brewster wrote:
Yeah, I'm tempted to show up at the rally with a sign that says:

MAKE GREENVILLE KEEP PAYING MY TAXES!!!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Strawhat wrote:
Also the thousands of people who have moved in within the last few years and had kids will one day have to send them to a high school. Not sure how all these transplants are going to feel about Ferris.

An interesting point I've seen made is that the AEP programs and McNair actually damage the district schools greatly by skimming the most talented students out. I wonder what my suburban school would have been like if the top 60 out of my class of 600 had been pulled out to a magnet HS.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
At this point, where our taxes have been raised from that $17,000 level to $28,000 and up, it feels like we are being forced out our homes, where we never wanted to sell, and weren?t driven by a monetary motive.

I simply don't understand. Why would you leave your beloved home rather than part with a small fraction of your unexpected and apparently unwelcome gains? Because I'm pretty sure you're over 62, you can pay that 1.62% indefinitely via a reverse mortgage, the taxes paid will almost certainly be replenished by further appreciation.

This anger and sense of "underappreciation" by the oldest residents who have seen the most gains is really frustrating for those of us who will also see tax raises, but can see the big picture as well. Instead of realizing you got a gift of easily $100-200k from other parts of the city due to the long delay, many of you indulge this anger at the end of the party. It's unseemly.

Let me take a nap due to my old age, and I'll answer you in the morning. The "under appreciated" have to recharge their outrage.

Ha. Outrage. You have no right to be outraged (bummed maybe). And given all the reasons listed before, if you're outraged, you're an indecent person.

parkman wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
At this point, where our taxes have been raised from that $17,000 level to $28,000 and up, it feels like we are being forced out our homes, where we never wanted to sell, and weren?t driven by a monetary motive.

I simply don't understand. Why would you leave your beloved home rather than part with a small fraction of your unexpected and apparently unwelcome gains? Because I'm pretty sure you're over 62, you can pay that 1.62% indefinitely via a reverse mortgage, the taxes paid will almost certainly be replenished by further appreciation.

This anger and sense of "underappreciation" by the oldest residents who have seen the most gains is really frustrating for those of us who will also see tax raises, but can see the big picture as well. Instead of realizing you got a gift of easily $100-200k from other parts of the city due to the long delay, many of you indulge this anger at the end of the party. It's unseemly.

Let me take a nap due to my old age, and I'll answer you in the morning. The "under appreciated" have to recharge their outrage.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
At this point, where our taxes have been raised from that $17,000 level to $28,000 and up, it feels like we are being forced out our homes, where we never wanted to sell, and weren?t driven by a monetary motive.

I simply don't understand. Why would you leave your beloved home rather than part with a small fraction of your unexpected and apparently unwelcome gains? Because I'm pretty sure you're over 62, you can pay that 1.62% indefinitely via a reverse mortgage, the taxes paid will almost certainly be replenished by further appreciation.

This anger and sense of "underappreciation" by the oldest residents who have seen the most gains is really frustrating for those of us who will also see tax raises, but can see the big picture as well. Instead of realizing you got a gift of easily $100-200k from other parts of the city due to the long delay, many of you indulge this anger at the end of the party. It's unseemly.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
At this point, where our taxes have been raised from that $17,000 level to $28,000 and up, it feels like we are being forced out our homes, where we never wanted to sell, and weren?t driven by a monetary motive.

I simply don't understand. Why would you leave your beloved home rather than part with a small fraction of your unexpected and apparently unwelcome gains? Because I'm pretty sure you're over 62, you can pay that 1.62% indefinitely via a reverse mortgage, the taxes paid will almost certainly be replenished by further appreciation.

This anger and sense of "underappreciation" by the oldest residents who have seen the most gains is really frustrating for those of us who will also see tax raises, but can see the big picture as well. Instead of realizing you got a gift of easily $100-200k from other parts of the city due to the long delay, many of you indulge this anger at the end of the party. It's unseemly.

parkman wrote:
At this point, where our taxes have been raised from that $17,000 level to $28,000 and up, it feels like we are being forced out our homes, where we never wanted to sell, and weren?t driven by a monetary motive.

Adonis wrote:
Quote:

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.

Apparently what contributed to that burgeoning sense of community all along was local tax policy. Or should I say lack thereof. Until now.

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.

JCGuys wrote:
Fair question. It's incredibly complicated, which is why there is so much misinformation around the subject.

Strawhat wrote:
Also the thousands of people who have moved in within the last few years and had kids will one day have to send them to a high school. Not sure how all these transplants are going to feel about Ferris.

Monroe wrote:
Abbott is a court mandated program and not likely to go away soon. While some state financial support might get redistributed to more needy cities the bulk of state cash for JC schools will remain.

Strawhat wrote:
Would really appreciate if someone took the time to explain something to me.

I'm in agreement that this reval is long overdue. Everyone should be paying there fair share, and its about time DT did as well. But I also see people on here fighting back against the abatement questions. It seems to me that these abated buildings are not paying their fair share AFTER the reval. For example: a poster earlier in this thread stated that he's still paying 10k while his neighbors are up to 30k. Is this not also unfair?

Someone (I believe Dolomite although I could be wrong) stated that abated properties do end up paying their fair share through abatement payments. Is this true? Are these payments going to the same services as property taxes?

Excuse my ignorance on the subject.

hero69 wrote:
that's my problem with fulop. he'd rather find fault with proper taxation/reval, yet he defends tax abatements. is he healy lite or what? yes, he has curtailed them downtown somewhat, but he needs to be working on a plan to eliminate themQuote:

Yvonne wrote:
I just left the Van Vorst meeting on tax appeals and Mayor Fulop was there talking about the virtue of tax abatements. Naturally, he left out the part that tax abatements are not ratables and only ratables can stabilize or lower the tax rate.

Yvonne wrote:
I just left the Van Vorst meeting on tax appeals and Mayor Fulop was there talking about the virtue of tax abatements. Naturally, he left out the part that tax abatements are not ratables and only ratables can stabilize or lower the tax rate.