dmark526 wrote:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... tml#incart_river_home_pop

mfadam wrote:
who in their right mind sees value in paying 40k in taxes to JC?

I think most would rather pay more per SF and build equity than pay a bit less and throw money into the JC tax sinkhole.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!

Nice of you Brewster to take amusement in what you perceive as someone's mistake. I'm not surprised as you seem to post on evey topic whether you have an informed opinion or not. Its also quite possible that Yvonne invested her profit in the soaring stock market and doubled her $$

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
272 Barrow St., a 2,808-square-foot rowhouse
Current assessment: $210,000

New assessment: $2,538,900

Current taxes: $16,380

New taxes: $41,130



#Ouch!

It's for sale -- go get it!

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!

T-Bird wrote:
There is some interesting data in the list of assessments:

The larger Crystal Point units (1,590 sf) are assessed at $1,368 per sf. Those units are all assessed the same - regardless of floor.

The larger 77 Hudson units (but not the even larger PH units) are assessed above $1,100 per sf. Those are in the 1,550 sf range. The large PHs - 2,000+ sf are assessed north of $1,500 per sf at $3,100,000+ (!!)

A few of the large 77 Hudson units were assessed at several hundred thousand dollars below prices they had recently sold for (sales that had taken place in 2016 or 2017). One was assessed $478,000 less than what it sold for in early 2016.

In general, the listed assessment seems to be higher (per sf) the larger your unit is - which is counter to what typically happens in the market.

Owners at Crystal Point and 77 Hudson are both on long-term abatements and only pay a few thousand dollars a year for land taxes, so none of this really matters for them any time soon - but if you were looking to make a case against the assessment process, I'd wonder how these conclusions were reached.

T-Bird wrote:
You don't need to create "large municipalities". You point to the small efforts these communities have made on shared services and have decided that's enough - why stop there? Combining Kearny, Harrison and East Newark doesn't create a "large municipality", nor would rolling up Guttenberg, Weehawken and WNew York. Density makes these areas prime candidates to become rolled up - and they'd realize a greater voice in Trenton as a result.

brewster wrote:
Yvonne lived at 283 York St. What's amusing is that she sold at $1.18m to avoid the value drop from the the reval, less than half the current assessment of $2,477,600. That's leaving some money on the table!

Dolomiti wrote:

Erm... My point is that people in the NYC metro area lose their **** if they aren't plowed out immediately. For example, a few years ago, NYC got hit with 11-16" of snow, and it took over a day to dig out pretty much every part of the city. As a result, outer boro residents demanded Bloomberg's decapitated head on a pike. I'm reasonably certain that residents of Idaho don't demand that level of service.

Actually, NJ is the extreme. Kansas is average. For total tax burdens:

NJ total tax rate = 10.14%
Kansas = 8.72%
Average for all 50 states = 8.57%

We have a broken state-run rail system, public schools that range from elite in a few cases, good in some cases and poor to third-world in many more and roads that my Afghani Uber driver was complaining about being "worse than home" the other day.

NJ Transit isn't "broken." Last I checked, most of its problems are a result of using Amtrak lines.

NJ's schools are #10 in the US (per US News & World Report). Kansas, by the way, is #45.

You need look no further than Princeton - even critics of their recent consolidation are only complaining that it could have been implemented better but acknowledge that it worked.

Yeah... no. The advocates are the one crowing about it, since it let them fire 23 employees. The critics point out that services are slightly reduced; they haven't harmonized a lot of town laws; that they had consolidated many services before merging; and that none of the surrounding communities have any interest in following suit.

That's not surprising, since the two cities could have fired 11 employees each and gotten the same result.

East Newark already works with the Harrison school district; they share other resources with Harrison and Kearny. Gutenberg -- which is geographically tiny but has more than 10,000 residents -- also shares resources, does not have its own fire department, sends students to North Bergen. Weehakwen also has 10,000 residents, and again shares resources with North Bergen. Its schools are small -- and well-regarded. Usually, that's a good thing.

These tiny municipalities are already doing things that reduce their costs, and improve efficiencies. Large municipalities, as the Rutgers study points out, are not more efficient than larger ones. People also seem to like local control.

As a result, there are visible downsides and few upsides to consolidation -- unless you're going to use it as an excuse to cut staff, which also means you're going to reduce services.

The promise of big gains through consolidation is an illusion.

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
272 Barrow St., a 2,808-square-foot rowhouse
Current assessment: $210,000

New assessment: $2,538,900

Current taxes: $16,380

New taxes: $41,130



#Ouch!

It's for sale -- go get it!

iGreg wrote:
272 Barrow St., a 2,808-square-foot rowhouse
Current assessment: $210,000

New assessment: $2,538,900

Current taxes: $16,380

New taxes: $41,130



#Ouch!

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
My former home made this list in the Jersey Journal article. By the way, taxes are high because Fulop spending increased nearly $100 million. We did not feel the impact because many tax abatements expired granted in the 1990s. Taxes should have gone down, but it hid this spending. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s.html#incart_2box_hudson

Lemme guess, 272 Barrow?

Yvonne wrote:
My former home made this list in the Jersey Journal article. By the way, taxes are high because Fulop spending increased nearly $100 million. We did not feel the impact because many tax abatements expired granted in the 1990s. Taxes should have gone down, but it hid this spending. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s.html#incart_2box_hudson

DanL wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=UGUd534uIs4

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:

NJ has high taxes mostly because its constituents want lots of services. Trash pickup twice a week; snow ploughed instantly; pensions paid, roads maintained, the list goes on. People in Kansas don't get all this stuff, y'know.

"want" and "receive" are very different words. Snow plowing in less densely populated areas is anything but instant.

Pensions? Those not receiving them would probably much rather have the road maintenance you point to that isn't happening.

Kansas is an extreme example (as is Oklahoma).

We have a broken state-run rail system, public schools that range from elite in a few cases, good in some cases and poor to third-world in many more and roads that my Afghani Uber driver was complaining about being "worse than home" the other day.

That Governing article you point to doesn't really apply - big cities like St. Louis and Louisville spread over large geographic areas annexing neighbors doesn't lead to efficiencies.....

You need look no further than Princeton - even critics of their recent consolidation are only complaining that it could have been implemented better but acknowledge that it worked.

Just look within the county - tell me with a straight face why East Newark, Guttenberg and Weehawken exist?

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

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.

I've noticed this, too. Although its a much smaller $ amount, the land increases for abated condos seems to range between 3x and 10x! I've been wondering if it was a way to ease the pain for the non-abated by overassessing land of the abated.

DanL wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=UGUd534uIs4

RichMauro wrote:
I wonder what the likelihood is that some JC politicians are browsing this forum.
Have any newspaper articles appeared that anyone can point out that explore the disruption in the lives
of the aged? These people only seek to live out their lives in the buildings and neighborhoods to which they've become accustomed. They've been good citizens, obeyed the laws, raised their families to do the same, and are now faced with the hardships of ridiculously high tax rates which make no sense whatever. The politicians of New Jersey should be ashamed for abandoning these seniors in the waning years of their lives.
And for those of you who offer economic reasoning and proffer same solutions to the panic in the lives of these citizens, remember: "what goes around comes around".

RichMauro wrote:
I wonder what the likelihood is that some JC politicians are browsing this forum.
Have any newspaper articles appeared that anyone can point out that explore the disruption in the lives
of the aged? These people only seek to live out their lives in the buildings and neighborhoods to which they've become accustomed. They've been good citizens, obeyed the laws, raised their families to do the same, and are now faced with the hardships of ridiculously high tax rates which make no sense whatever. The politicians of New Jersey should be ashamed for abandoning these seniors in the waning years of their lives.
And for those of you who offer economic reasoning and proffer same solutions to the panic in the lives of these citizens, remember: "what goes around comes around".

Dolomiti wrote:

NJ has high taxes mostly because its constituents want lots of services. Trash pickup twice a week; snow ploughed instantly; pensions paid, roads maintained, the list goes on. People in Kansas don't get all this stuff, y'know.