135jc wrote:
You can't use Newark or Patterson as a comparison either. Their property values are much lower and they employ the same services as JC. Also aside from sales tax what other taxes do NY city residents pay? The outer boroughs have extremely low taxes and tremendous services.

Your Assessed Value is based on a percentage of your Market Value. This percentage is known as the Level of Assessment or Assessment Ratio. Your Assessment Ratio depends on your tax class.

Assessment Ratios
Tax class 1 6%
Tax class 2, 3 and 4 45%

y
brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Jersey City market values are driven by it's close proximity to NYC. I can't stand when someone pretends that a 700k brownstone is the equivalent of a 700k house in the suburbs sitting on 2 acres of property. The brownstone in JC sits on a 25x100 lot if lucky. There is a larger tax base here plus tremendous business and industry to offset taxes. The truth is those in cities should pay less then those in sparsely populated areas. If u want to use NYC as a comparison go ahead. Taxes on similarly valued property are a fraction of what people in JC pay even using the old assessed values.

And Brewster you are constantly playing devil's advocate. Judging from the fact u are a long time resident of Hamilton Park you may just be in for a surprise when the reval hits.

The budget line differences between real cities and suburbs is tremendous. Everything from uniformed services to road work cost more due to more usage. Even our roads decay much faster from the beating they take. You can't compare to NYC, it chooses to tax residential property artificially low and compensate in other taxes. Compare instead to any close-in city in Bergen, or Westchester or Nassau and our taxes look normal.

And no, I won't be surprised, but neither do I think I should be getting special treatment because I somehow deserve it. On the other hand my taxes are not as low as many round here so I don't think they'll quite double. But they might.

G-P, there are people paying 3x the effective tax rate of some Downtowners, because their assessments are way too high. FMV comps will lower them, I got one of mine lowered 2 years ago.

135jc wrote:
Jersey City market values are driven by it's close proximity to NYC. I can't stand when someone pretends that a 700k brownstone is the equivalent of a 700k house in the suburbs sitting on 2 acres of property. The brownstone in JC sits on a 25x100 lot if lucky. There is a larger tax base here plus tremendous business and industry to offset taxes. The truth is those in cities should pay less then those in sparsely populated areas. If u want to use NYC as a comparison go ahead. Taxes on similarly valued property are a fraction of what people in JC pay even using the old assessed values.

And Brewster you are constantly playing devil's advocate. Judging from the fact u are a long time resident of Hamilton Park you may just be in for a surprise when the reval hits.

135jc wrote:
My original point was in response to people trying to compare property values and tax rates in Jersey city to those in the suburbs. It is not a fair comparison since an area with sparse population with a smaller base should be paying a higher rate. Using Summit as an example you can see that even with the town assuming most of the education costs they pay a far less tax rate then Jersey City pre or post reval.


https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7-P ... t-NJ-07901/40063490_zpid/

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
That property we're discussing shows how ridiculous a disparity there is between comps and cap rates. Ignoramuses like Yvonne have complained about this before, that houses are valued more than commercial, and now it's going to be on steroids.

I suspect there will be many investment properties that are technically residential (4 units or less) that might become cash flow negative after the reval. I wonder if we will have a flood of buildings for sale hitting the market say about six months after the reval take effect?

I do think a positive, unintended consequence will be that it will finally get the owners of a lot of vacant lots that dot Downtown to stop waiting around for a super lucrative offer and finally sell. I also think a lot of the slumlords will find their properties too expensive to carry and may force out some of the remaining riff raff.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Most on here who want the reval are real estate speculators who bought buildings in the last 10 years and got good deals because the taxes were a bit high and now they want to get a brake on those taxes.

Please stop acting like you want to help the poor.

GP, you usually don't post this silly. Any RE professional who buys an overtaxed building immediately appeals the tax. It's the uneducated homeowners who are getting ripped off.

mfadam wrote:
The phase in logic doesn't add up. Most DTJC rowhouse owners CAN PAY, they just don't want to pay. The artist who bought in 1995 and has a $1mm unrealized capital gain can borrow against equity to pay. The yuppie who bought in the last 3 years can pay.

Turn your argument around - do you think the guy in BELA who has been overpaying for years thinks the phase in is fair? Should he keep overpaying albeit in smaller amounts each year?

JC is long overdue to fix this reverse Robin Hood mess.

Any reval appraisals will take into consideration the new tax structure when valuing the homes. It is simple bond math.

The bigger issue is will DTJC rowhouses be attractive when they sport 30K in property taxes. I think the psychology is the million dollar question..

GrovePath wrote:
Most on here who want the reval are real estate speculators who bought buildings in the last 10 years and got good deals because the taxes were a bit high and now they want to get a brake on those taxes.

Please stop acting like you want to help the poor.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
I'm not proposing how that be done, but it should be done, and only a one time exception. *Every* property owner and the city itself will be much better off with that approach than following the current statute, which under the current scenario will wreck havoc on the city.

T-Bird wrote:
How would a phase-in work, though? To Brewster's point - the only way you can not delay fully raising the taxes of those due an increase is by delaying lowering the taxes of those due a cut, unless there is either something else to fill the gap like state aid or the city goes without a chunk of revenue. Neither seems likely.

bodhipooh wrote:

If you are sitting on a property 700K or more, which is pretty much most of DTJC, you *are* wealthy by pretty much any metric out there. Even by regional standards, you are doing very well... time to get this reval done and really get local fair taxation in place.

mfadam wrote:
Steve knows he's on thin ice with a lot of the DTJC voters who are less than pleased with what he has actually done while in office.

Throw in another 10-20K per year in RE taxes for the $1mm plus rowhouse crowd and you can bet the votes/donations will be tough to come by...

bodhipooh wrote:
Also, it is pretty amusing that all liberals and progressives are in favor of "fair taxation" that expects the wealthy to pay their "fair share" in the form of MORE taxes, until they realize they are actually part of that wealthy group and now it is all about "wait, no, think about us, the 'middle class', how can I be expected to pay that much more in taxes?"

If you are sitting on a property 700K or more, which is pretty much most of DTJC, you *are* wealthy by pretty much any metric out there. Even by regional standards, you are doing very well... time to get this reval done and really get local fair taxation in place.

T-Bird wrote:
How would a phase-in work, though? To Brewster's point - the only way you can not delay fully raising the taxes of those due an increase is by delaying lowering the taxes of those due a cut, unless there is either something else to fill the gap like state aid or the city goes without a chunk of revenue. Neither seems likely.

GrovePath wrote:
That would be great to have an adjustment period.

Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Has anyone heard that any tax increase from the reval would be stepped in over 5 yrs? I was told this the other day but can't find info on it.

There was talk of getting the state Legislature to OK that but I do not believe the city can legally do it.

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Has anyone heard that any tax increase from the reval would be stepped in over 5 yrs? I was told this the other day but can't find info on it.

There was talk of getting the state Legislature to OK that but I do not believe the city can legally do it.

135jc wrote:
Has anyone heard that any tax increase from the reval would be stepped in over 5 yrs? I was told this the other day but can't find info on it.

135jc wrote:
Has anyone heard that any tax increase from the reval would be stepped in over 5 yrs? I was told this the other day but can't find info on it.