135jc wrote:
You guys don't get it. What Brewster is saying is correct in that most dtjc will see higher increases but to say they are being carried by Greenville is not accurate. It is downtown that supports the city

135jc wrote:
You guys don't get it. What Brewster is saying is correct in that most dtjc will see higher increases but to say they are being carried by Greenville is not accurate. It is downtown that supports the city

brewster wrote: Quote:

135jc wrote: That's fine.however you are simply stating that Greenville due to lower property values might be paying a larger percentage of its property value to property tax. That hardly equates to Greenville subsdizing the downtown taxpayer. Over the last 10-15 yrs downtown has exploded it's is paying the lions share of Jersey City taxes . Without it Greenville would have a much higher rate.

Nope. That is not what I said. Greenville's property values appreciated at a slower rate than DT, resulting in them paying a far higher effective tax rate in the absence of a reval, which is supposed to correct this error every ten years. That rate is often 2x to 3x, meaning they are subsidizing DT, because tax is zero sum, if someone is underpaying, someone else is overpaying. Many DT properties are paying <1% of their FMV when the effective rate is supposed to be 2.2%. Many Greenville properties are paying >3%, subsidizing those underpaying DT. Got it?

135jc wrote: That's fine.however you are simply stating that Greenville due to lower property values might be paying a larger percentage of its property value to property tax. That hardly equates to Greenville subsdizing the downtown taxpayer. Over the last 10-15 yrs downtown has exploded it's is paying the lions share of Jersey City taxes . Without it Greenville would have a much higher rate.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Brewster,. The tax payers of Greenville are not subsidizing the downtowner tax payer. That statement is just absurd

I've proven this here with numbers more times than I can count. Do you just have a feeling?

Here, just for you I'll repost something I wrote a few years ago. The various tax numbers have changed:

Here's a quick primer on JC property tax. In theory all JC property tax should be based on the actual property value equaling assessed value times a "ratio" the city updates according to it best guess of property appreciation, currently about 3.3. The actual tax rate of 7.184 is applied to the assessment, that rate being the effective tax rate (~2.2%) times the adjustment ratio (http://www.hudsoncountytax.com/html/RatesRatios.aspx). But in the 25 years since the last reval (when the assessments were set to market value and the Ratio was reset to 0), many properties values have drifted away from this theoretical value. One thing I've discovered perusing the official tax records, (http://tax1.co.monmouth.nj.us/cgi-bin ... istrict=0906&ms_user=monm) is there's a data field for each property called "Ratio", which is not always occupied (I have not determined why). This field might as well be called the "tax fairness quotient". This Ratio = (assessment/sale price) x 100. If it's over 33, you're paying too much, if it's under 33, you're paying too little. In a tax appeal, up to 15% variance from the 33 Ratio is considered normal, but in a reval, everyone get set at the new Ratio using their appraisal.

While looking at recent sales I stumbled on a really juicy one. A magnificent townhouse on Montgomery sold to a hedge fund last October for $1,800,000; assessment $245,000; tax $17,601. That's a real rate of 0.98% versus the "theoretical" rate of 2.2% (7.184% / 3.272%) with a ratio of 13.61, rather far from the city's ideal 33. Were they paying the 2.2% that city says we all should be, their tax would be $39,600! Clicking at random on Zillow among the recent sales in 07304 it was hard not to find places well over a 40 ratio, 3rd try got one in Bergen-Lafayette with a 51.5! That makes a real tax rate of 3.7% per year. That owner pays $3.77 for every dollar the hedge fund owner on Montgomery does on the value of their respective properties. THIS IS THE STORY HERE!!!!! 6 owners of property worth $300,000 have to overpay as much as this one underpays to make up for this under assessment. There are real people on the other side of the equation paying the taxes owed by the undertaxed properties!

The research to substantiate what I say is easy. Go to Zillow.com, Trulia.com or any other real estate site, search a zip code for recently sold properties, pick one at random. Divide the assessment by the sale price, and multiply by 100. If it's over 33, they're paying too much, under, they're not paying enough. In general, Downtown historic properties are dramatically underpaying, and other wards are overpaying. This is not a intended to be a divisive argument, but why should the family who struggles to afford their little $250,000 house in the Heights or Greenville be paying the taxes of someone who can afford a million dollar Downtown home? If you're a property owner, find your tax card, divide your assessment by your best guess of your property value, and multiply by 100. If you're much over 33, this cancellation is going to cost you money. And if you're only moderately over, between 33 and 38, you don't even qualify for an appeal because of the 15% allowed deviation.

Whatever problems there may be with the reval contract, the answer is to fix it, not to perpetuate this injustice on the people who are often the least sophisticated about these tax issues.

135jc wrote:
Brewster,. The tax payers of Greenville are not subsidizing the downtowner tax payer. That statement is just absurd

helios_nj wrote:
Does anyone know if the new rates will be phased in or will they be applied in full come next year?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
when I lived on Van Vorst Park, I paid the taxes the city mailed me.

No, actually you appealed your taxes again and again.

Quote:

No section of the city should be carrying the taxes for the rest of the city.

You seem to have had no problem with homeowners in Greenville paying the difference between your FMV and assessed taxes. You never spoke of it once in all your railing against revals that some people were paying effective tax rates 3x others. I have no problem with all the DT homeowners who had a great tax deal and kept their mouths shut. You have yapped for decades but have not stood up for actual tax fairness.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
when I lived on Van Vorst Park, I paid the taxes the city mailed me.

No, actually you appealed your taxes again and again.

Quote:

No section of the city should be carrying the taxes for the rest of the city.

You seem to have had no problem with homeowners in Greenville paying the difference between your FMV and assessed taxes. You never spoke of it once in all your railing against revals that some people were paying effective tax rates 3x others. I have no problem with all the DT homeowners who had a great tax deal and kept their mouths shut. You have yapped for decades but have not stood up for actual tax fairness.

Yvonne wrote:
when I lived on Van Vorst Park, I paid the taxes the city mailed me.

No section of the city should be carrying the taxes for the rest of the city.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

tictaktoe wrote:
How would PILOT? My bldg. has tax abatement and even the recently sold apts (and hence the reflected current market price) are paying around 1%-1.2% in taxes instead ~2%. Would this reval impact such properties as well?

Tax abatements are assessed but has no impact until they are off the roles. Tax abatements are not treated as ratables but contracts. Another reason why tax abatements are unfair to the general small homeowner.

This is not entirely accurate. Depending on the tax abatement contract, the levy MOST LIKELY is a parcentage of sale value. For example, the abatement at The Oakman is 0.9% of sale. That number is low, but more or less in line with what other properties in DTJC are currently paying. The contract has stipulations that dictate when and how that abatement is adjusted to increase the percentage to be paid, one of which is how much of a differential exists between the established tax rate for properties in JC and the initial abatement rate.

Regardless, the idea that abated properties are getting a free ride has long been debunked. The city is getting a sweet deal at the expense of the county, and the BOE. Tht 0.9% is going straight to the city, which is a lot more money than why JC would have collected on those properties under a regular tax setup.

You are wrong, I suggest you look at the "Friendly Budget," it shows what the tax abatements pays and what it would pay if fully taxed. They would pay more if fully taxed. This is on the city's website. Example Gull Cove - $2,690,875 if fully taxed $3,248,967.

Wow. You're not just tone deaf, you're just plain deaf to anyone's statements, or mentally incapable. There was no argument that they were paying the same as if there were no abatement. THEN THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN AN ABATEMENT!!! Bohdipooh said they were paying .9% rather than the normal 2.2%. And Gulls Cove is paying far more than that, about 83% of their unabated tax.

0.9% happens to be about the same as you were paying on Van Vorst Park when you were ranting about freeloading abated properties, while homeowners in Greenville were paying 3x your tax rate. Somehow you just never gave a crap about them in the 3 decades you've been a tax crusader. Why is that Yvonne?

There are people who only received a 5 year tax abatement, which I am not against and are now paying full taxes. They are paying close to $20,000 a year in property taxes. Futhermore, when I lived on Van Vorst Park, I paid the taxes the city mailed me. But in total I have paid over $300,000 in taxes. I have all of my bills and after the 1988 reval of I had a tax bill of $16,000 which was equal to my salary. There are people still on Van Vorst Park that are paying $33,000 and and $43,000 for a brownstone...

How are you defining "Brownstone" - more than two family?
What's the address of those two properties? I think you just make stuff up, so prove me wrong.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

tictaktoe wrote:
How would PILOT? My bldg. has tax abatement and even the recently sold apts (and hence the reflected current market price) are paying around 1%-1.2% in taxes instead ~2%. Would this reval impact such properties as well?

Tax abatements are assessed but has no impact until they are off the roles. Tax abatements are not treated as ratables but contracts. Another reason why tax abatements are unfair to the general small homeowner.

This is not entirely accurate. Depending on the tax abatement contract, the levy MOST LIKELY is a parcentage of sale value. For example, the abatement at The Oakman is 0.9% of sale. That number is low, but more or less in line with what other properties in DTJC are currently paying. The contract has stipulations that dictate when and how that abatement is adjusted to increase the percentage to be paid, one of which is how much of a differential exists between the established tax rate for properties in JC and the initial abatement rate.

Regardless, the idea that abated properties are getting a free ride has long been debunked. The city is getting a sweet deal at the expense of the county, and the BOE. Tht 0.9% is going straight to the city, which is a lot more money than why JC would have collected on those properties under a regular tax setup.

You are wrong, I suggest you look at the "Friendly Budget," it shows what the tax abatements pays and what it would pay if fully taxed. They would pay more if fully taxed. This is on the city's website. Example Gull Cove - $2,690,875 if fully taxed $3,248,967.

Wow. You're not just tone deaf, you're just plain deaf to anyone's statements, or mentally incapable. There was no argument that they were paying the same as if there were no abatement. THEN THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN AN ABATEMENT!!! Bohdipooh said they were paying .9% rather than the normal 2.2%. And Gulls Cove is paying far more than that, about 83% of their unabated tax.

0.9% happens to be about the same as you were paying on Van Vorst Park when you were ranting about freeloading abated properties, while homeowners in Greenville were paying 3x your tax rate. Somehow you just never gave a crap about them in the 3 decades you've been a tax crusader. Why is that Yvonne?

There are people who only received a 5 year tax abatement, which I am not against and are now paying full taxes. They are paying close to $20,000 a year in property taxes. Futhermore, when I lived on Van Vorst Park, I paid the taxes the city mailed me. But in total I have paid over $300,000 in taxes. I have all of my bills and after the 1988 reval of I had a tax bill of $16,000 which was equal to my salary. There are people still on Van Vorst Park that are paying $33,000 and and $43,000 for a brownstone...

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

tictaktoe wrote:
How would PILOT? My bldg. has tax abatement and even the recently sold apts (and hence the reflected current market price) are paying around 1%-1.2% in taxes instead ~2%. Would this reval impact such properties as well?

Tax abatements are assessed but has no impact until they are off the roles. Tax abatements are not treated as ratables but contracts. Another reason why tax abatements are unfair to the general small homeowner.

This is not entirely accurate. Depending on the tax abatement contract, the levy MOST LIKELY is a parcentage of sale value. For example, the abatement at The Oakman is 0.9% of sale. That number is low, but more or less in line with what other properties in DTJC are currently paying. The contract has stipulations that dictate when and how that abatement is adjusted to increase the percentage to be paid, one of which is how much of a differential exists between the established tax rate for properties in JC and the initial abatement rate.

Regardless, the idea that abated properties are getting a free ride has long been debunked. The city is getting a sweet deal at the expense of the county, and the BOE. Tht 0.9% is going straight to the city, which is a lot more money than why JC would have collected on those properties under a regular tax setup.

You are wrong, I suggest you look at the "Friendly Budget," it shows what the tax abatements pays and what it would pay if fully taxed. They would pay more if fully taxed. This is on the city's website. Example Gull Cove - $2,690,875 if fully taxed $3,248,967.

Wow. You're not just tone deaf, you're just plain deaf to anyone's statements, or mentally incapable. There was no argument that they were paying the same as if there were no abatement. THEN THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN AN ABATEMENT!!! Bohdipooh said they were paying .9% rather than the normal 2.2%. And Gulls Cove is paying far more than that, about 83% of their unabated tax.

0.9% happens to be about the same as you were paying on Van Vorst Park when you were ranting about freeloading abated properties, while homeowners in Greenville were paying 3x your tax rate. Somehow you just never gave a crap about them in the 3 decades you've been a tax crusader. Why is that Yvonne?

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

tictaktoe wrote:
How would PILOT? My bldg. has tax abatement and even the recently sold apts (and hence the reflected current market price) are paying around 1%-1.2% in taxes instead ~2%. Would this reval impact such properties as well?

Tax abatements are assessed but has no impact until they are off the roles. Tax abatements are not treated as ratables but contracts. Another reason why tax abatements are unfair to the general small homeowner.

This is not entirely accurate. Depending on the tax abatement contract, the levy MOST LIKELY is a parcentage of sale value. For example, the abatement at The Oakman is 0.9% of sale. That number is low, but more or less in line with what other properties in DTJC are currently paying. The contract has stipulations that dictate when and how that abatement is adjusted to increase the percentage to be paid, one of which is how much of a differential exists between the established tax rate for properties in JC and the initial abatement rate.

Regardless, the idea that abated properties are getting a free ride has long been debunked. The city is getting a sweet deal at the expense of the county, and the BOE. Tht 0.9% is going straight to the city, which is a lot more money than why JC would have collected on those properties under a regular tax setup.

You are wrong, I suggest you look at the "Friendly Budget," it shows what the tax abatements pays and what it would pay if fully taxed. They would pay more if fully taxed. This is on the city's website. Example Gull Cove - $2,690,875 if fully taxed $3,248,967.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

tictaktoe wrote:
How would PILOT? My bldg. has tax abatement and even the recently sold apts (and hence the reflected current market price) are paying around 1%-1.2% in taxes instead ~2%. Would this reval impact such properties as well?

Tax abatements are assessed but has no impact until they are off the roles. Tax abatements are not treated as ratables but contracts. Another reason why tax abatements are unfair to the general small homeowner.

This is not entirely accurate. Depending on the tax abatement contract, the levy MOST LIKELY is a parcentage of sale value. For example, the abatement at The Oakman is 0.9% of sale. That number is low, but more or less in line with what other properties in DTJC are currently paying. The contract has stipulations that dictate when and how that abatement is adjusted to increase the percentage to be paid, one of which is how much of a differential exists between the established tax rate for properties in JC and the initial abatement rate.

Regardless, the idea that abated properties are getting a free ride has long been debunked. The city is getting a sweet deal at the expense of the county, and the BOE. Tht 0.9% is going straight to the city, which is a lot more money than why JC would have collected on those properties under a regular tax setup.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

tictaktoe wrote:
How would PILOT? My bldg. has tax abatement and even the recently sold apts (and hence the reflected current market price) are paying around 1%-1.2% in taxes instead ~2%. Would this reval impact such properties as well?

Tax abatements are assessed but has no impact until they are off the roles. Tax abatements are not treated as ratables but contracts. Another reason why tax abatements are unfair to the general small homeowner.

helios_nj wrote:
I was assesed at $450K for a HELOC by Wells Fargo recently. They did comps. Not sure what to believe though but pretty sure 1BR 1.5BA 845sf on Mercer is closer to $550K. I pay $7000 in tax now so if they value it like Wells I won't pay much more. Honestly I can't pay much more. This whole situation is pretty nervewracking.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

HighFiveCity wrote:
I've heard arguments for both sides of the coin (letting in the inspectors vs. not letting them in) but neither being very convincing.
Does anyone have any strong opinions one way or the other, or experienced this in the past, here or elsewhere?

Duda said you cannot be rewarded for not letting in an inspector, so you will get the higher assessment for this action.

tictaktoe wrote:
How would PILOT? My bldg. has tax abatement and even the recently sold apts (and hence the reflected current market price) are paying around 1%-1.2% in taxes instead ~2%. Would this reval impact such properties as well?

HighFiveCity wrote:
I've heard arguments for both sides of the coin (letting in the inspectors vs. not letting them in) but neither being very convincing.
Does anyone have any strong opinions one way or the other, or experienced this in the past, here or elsewhere?

helios_nj wrote:
Live on Mercer Street downtown and haven't had an inspection yet. My assessment is currently $93,600 and my place I guess is worth around $550,000. Does anyone know if my taxes will go up?