dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Since JC gets almost as much from other state taxpayers to support JC schools as its total budget it's laughable to say JC had high taxes, especially given the proposed 1.62 rate.

Where is stateaidguy when you need him? That 1.62 rate is a pretty big hammer...

Monroe wrote:
Since JC gets almost as much from other state taxpayers to support JC schools as its total budget it's laughable to say JC had high taxes, especially given the proposed 1.62 rate.

Haggis wrote:
Does anyone know how many owners have not rec'd their reval yet?
Haven't seen my property on any list, mailbox filled daily with useless spam.
Just want to know at this point.
Thanks mates.

brewster wrote:
[quote]
LOL! So true.

Yvonne wrote:
Please Brewster, come and speak at a budget hearing, because I am tired of being the only public speaker.

tictaktoe wrote:
are you nuts?

Yvonne wrote:
What is missing from this revaluation is the budget, yes the budget is the number based on those figures. When Healy left office, the budget was $485 million. Fulop's last budget - 2017 - was $588 million. I personally believe Fulop stopped revaluation so he would not be under any scrutiny on his spending habits and he could give 70 plus tax abatement in his first term. Remember how he would attack Healy for tax abatements? For those wondering why we did not feel the impact of the spending, it has to do with expired tax abatements. The tax abatements granted under Schundler expired and the ratable base increase. I have always said our taxes are high due to tax abatements because they are not ratables.

Yvonne wrote:
What is missing from this revaluation is the budget

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

Well put. People calling for a phase in are being greedy and encouraging more bad behavior.

Not really. Rather this conversation is just above the level of comprehension and analytical capability for some folk.

Yes, and those people who can't comprehend it are the ones downtown crying foul. Thank you for confirming!!

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

Well put. People calling for a phase in are being greedy and encouraging more bad behavior.

Not really. Rather this conversation is just above the level of comprehension and analytical capability for some folk.

SOS wrote:
At the HCA meeting with Fulop and Solomon on Monday the 12th, it was mentioned that all value letters will be sent by February 19.

Perhaps Terrance McDonald can confirm this date?

Well put. People calling for a phase in are being greedy and encouraging more bad behavior.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

Dinger wrote:
ASI won't be mailing value letters until the end of March. Most of the assessments are still "in progress."

At the HCA meeting with Fulop and Solomon on Monday the 12th, it was mentioned that all value letters will be sent by February 19.

Perhaps Terrance McDonald can confirm this date?

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
The point is the entire city would be better off, including those with reduced assessments, if the state made a one time exception and had a stepup/phase in assessment. If so, the current reval would never have taken as long as it did to finally occur. The incentives to do so were not right under the current law.

And I've already pointed out how that will not happen, and doesn't make any sense. To present it more clearly than before, and add to it:

? Your proposal is almost certainly illegal under current law

? The state legislators would be fools to vote for it, since it will reward this form of negligence, and give other municipalities an incentive to keep delaying revals

? Jersey City doesn't deserve special treatment, since its chief role here is to delay and obstruct and sue and refuse to follow the law, to the bitter end

? Anyone with half a brain will see this as a transparent attempt to add yet another delay to the reval

? This is a problem that JC caused for itself, by going 3 decades without adjusting its taxes, and it's not Trenton's job to fix it

? It is utterly false that the "entire city" will benefit, as the tens of thousands of property owners who are scheduled for a tax cut will need to pay more taxes

? The people who are facing a tax hike had years to prepare, it's not like this was a secret

? The people who are facing a tax hike did nothing whatsoever to earn or deserve any special treatment whatsoever -- in fact, they've benefitted for years (if not decades) by paying less than their fair share

In short: Your "phase in" proposal is deeply unfair; it incentivizes municipal negligence; and it's not going to happen anyway. Pass.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Taxes are services, plain and simple. My former downtown neighbors did not spend millions on their homes. Some worked two jobs to buy their homes in the 1970s and 1980s. Their tax bills are similar to their purchase prices. Everyone generalize, some were used as one family homes, others could not rent due to damage from Irene and Sandy. When people read about these big rents, everyone generalize and that is wrong. My fear is these good people will lose their homes.

And that Yvonne, as I've said before plain and simple, is economic violence. These people bought homes, raised families and were good citizens. All they wanted was to live out their lives in their city. Shame on the administration.

Yours is a very curious stand. You claim economic violence because a person that owns a property worth over a million dollars (in Yvonne's example, some of those properties are worth 2.5+ MM!) is now expected to pay their fair share of taxes, but what about the single mother, or other disadvantaged person, living in the poorer areas of JC being asked to subsidize DTJC by paying effective tax rates that are 6 - 8 times higher!? Isn't it much more heartless (and, "violent"?) to expect (demand, even!) that a poor resident continue to "overpay" so that a demonstrably richer one can continue to under pay?? Is your concept of economic violence only applicable to people you can relate to or happen to know? Definitely a very curious stand.

You really should sit out this conversation, as it is clear you do not understand what is happening. Your previous post asking for an explanation of how the rates stack up and came to be shows that you do not understand the very basics of the conversation.

Dinger wrote:
ASI won't be mailing value letters until the end of March. Most of the assessments are still "in progress."

RichMauro wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Taxes are services, plain and simple. My former downtown neighbors did not spend millions on their homes. Some worked two jobs to buy their homes in the 1970s and 1980s. Their tax bills are similar to their purchase prices. Everyone generalize, some were used as one family homes, others could not rent due to damage from Irene and Sandy. When people read about these big rents, everyone generalize and that is wrong. My fear is these good people will lose their homes.

And that Yvonne, as I've said before plain and simple, is economic violence. These people bought homes, raised families and were good citizens. All they wanted was to live out their lives in their city. Shame on the administration.

Yvonne wrote:
Taxes are services, plain and simple. My former downtown neighbors did not spend millions on their homes. Some worked two jobs to buy their homes in the 1970s and 1980s. Their tax bills are similar to their purchase prices. Everyone generalize, some were used as one family homes, others could not rent due to damage from Irene and Sandy. When people read about these big rents, everyone generalize and that is wrong. My fear is these good people will lose their homes.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
You are all over the place with your responses.

The point is the entire city would be better off, including those with reduced assessments, if the state made a one time exception and had a stepup/phase in assessment. If so, the current reval would never have taken as long as it did to finally occur. The incentives to do so were not right under the current law.

Additionally, the current state law should be amended to explicitly penalize those municipalities that do not adhere to the law like withholding state aid, removing tax cap exceptions, etc. Thay is, it will provide them with a strong incentive to do revals on a regular basis.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
The point is the entire city would be better off, including those with reduced assessments, if the state made a one time exception and had a stepup/phase in assessment. If so, the current reval would never have taken as long as it did to finally occur. The incentives to do so were not right under the current law.

Monroe wrote:
My 93 year old dad pays over 30k in the suburbs, because his town pays for 90% of its own school cost, in effect subsidizing districts like Newark and JC-which combined suck a billion and a half dollars each and every year. So DTJC owners now paying more, well it could be worse-you could pay more than 17% for your own schools.