Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I just heard from 3 former neighbors in the Van Vorst neighborhood. New taxes, $31,000, $35,000, and $41,000.

If they got whacked with a big increase in taxes, then that means they spent years (if not decades) paying lower taxes... and forcing others to pay more than their fair share.

Request for sympathy: DENIED.

No, they got whacked because tax abated properties are not ratables. By comparison, those tax abated properties are paying very little and receive the same services as those being whacked.

Adonis wrote:
I've been living in a tax abated 2 bedroom 2 bath condo in downtown for 10 years. I've been paying $10.5k per year in property taxes for those 10 years. Turns out I was paying in many instances more than twice the amount that many of my fellow neighbors who are in non-tax abated properties that are currently valued at $1m or more were paying.
It's a complete fallacy to blanketly say that tax abated properties were paying less taxes than non-tax abated properties by comparison.

brewster wrote:


Could you mine from the data how much more money is going to be coming from the abated properties due to the land rise? I can see a lot of abated condos going up $1k to $1.5k in tax.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I just heard from 3 former neighbors in the Van Vorst neighborhood. New taxes, $31,000, $35,000, and $41,000.

If they got whacked with a big increase in taxes, then that means they spent years (if not decades) paying lower taxes... and forcing others to pay more than their fair share.

Request for sympathy: DENIED.

No, they got whacked because tax abated properties are not ratables. By comparison, those tax abated properties are paying very little and receive the same services as those being whacked.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I just heard from 3 former neighbors in the Van Vorst neighborhood. New taxes, $31,000, $35,000, and $41,000.

If they got whacked with a big increase in taxes, then that means they spent years (if not decades) paying lower taxes... and forcing others to pay more than their fair share.

Request for sympathy: DENIED.

No, they got whacked because tax abated properties are not ratables. By comparison, those tax abated properties are paying very little and receive the same services as those being whacked.

Yvonne wrote:
I just heard from 3 former neighbors in the Van Vorst neighborhood. New taxes, $31,000, $35,000, and $41,000.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I just heard from 3 former neighbors in the Van Vorst neighborhood. New taxes, $31,000, $35,000, and $41,000.

If they got whacked with a big increase in taxes, then that means they spent years (if not decades) paying lower taxes... and forcing others to pay more than their fair share.

Request for sympathy: DENIED.

biggoron wrote:
File as promised:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VkmP6vQEiNs2LGm58Cl3V96xnVgvlyBP

I'd recommend downloading it and opening it in Excel if you have it.

biggoron wrote:
File as promised:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VkmP6vQEiNs2LGm58Cl3V96xnVgvlyBP

I'd recommend downloading it and opening it in Excel if you have it.

Yvonne wrote:
I just heard from 3 former neighbors in the Van Vorst neighborhood. New taxes, $31,000, $35,000, and $41,000.

bjay wrote:
More food for thought: Will the reval help instigate a property tax rebellion?

Town consolidation to reduce redundancies?

A pushback on municipal jobs that come with generous pension deals?

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Nicky, you were not around downtown, so to say I was against anything being built is 100% wrong. As a former president of the Van Vorst Park Association, I supported development and green space. I had meetings with former Mayor Jordan. I was instrumental in getting the funds for Van Vorst Park and Hamilton, green acres. It was the first time Green Acres were used in any urban park. That took a lot of work with tons of meetings. By the way, I personally stopped the city turning Van Vorst Park into a basketball court because green acres required active sports. The trade off was vacant land on Wayne Street which has a basketball court and later became a park. Van Vorst Park also supported cut curves that are part of standard sidewalks. Someone had to the first to do that. I also started the Meet Ball, it happened to celebrated the hours we spent on the park renovations. I also got grant money to have trees place around Van Vorst and other parts of downtown. You know nothing because you were not around.

Well, what the hell happened to you?

Yvonne wrote: I also started the Meet Ball,

SOS wrote:
PDF of current letters/assessments that have gone out -

http://www.asinj.com/revaluation.asp?p=current&id=359

Click on "Assessment Lists" lower left of page.

Yvonne wrote:
Nicky, you were not around downtown, so to say I was against anything being built is 100% wrong. As a former president of the Van Vorst Park Association, I supported development and green space. I had meetings with former Mayor Jordan. I was instrumental in getting the funds for Van Vorst Park and Hamilton, green acres. It was the first time Green Acres were used in any urban park. That took a lot of work with tons of meetings. By the way, I personally stopped the city turning Van Vorst Park into a basketball court because green acres required active sports. The trade off was vacant land on Wayne Street which has a basketball court and later became a park. Van Vorst Park also supported cut curves that are part of standard sidewalks. Someone had to the first to do that. I also started the Meet Ball, it happened to celebrated the hours we spent on the park renovations. I also got grant money to have trees place around Van Vorst and other parts of downtown. You know nothing because you were not around.

JCman24 wrote:
I'm seeing a ton of downtown properties for sale on Zillow right now, whereas it seems like the market has been super tight for the last few years. Of course they're all going for more than a million, but still interesting.

JCman24 wrote:
I'm seeing a ton of downtown properties for sale on Zillow right now, whereas it seems like the market has been super tight for the last few years. Of course they're all going for more than a million, but still interesting.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Why would there even be a need for physical assessments if we went to a 5-year system? We do it algorithmically using nearby sales and comp data with perhaps a physical assessment only being trigged in the event of a sale or 10 years, whichever comes first?

People like Yvonne wouldn't be able to game the system this way and unload their properties before an expected increase this way though, so expect lots of NIMBY and NA opposition.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
If anyone has advice on how to convince the city to get on, say, a 5-year schedule, let me know. ;)

Fair concern. Yvonne has made bitching and fearmongering about 88 her life work for the past 30 years. I'm just guessing, but I think a rolling reval on sales with a 10 year reval of those not sold during that decade would probably do it. 5 year would be awful expensive.

I'm reasonably confident that the revals would cost less, if the city wasn't fighting it tooth and nail. At least 1/3 of the cost was due to the canceled 2011 reval, and legal fees.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
If anyone has advice on how to convince the city to get on, say, a 5-year schedule, let me know. ;)

Fair concern. Yvonne has made bitching and fearmongering about 88 her life work for the past 30 years. I'm just guessing, but I think a rolling reval on sales with a 10 year reval of those not sold during that decade would probably do it. 5 year would be awful expensive.

Dolomiti wrote:
If anyone has advice on how to convince the city to get on, say, a 5-year schedule, let me know. ;)

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Like I said earlier, it is incredibly rich to see so many self-avowed liberals become overnight fiscal conservatives demanding more out of less, and crying unfair taxation.

Reminds of a cocktail party I went to waaay back in the 90s, when an acquaintance of mine introduced me to a Republican couple who were prominent at the time. Everything was free market this and free market that with these people, until you someone pointed out that they were living in a pretty sweet rent-controlled three-bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side. Then it was all "Hands off our rent-controlled apartment! We're entitled to this apartment!"

Like I said, when it comes to taxes and money, people can become irrational and their proclamations are often hollow and counter to the principles they claim to hold.

But, there is a certain irony to be an ardent liberal, always clamoring for more free things for everyone, and then overnight be arguing against progressive tax policies, and other such schemes that are absolutely necessary to pay and offer all these additional services.

Currently, there is an all time high clamor for free/national healthcare, universal paid family leave, free preK schooling, increased government programs, etc. I dont think many people argue against how awesome it would be to have all of that, and so much more. But, when it comes to paying for all of that, the conversation quickly turns to "why should I have to pay for that?" At some point, you have to be OK with being asked to help pay for expanded services if you are clamoring for that.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
I think it's hilarious to finally see these idiot NIMBYs and NA board members that blindly listen to people like Yvonne finally get a hard lesson in economics and supply and demand....