the water to bypass high spots.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

jcneighbor wrote:
...

There are a few pockets in DT that are "just enough" higher that they didn't have standing water during Sandy. I think this links properly:

https://project.wnyc.org/100yr-zones-p ... ml#15.24/40.7225/-74.0380

For Sandy - the map may be correct wrt basement flooding. But street-level flooding has been nowhere near as extensive anytime in the past decade - at least not west of Marin and north of Columbus. In this area, Sandy would have looked more like 3-4m on this link: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/new-york.shtml

jcneighbor wrote:
...

There are a few pockets in DT that are "just enough" higher that they didn't have standing water during Sandy. I think this links properly:

https://project.wnyc.org/100yr-zones-p ... ml#15.24/40.7225/-74.0380

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
They have been constantly ripping up the roads west to east over the past couple of years installing huge sewer lines. Last I checked - they were ripping up 6th street (again?). PSE&G have also been through most of downtown "hardening" their gas lines in the past few months.

Time will tell if it's enough - but can't claim they've done nothing since Sandy.

They're not doing my street. Someone at the MUA claimed it was fine in their survey, even though when the MUA ran a cam down it 18 years ago they reported a 18" diameter brick sewer filled with longitudinal and offset cracks.

stateaidguy wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Jersey City's taxes will definitely be below 2% post-reval, but this has nothing to do with the reval so much as it does the increase in Jersey City's Equalized Valuation.

JC's EV is now $24 billion and will be even higher after the reval is completed.

JC's all-in tax levy is now $448.7 million. That rate will increase too, but not in proportion to the increase in the Equalized Valuation.

$448.7 million / $24 billion = 1.87%.

The tax rate will fall farther once the new EV is computed.

SAG, Thank you! I'm so tried of the complete and utter BS from the fearmongers and the ignorant. I saw a news report the other day saying it's a double edged sword because the reval will hurt people, but will also generate more money for the city.

Well, an ignorant reporter is just that... ignorant.

BUT, the values provided by the state are very different from what you present in your post.

The State of NJ puts the total JC EV at $21,643,490,206 (21.6 B) for 2015, and 25,679,882,705 (25.7 B) for 2016. The effective tax rate (as calculated by the state) is 2.216% for 2015.

Source for the above:
EV 2016: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2016/Hudson.pdf
EV 2015: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2015/hudson.pdf
Effective Tax Rate 2015: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtrhud15.pdf

How did you arrive at the total tax levy of $448.7 million? Do you have a source for that figure? Also, are you sure you are not using the valuation from valuation from 2016 and applying the effective tax rate for 2015? I ask because the figures are wildly different than what is on the State of NJ website. Thanks!

I admit I misremembered JC's Equalized Valuation, but that mistake doesn't change my argument that JC's all-in tax rate will be below 2%.

The FY2017 EV is $25,697,067,795. (it's a $4 billion increase from the year before, so I guess I got confused and wrote "$24 billion")

The FY2016 tax levy was $448,717,388. (source is the Property Tax Tables)

If you do the division, the estimated all-in tax rate 1.7%.

Oops. Sorry for the distraction with the wrong EV.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Jersey City's taxes will definitely be below 2% post-reval, but this has nothing to do with the reval so much as it does the increase in Jersey City's Equalized Valuation.

JC's EV is now $24 billion and will be even higher after the reval is completed.

JC's all-in tax levy is now $448.7 million. That rate will increase too, but not in proportion to the increase in the Equalized Valuation.

$448.7 million / $24 billion = 1.87%.

The tax rate will fall farther once the new EV is computed.

SAG, Thank you! I'm so tried of the complete and utter BS from the fearmongers and the ignorant. I saw a news report the other day saying it's a double edged sword because the reval will hurt people, but will also generate more money for the city.

Well, an ignorant reporter is just that... ignorant.

BUT, the values provided by the state are very different from what you present in your post.

The State of NJ puts the total JC EV at $21,643,490,206 (21.6 B) for 2015, and 25,679,882,705 (25.7 B) for 2016. The effective tax rate (as calculated by the state) is 2.216% for 2015.

Source for the above:
EV 2016: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2016/Hudson.pdf
EV 2015: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxat ... df/lptval/2015/hudson.pdf
Effective Tax Rate 2015: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtrhud15.pdf

How did you arrive at the total tax levy of $448.7 million? Do you have a source for that figure? Also, are you sure you are not using the valuation from valuation from 2016 and applying the effective tax rate for 2015? I ask because the figures are wildly different than what is on the State of NJ website. Thanks!

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
How did you arrive at the total tax levy of $448.7 million?

See page 2 http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... tion/CY2016_USF_Intro.pdf

Another tidbit from that doc, the properties that Yvonne is always howling about getting a free ride paid $129m in 2015 PILOTS, vs $212m they would have paid in tax. But compared to the legacy properties paying 50% or less of their market based tax, these developments at 60% are actually paying a higher rate than Yvonne did for her fabulous brownstone on VVP!

Thank you for the link! I was trying to locate this info and was coming up empty.

For 2015, the effective rate was 2.07%, but for 2016 it drops quite a bit, down to 1.79%.

I came up with those numbers by using the EV totals for 2015 and 2016 from the state links I posted and dividing the tax levies for 2015 and 2016 from the user friendly budget for which Brewster provided a link (again, thanks!)

I guess we will need to wait and see what is the total EV calculated for JC after the reval. Even if the rate stays at 1.8%, you would see lots of homeowners with massive increases (those currently paying effective rates of under 1%) but that rate is definitely magnitudes better than the bandied about 2.2% rate that most people seem to assume will be the final one.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
How did you arrive at the total tax levy of $448.7 million?

See page 2 http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... tion/CY2016_USF_Intro.pdf

Another tidbit from that doc, the properties that Yvonne is always howling about getting a free ride paid $129m in 2015 PILOTS, vs $212m they would have paid in tax. But compared to the legacy properties paying 50% or less of their market based tax, these developments at 60% are actually paying a higher rate than Yvonne did for her fabulous brownstone on VVP!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
How did you arrive at the total tax levy of $448.7 million?

See page 2 http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... tion/CY2016_USF_Intro.pdf

Another tidbit from that doc, the properties that Yvonne is always howling about getting a free ride paid $129m in 2015 PILOTS, vs $212m they would have paid in tax. But compared to the legacy properties paying 50% or less of their market based tax, these developments at 60% are actually paying a higher rate than Yvonne did for her fabulous brownstone on VVP!

bodhipooh wrote:
How did you arrive at the total tax levy of $448.7 million?

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
Jersey City's taxes will definitely be below 2% post-reval, but this has nothing to do with the reval so much as it does the increase in Jersey City's Equalized Valuation.

JC's EV is now $24 billion and will be even higher after the reval is completed.

JC's all-in tax levy is now $448.7 million. That rate will increase too, but not in proportion to the increase in the Equalized Valuation.

$448.7 million / $24 billion = 1.87%.

The tax rate will fall farther once the new EV is computed.

SAG, Thank you! I'm so tried of the complete and utter BS from the fearmongers and the ignorant. I saw a news report the other day saying it's a double edged sword because the reval will hurt people, but will also generate more money for the city.

JCGuys wrote:
SAG, Thank you! I'm so tried of the complete and utter BS from the fearmongers and the ignorant. I saw a news report the other day saying it's a double edged sword because the reval will hurt people, but will also generate more money for the city.

stateaidguy wrote:
Jersey City's taxes will definitely be below 2% post-reval, but this has nothing to do with the reval so much as it does the increase in Jersey City's Equalized Valuation.

JC's EV is now $24 billion and will be even higher after the reval is completed.

JC's all-in tax levy is now $448.7 million. That rate will increase too, but not in proportion to the increase in the Equalized Valuation.

$448.7 million / $24 billion = 1.87%.

The tax rate will fall farther once the new EV is computed.