bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
One street over:
https://www.zillow.com/homes/82-prospect-st,-jersey-city,-nj-07307_rb/

Was the Heights supposed to be in the 1/3 that taxes stayed the same?

Yup. Can't wait for the reval to happen so we can see who had the best prediction. I'm thinking 1.75% of fair market value. Greenville will be in the best shape. There will be winners and losers in the heights. The biggest losers will be the land speculators that are sitting on $50 million properties that are only assessed for $100,000 back in 1987.

Bumping my post from March. I predicted 1.75%, when it's only 1.62% hahahaha!

I was expecting a 1.8% tax rate. Really surprised at the 1.62% (not yet final) so things are not as DIRE for DTJC, but will still crush a bunch of new homeowners who ought properties paying effective rates of 0.5 to 0.8. Those people are looking at increases of at least between 2 and 3 times the previous taxes. Ouch.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Thanks again for an informative post SAG. If only everyone, never mind an outsider with an agenda built into his name, were so civil and fact based.

All of stateaidguy's posts have been extremely informative and factual. I'm curious, who the outsider with an agenda built into his name - SOS? lol

I had a candid discussion with a long time city employee who's opinion I trust. This person isn't a politician and has served under many administrations. He believes that we'll have taxes of $25 per thousand (or what tax newbs call 2.5%) if we are very fortunate. It could easily be in the high 20's +. So if you want to shoot the messenger, go for it! I can guarantee that he knows more about the reval and jc taxes than anyone posting in this thread. Certainly more than me.

If your "source" is correct (he may be, or maybe not) then the hit will be much significant than even some are expecting. I wouldn't want to find myself sitting on a brownstone valued at over 1 million which currently pays 10K, or less. All those properties paying effective rates of 1% or less will get some nasty sticker shock.

BTW, not sure why you refer to people using percentages as tax newbs. In every other place where I have lived, taxes are always quoted as percentages. Ultimately, it is all the same. There is no difference between saying 2.5% or $25 per thousand.

Total aside: went to see a property last night that is being advertised for 1.5 MM at the site of a former bank on Montgomery (btw, the condo was way overpriced, it should be 1.2, or maybe even 1MM) and the taxes on it are a paltry 12K. If that property actually sells for 1.5MM, and your quoted rate of 2.5% comes to be, the updated tax bill would be 37.5K, a three time increase. What was particularly appalling is that the realtors were highlighting the low taxes in their advertising materials, without any mention of the impending reval. I wonder how many people are buying into the hot real estate market without any idea of what awaits them in less than two years.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
One street over:
https://www.zillow.com/homes/82-prospect-st,-jersey-city,-nj-07307_rb/

Was the Heights supposed to be in the 1/3 that taxes stayed the same?

Yup. Can't wait for the reval to happen so we can see who had the best prediction. I'm thinking 1.75% of fair market value. Greenville will be in the best shape. There will be winners and losers in the heights. The biggest losers will be the land speculators that are sitting on $50 million properties that are only assessed for $100,000 back in 1987.

Bumping my post from March. I predicted 1.75%, when it's only 1.62% hahahaha!

ProdigalSon wrote:
From my understanding of the reassessment, the city will provide a fair market value for the home, if it sells at 1.8 it's a pretty good indication that 1.8 is the FMV. If the taxes go to 2.0%(seems low but humor me) that would make the taxes 36k annually, or 3k a month. That represents an increase of $2,117 in monthly overhead, which corresponds to about $580k in mortgage at 3.625%, I wouldn't touch downtown JC until after this is over.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
One street over:
https://www.zillow.com/homes/82-prospect-st,-jersey-city,-nj-07307_rb/

Was the Heights supposed to be in the 1/3 that taxes stayed the same?

Yup. Can't wait for the reval to happen so we can see who had the best prediction. I'm thinking 1.75% of fair market value. Greenville will be in the best shape. There will be winners and losers in the heights. The biggest losers will be the land speculators that are sitting on $50 million properties that are only assessed for $100,000 back in 1987.

ecoindie wrote:
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/ ... ble_after_phantom_15.html

Appraisal Systems (Fulop hired for Reval) caused Maplewood property owner's property taxes to rise 111 percent from $7,100 to $15,000 in 18 months with bogus claims of non existent improvements and features.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
LAST EVENING ANY PROSPECT FOR ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 16 ACRES TO JC TAX RATE-ABLES WAS ELIMINATED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

YOU CAN SEND YOUR THANK-YOU CARDS TO:
MAYOR Steven Fulop
Council President Rolando R. Lavarro, Jr.
Councilwoman at Large Joyce Watterman
Councilman at Large Daniel Rivera
Ward A (Greenville) Councilman Frank Gajewski
Ward E (Downtown) Councilwoman Candice Osborne
Ward F (Bergen/Lafayette) Councilman Jermaine Robinson

Really? Is that so. How much revenue is the city collecting presently on the 16 acres? Here, I'll answer that for you: zero, nada, nothing.


City officials have argued that the deal isn't a giveaway, citing a revenue-sharing portion of its agreement with SciTech Scity. Once the complex earns a surplus beyond $78 million, the city would share in the revenue, initially getting 50 percent and, once the value of the city's land is paid off, 20 percent. If the project doesn't get off the ground, they say, the land reverts back to JCRA control.

..from:

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... d.html#incart_2box_hudson

light12v wrote:
LAST EVENING ANY PROSPECT FOR ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 16 ACRES TO JC TAX RATE-ABLES WAS ELIMINATED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

YOU CAN SEND YOUR THANK-YOU CARDS TO:
MAYOR Steven Fulop
Council President Rolando R. Lavarro, Jr.
Councilwoman at Large Joyce Watterman
Councilman at Large Daniel Rivera
Ward A (Greenville) Councilman Frank Gajewski
Ward E (Downtown) Councilwoman Candice Osborne
Ward F (Bergen/Lafayette) Councilman Jermaine Robinson

light12v wrote:
LAST EVENING ANY PROSPECT FOR ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 16 ACRES TO JC TAX RATE-ABLES WAS ELIMINATED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

YOU CAN SEND YOUR THANK-YOU CARDS TO:
MAYOR Steven Fulop
Council President Rolando R. Lavarro, Jr.
Councilwoman at Large Joyce Watterman
Councilman at Large Daniel Rivera
Ward A (Greenville) Councilman Frank Gajewski
Ward E (Downtown) Councilwoman Candice Osborne
Ward F (Bergen/Lafayette) Councilman Jermaine Robinson

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Another entry for the JC Property Tax Hall of Shame:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/243 ... y-NJ-07302/38888495_zpid/

243 2nd St -
Asking Price: 1.75 MM
Taxes (2015): 10.6 K (a whopping 0.6%)

If we end up at a 2% rate, the new taxes would be 35K. Even if we end up with a 1.8% rate, this property will pay 31.5K. I wonder if the seller, or their agent, will disclose that to potential buyers.

Tell me again how this reval is not overdue?

If they have to be told then they should continue to rent.

That's total BS, Heights. Full disclosure of critical matters related to a property sale should be legally required. Lots of buyers are gobbling up DTJC properties seemingly unaware of the impending reval. How's someone supposed to know about the reval process and the potential for a doubling or tripling of the advertised taxes.

heights wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Another entry for the JC Property Tax Hall of Shame:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/243 ... y-NJ-07302/38888495_zpid/

243 2nd St -
Asking Price: 1.75 MM
Taxes (2015): 10.6 K (a whopping 0.6%)

If we end up at a 2% rate, the new taxes would be 35K. Even if we end up with a 1.8% rate, this property will pay 31.5K. I wonder if the seller, or their agent, will disclose that to potential buyers.

Tell me again how this reval is not overdue?

If they have to be told then they should continue to rent.

bodhipooh wrote:
Another entry for the JC Property Tax Hall of Shame:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/243 ... y-NJ-07302/38888495_zpid/

243 2nd St -
Asking Price: 1.75 MM
Taxes (2015): 10.6 K (a whopping 0.6%)

If we end up at a 2% rate, the new taxes would be 35K. Even if we end up with a 1.8% rate, this property will pay 31.5K. I wonder if the seller, or their agent, will disclose that to potential buyers.

Tell me again how this reval is not overdue?

brewster wrote:
My experience with appraisals is that they're bullshit from top to bottom.

brewster wrote:
My experience with appraisals is that they're bullshit from top to bottom. I was trying to refi and had banks do 2 different appraisals. I held the tape measure for 1 guy. His gross sq footage came out 20% under. The other guys was 15% under. I could see the bogus measurements in the drawings. A rowhouse with a 1 floor extension is easy, it's 2 boxes. The banks said tough shit, that's what it's worth.

What they apparently do is decide what the number should be and then fudge using the measurements and subjective numbers like GRM to make it come out. One appraisal even had the 3 methods, comp, replacement and rent, all come out within a couple of thousand of each other. What do suppose the odds were?

Now take that process, and for the reval make it even faster and shittier. Should be fun.

mrspigglewiggle wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
That article is being bandied about on the NextDoor site. The article is poorly written in that critical facts were left out of the narrative. Before getting all riled up, look at the facts. The taxes did not rise 111% because of the appraisal errors. The guy is looking for sympathy based on half truths.

What is incredibly frustrating is how the reporter absolutely sticks by her misreporting despite multiple comments stating that this story is bullcrap. She keeps insisting that the owner was bamboozled because of an incorrect bathroom/bedroom count--however, multiple people have sourced the original MLS sheet showing 6 bedrooms as well as the owner's OWN for rent listing showing 6 bedrooms. She completely ignores his purchase price. I would bet good money that the house is not 1500 sq ft as he claimed, anyone with eyes can see that. Several comments have calculated square foot based on Google Earth/dug up property records that show around 2600 sq ft. I could go on and on.

The article and journalist either have an agenda... or are incredibly dense. Neither of which is good in media.

bodhipooh wrote:
That article is being bandied about on the NextDoor site. The article is poorly written in that critical facts were left out of the narrative. Before getting all riled up, look at the facts. The taxes did not rise 111% because of the appraisal errors. The guy is looking for sympathy based on half truths.

ecoindie wrote:
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/ ... ble_after_phantom_15.html

Appraisal Systems (Fulop hired for Reval) caused Maplewood property owner's property taxes to rise 111 percent from $7,100 to $15,000 in 18 months with bogus claims of non existent improvements and features.