hero69 wrote:
well, it is definitely time for fulop to curtail, if not eliminate, these sweetheart deals imo. Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Loan? That is silly, the city reduced the pilots payments several years ago due to water rates on a senior building. They were paying 18% and water was extra. The owners came back because newer developments are only paying 6.28% to the city. No, the problem are these sweetheart deals, by the way those seniors in those buildings are still paying one third of their income, but the owners want a guaranteed profit, so why should anyone get a guarantee when the city takes our properties and place them into lien? The problem is a rigged system that protects tax abated buildings both affordable and market rate.

Yvonne wrote:
Loan? That is silly, the city reduced the pilots payments several years ago due to water rates on a senior building. They were paying 18% and water was extra. The owners came back because newer developments are only paying 6.28% to the city. No, the problem are these sweetheart deals, by the way those seniors in those buildings are still paying one third of their income, but the owners want a guaranteed profit, so why should anyone get a guarantee when the city takes our properties and place them into lien? The problem is a rigged system that protects tax abated buildings both affordable and market rate.

Yvonne wrote:
Here is the difference, people should not be forced to sell while the city is still giving out sweetheart tax abatements. There is something wrong with that. Besides, my former neighbor who is 90 has an adult son who is disable mentally, moving from an area that he lived in since a child would be hard on him, that is one example. Another neighbor has around the clock care for MS, her money goes there. I could keep going on. The taxes are high because tax abatements are not ratables and only ratables can lower or stabilize taxes. It is the reason Hoboken had two revaluation and did not have this problem.

Yvonne wrote:
Hero69, there is a difference of working the system by not declaring all of your income and those people who are erroneously over assessed. It is really sad you do not understand the difference. As I mentioned before, I saw long term homeowners lose their homes. There was an article written in the Jersey City Reporter by E. Assata Wright about homeless people staying warm in the Emergency Room of the Medical Center. One of the people in the article stated his family lost their home downtown and when he mentioned the year, this person was a victim of the revaluation. You do not lose their apartment in subsidized housing you just pay according to your income.

Yvonne wrote:
Hero69, property taxes are paid on the ability to pay. There are people who use the system because the system allows itself to be used. Low income housing requires one third of income for rent. Couples get around that by not marrying having children and only showing one income. A friend remarried after her husband died, she was not working during her first marriage. When she remarried her rent went up four times and her neighbors chided her for doing this. Yes, she moved out. Do I blame the people who work the system? No. But no matter how you look at it, it is wrong. And Reverend Perry is wrong to admonish one group while asking for affordable housing for Bayfront.

Yvonne wrote:
Hero69, property taxes are paid on the ability to pay. There are people who use the system because the system allows itself to be used. Low income housing requires one third of income for rent. Couples get around that by not marrying having children and only showing one income. A friend remarried after her husband died, she was not working during her first marriage. When she remarried her rent went up four times and her neighbors chided her for doing this. Yes, she moved out. Do I blame the people who work the system? No. But no matter how you look at it, it is wrong. And Reverend Perry is wrong to admonish one group while asking for affordable housing for Bayfront.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
By the way, shame for Reverend Perry for admonishing downtown homeowners for their tax bills. He belongs to Jersey City Together and that group asked for affordable housing for Bayfront. Affordable housing is limited taxes.

Hahaha!!

Yvonne is actually correct! And heartless.

hey Yvonne, what's your opinion on 99 Hudson? The building is not receiving no tax abatement and will add hundreds of millions to the ratable base. Plus, the building and its residents won't be consuming much city services (police, public schools)
It single handily will result in a small tax rate cut for the entire city when it's built due to the amount of property tax revenue it will generate, net of municipal costs to service it. Would you supportive of more 99 Hudson's being built.

Neither did I receive any city services except garbage. No one knows the income of residents when they receive a tax bill or whether a spouse lost their jobs. I am speaking the truth. Taxpayers should stop subsidizing others, there should be no free rides. As it is $80 million is not paid. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... sey_city_tax_abateme.html

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
By the way, shame for Reverend Perry for admonishing downtown homeowners for their tax bills. He belongs to Jersey City Together and that group asked for affordable housing for Bayfront. Affordable housing is limited taxes.

Hahaha!!

Yvonne is actually correct! And heartless.

hey Yvonne, what's your opinion on 99 Hudson? The building is not receiving no tax abatement and will add hundreds of millions to the ratable base. Plus, the building and its residents won't be consuming much city services (police, public schools)
It single handily will result in a small tax rate cut for the entire city when it's built due to the amount of property tax revenue it will generate, net of municipal costs to service it. Would you supportive of more 99 Hudson's being built.

Neither did I receive any city services except garbage. No one knows the income of residents when they receive a tax bill or whether a spouse lost their jobs. I am speaking the truth. Taxpayers should stop subsidizing others, there should be no free rides. As it is $80 million is not paid. http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... sey_city_tax_abateme.html

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
By the way, shame for Reverend Perry for admonishing downtown homeowners for their tax bills. He belongs to Jersey City Together and that group asked for affordable housing for Bayfront. Affordable housing is limited taxes.

Hahaha!!

Yvonne is actually correct! And heartless.

hey Yvonne, what's your opinion on 99 Hudson? The building is not receiving no tax abatement and will add hundreds of millions to the ratable base. Plus, the building and its residents won't be consuming much city services (police, public schools)
It single handily will result in a small tax rate cut for the entire city when it's built due to the amount of property tax revenue it will generate, net of municipal costs to service it. Would you supportive of more 99 Hudson's being built.

Yvonne wrote:
By the way, shame for Reverend Perry for admonishing downtown homeowners for their tax bills. He belongs to Jersey City Together and that group asked for affordable housing for Bayfront. Affordable housing is limited taxes.

user1111 wrote:
The assessment company predicts that the biggest impacts will be felt downtown, while residents elsewhere in the city ? in particular the Greenville and the southernmost part of the city ? will actually see sharp declines.

Greenville, the West Side and The Heights, including areas such as County Village and Society Hill, may see decreases when the final numbers are released.

Community activists have long complained that residents in poorer neighborhoods have been paying too much in taxes, artificially subsidizing lower taxes for residences downtown.

Although the numbers throughout the city have yet to be fully released, Councilman Michael Yun predicts that Jersey City Heights ? which was hit hard in the last revaluation in 1988 ? will not be as negatively impacted as downtown was.

?The Heights are still an attractive place to move,? he said, suggesting that a trend that started well before the revaluation of residents moving from downtown to The Heights might increase as the results of the revaluation push people out downtown.

The problem is that downtown residents may not be able to sell their properties as easily as they might have before the revaluation.

In some cases, pending sales of properties were held up in order to see what the new taxes would be.

?This is bad news for everybody,? said one local real estate agent. ?People looking to buy here don?t look at neighborhood by neighborhood, they?re thinking Jersey City, and this revaluation is saying Jersey City is too expensive.?

Read more: Hudson Reporter - Bad news for downtown Residents stunned when reval results mean more taxes

Sutherland wrote:
One thing that's really difficult is that a lot of the people most adversely affected by the tax increase were real pioneers who purchased homes here in the early 80s and got behind the community, effectuated significant change and ultimately did more for Jersey City than any politician or developer. Now after pulling Jersey City from out of the depths, many of them may be forced to sell and move. The process doesn't seem to pay any deference to their efforts. For a lot of these people, downtown Jersey City is a uniquely special place to live. So the fact that they could sell their homes and maybe cash in with a lot of money may not be so comforting. They actually CREATED a community here and created a place that was unique and special. Now they have to think about where they could go and live and feel as comfortable. It's a hard pill to swallow and it's something I wish people would feel sensitive to.

Sutherland wrote:
One thing that's really difficult is that a lot of the people most adversely affected by the tax increase were real pioneers who purchased homes here in the early 80s and got behind the community, effectuated significant change and ultimately did more for Jersey City than any politician or developer. Now after pulling Jersey City from out of the depths, many of them may be forced to sell and move. The process doesn't seem to pay any deference to their efforts. For a lot of these people, downtown Jersey City is a uniquely special place to live. So the fact that they could sell their homes and maybe cash in with a lot of money may not be so comforting. They actually CREATED a community here and created a place that was unique and special. Now they have to think about where they could go and live and feel as comfortable. It's a hard pill to swallow and it's something I wish people would feel sensitive to.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
...

Most people are ranting about a 1 million dollar home should pay 16K. No problem but if 100K home is 1M in 15 years, wages should have also gone up by same proportion and that is totally nuts.. If I have to pay local taxes as percent of my income I will do that and that is better way to tax and provide local services IMHO.

If you think property taxes are unfair - move to Delaware, Louisiana or Alabama.

https://taxfoundation.org/how-high-are-property-taxes-your-state/

avinandre wrote:
...

Most people are ranting about a 1 million dollar home should pay 16K. No problem but if 100K home is 1M in 15 years, wages should have also gone up by same proportion and that is totally nuts.. If I have to pay local taxes as percent of my income I will do that and that is better way to tax and provide local services IMHO.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
A person living in 1M is not rich by any means and 16K may be 10% of his annual salary so it hurts..

Translation: I want to buy too much house regardless of the financial implications.

Prices have inflated a lot in last 3 years so I don't think that equate well here and reval is happening at the peak.

Your response just proves that you just do not understand how the reval works. The reval happening at peak does not matter one bit! The municipal budget has to be funded, and the tax receipts AFTER the reval will remain the same as BEFORE the reval. If the reval had been completed four years ago, as originally intended, then we would have ended up with lower aggregate valuations, which would have resulted in a higher rate.

Aggregate Value * Tax Rate = Tax Revenue

The value on the right is (essentially) fixed so the values on the left go up or down as necessary.

There is one aspect of the market being at a peak, that actually matters, and it is beneficial to DTJC homeowners: the past fours years have seen values in areas outside of DTJC starting to really heat up. In other words, the gap in valuation has narrowed somewhat, which means that the burden on DTJC homeowners was actually lessened as to compared to what would have happened in the reval had been completed in 2013-2014. In others, DTJC homeowners got a benefit (perhaps unintended) when the mayor cancelled the reval and sought delay after delay.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
I don't feel bad for a person sitting on a multimillion dollar pot of equity.

You see it as equity, others see it as a home.

There is your problem: the two premises are NOT mutually exclusive.

heights wrote:
Quote:

avinandre wrote:
Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
well, maybe its time for fulop and team to stop handing out tax abatements as if they're halloween candy

FWIW I looked into 10 Provost Square (new building near Grove St PATH) a few weeks ago and they have no tax abatement...so maybe the tide is starting to turn.

Condos with tax abatement still pays fair taxes..

All the rental buildings are still getting 30 year tax abatements. T

Look up the tax records for owners of abated properties, it's not hard if you know the address. Check out what they pay it's a fraction of what a normal taxed property is around here.