I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

I've got no dog in this fight, as I'm a renter. but I do feel for my long-time neighbors who planned on retiring here, and will now probably have to sell. good for them for getting squillions on a home they bought for very little, decades ago. but it's a big bummer to have to uproot yourself in your golden years, just because you are now sitting on a hot property.

likewise, if my landlord has to double my rent, he'll lose a known tenant who's been trouble-free for years. instead he'll have to deal with someone new, who might make extra demands in line with market-rate rent, yet he'll have no extra $$ in the bank in exchange for that headache.

yes, of course he can sell. but he too was planning on retiring here, so please refer to paragraph one of my post.

A couple of thoughts:
- the hypothetical owner of your post would have many more options than just ?will have to sell?. Among them: reverse mortgage, HE loan, HE LOC, etc.

- no renter would see his rent double because his landlord's taxes have doubled. That?s sheer misunderstanding of the numbers involved. Take the extreme example of a homeowner going from 20K to 40K. If that landlord had a single tenant, and he wanted to pass on the entirety of the tax increase onto the tenant, that means charging an additional $1,666/month. That?s only a doubling if the tenant is only paying 1,666/mo today, which seems unlikely for that kind of property. That would be an easy one to fight in housing court.

$1666/month would not double my rent, it's true. but can you name anyone in your social circle who could handle that kind of increase, even if it's only 50%?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Needs to be state driven, IMO. Property tax deferral for retirees with the accumulated balance plus interest due upon sale.

The state is not involved in the property taxation process at all, it's the cities and counties, why should they get involved in this solution?

JCGuys wrote:
Needs to be state driven, IMO. Property tax deferral for retirees with the accumulated balance plus interest due upon sale.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

I've got no dog in this fight, as I'm a renter. but I do feel for my long-time neighbors who planned on retiring here, and will now probably have to sell. good for them for getting squillions on a home they bought for very little, decades ago. but it's a big bummer to have to uproot yourself in your golden years, just because you are now sitting on a hot property.

likewise, if my landlord has to double my rent, he'll lose a known tenant who's been trouble-free for years. instead he'll have to deal with someone new, who might make extra demands in line with market-rate rent, yet he'll have no extra $$ in the bank in exchange for that headache.

yes, of course he can sell. but he too was planning on retiring here, so please refer to paragraph one of my post.

A couple of thoughts:
- the hypothetical owner of your post would have many more options than just ?will have to sell?. Among them: reverse mortgage, HE loan, HE LOC, etc.

- no renter would see his rent double because his landlord's taxes have doubled. That?s sheer misunderstanding of the numbers involved. Take the extreme example of a homeowner going from 20K to 40K. If that landlord had a single tenant, and he wanted to pass on the entirety of the tax increase onto the tenant, that means charging an additional $1,666/month. That?s only a doubling if the tenant is only paying 1,666/mo today, which seems unlikely for that kind of property. That would be an easy one to fight in housing court.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Total fees will be closer to $15,000 at the end of the day. Loan origination is just one of several.

Apparently the other biggest chunk is the Mortgage Insurance Premium, which can be 2% of value, but the important thing not broadcast is that if you take a "line of credit" style reverse, the MIP at origination is a fraction of that, it's dependent on your loan balance. My impression is a lot of the abusive loans came from brokers who were paid more for lump sum rather than line of credit style loans. Lump sum was certainly inappropriate for the lady in the article.

As I've said before, it would be so much better if the city set this up themselves to securitize "reverse mortgage" style tax liens for homeowners who met certain qualifications of age or income. It would be a win all around with less fear for homeowners and less uncertainty for the city coffers.

JCGuys wrote:
Total fees will be closer to $15,000 at the end of the day. Loan origination is just one of several.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dmark526 wrote:
This is one example of why it might not be the best idea.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/20 ... r_eviction_from_home.html

The numbers and timeline in that article make no sense and do not add up. She got $104k on a $300k house in 2004 and it was gone by 2007? By a few years later the loan balance was $300k? WTF?

As far as I can tell she must have squandered most of the loan in some way, and was robbed by the shady bank of the remaining $180k of equity in her home, there's no explanation other than a mixup of mailing addresses. Even the article states "Reverse mortgage foreclosures are rare, and evictions rarer, experts say."

These are the scare stories I am very dubious about. There was no reason to lump sum this rather than take the taxes out every year like it was a line of credit. When I looked at the fees, they seemed to be about $4k to originate the loan, I don't see that as ridiculously high for the service rendered.

A little reading has revealed that some of these are set up to fail, the banks take no measures to insure taxes are paid the way they do with a standard mortgage and escrow. This is a huge hole in the system.

dmark526 wrote:
This is one example of why it might not be the best idea.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/20 ... r_eviction_from_home.html

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Ins't there also other programs like reverse mortgages which would allow someone to cash out their equity and live in the home for the rest of their lives. Not that I would ever recommend a reverse mortgage, but just pointing out it's an option if someone wanted to stay.

Please explain why you would never recommend a reverse mortgage to pay the taxes. I cannot find any legit criticism of using a 'reverse' in this way, only of pulling out large lump sums for stupid reasons. Someone 70 years old with $2m in equity and low income can pay their taxes easily for the rest of their lives, and maybe even have some extra pocket money, rather moving or sitting in their gold plated home feeling poor.

Do the numbers, it would take more than 25 years of zero appreciation to eat half their equity by paying their tax, and no one thinks there will be zero appreciation. Complaining about taxes because they wanted to leave the now valuable house to their heirs is not a reason to feel sorry for anyone.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Ins't there also other programs like reverse mortgages which would allow someone to cash out their equity and live in the home for the rest of their lives. Not that I would ever recommend a reverse mortgage, but just pointing out it's an option if someone wanted to stay.

Please explain why you would never recommend a reverse mortgage to pay the taxes. I cannot find any legit criticism of using a 'reverse' in this way, only of pulling out large lump sums for stupid reasons. Someone 70 years old with $2m in equity and low income can pay their taxes easily for the rest of their lives, and maybe even have some extra pocket money, rather moving or sitting in their gold plated home feeling poor.

Do the numbers, it would take more than 25 years of zero appreciation to eat half their equity by paying their tax, and no one thinks there will be zero appreciation. Complaining about taxes because they wanted to leave the now valuable house to their heirs is not a reason to feel sorry for anyone.

JCGuys wrote:
Ins't there also other programs like reverse mortgages which would allow someone to cash out their equity and live in the home for the rest of their lives. Not that I would ever recommend a reverse mortgage, but just pointing out it's an option if someone wanted to stay.

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

I've got no dog in this fight, as I'm a renter. but I do feel for my long-time neighbors who planned on retiring here, and will now probably have to sell. good for them for getting squillions on a home they bought for very little, decades ago. but it's a big bummer to have to uproot yourself in your golden years, just because you are now sitting on a hot property.

likewise, if my landlord has to double my rent, he'll lose a known tenant who's been trouble-free for years. instead he'll have to deal with someone new, who might make extra demands in line with market-rate rent, yet he'll have no extra $$ in the bank in exchange for that headache.

yes, of course he can sell. but he too was planning on retiring here, so please refer to paragraph one of my post.

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

likewise, if my landlord has to double my rent, he'll lose a known tenant who's been trouble-free for years. instead he'll have to deal with someone new, who might make extra demands in line with market-rate rent, yet he'll have no extra $$ in the bank in exchange for that headache.

yes, of course he can sell. but he too was planning on retiring here, so please refer to paragraph one of my post.

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

I've got no dog in this fight, as I'm a renter. but I do feel for my long-time neighbors who planned on retiring here, and will now probably have to sell. good for them for getting squillions on a home they bought for very little, decades ago. but it's a big bummer to have to uproot yourself in your golden years, just because you are now sitting on a hot property.

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

Monroe wrote:
What cracks me up is both DTJC and residents of other wards arguing over people paying their 'fair share', while being supported by suburban taxpayers to the tune of $500 million a year to support JC schools.

JC_rider wrote:
Does anyone know how to remove tax abatement from a property? Just got the new assesment and heading to City Hall tomorrow.

Bought a condo on Westside last year near Mallory and knew taxes were too high because it was originally sold at peak of 2005 with abatement. Now I get a tax bill and city is increasing the % on the improvements. If I were to get rid of the abatement it will save me more than 30% for 2018! Kicker is with abatement dropped some of that money will go to school system that badly needs it.

We knew that people in Greenville, B/L & Westside were subsidizing rest of downtown Hamilton Park but this is just crazy.If you have an abated property make sure to compare what it would be without it.

jctexan wrote:
Ha! Yes! But I was referring to the downtown crowd who think residents of Greenville and BeLa who were overpaying should have appealed. My point was that those who were overpaying would not have been able to successfully appeal based on downtown underpaying. Right?

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
As for appealing, my understanding is that one can not use someone underpaying as the basis for a reduction, so what would the argument be for their appeal? Please don?t knee jerk respond. Really think it through with numbers.

This is my understanding. Hopefully, I won't get anything wildly wrong. ;)

Appeals are based on the claim that the city's assessment is too high. You have to prove them wrong, usually by providing 3-5 recent comparable sales. Alternately you can provide an appraisal, but in that case the appraiser must be available to testify. You only get an adjustment if the city's assessment is off by more than 15%.

My impression is that usually, if you're out of that 15% range, you'll get something. You can file yourself, it isn't terribly expensive or time-consuming. I have no idea if using an attorney increases your chances of success, or what happens if you appeal year after year.

You can't refer to the taxes other people are paying as part of the appeal process. All they care about are comps and/or an appraisal.

So: Let's say you bought your home in 2000, and your old tax bill was $10k. The city assesses your property in 2017 at $2,000,000 which means your new tax bill is around $32k. Ouch.

In order to successfully appeal, you must believe that either the city's 2017 assessment had to be off by more than 15%, or the value of your property immediately dropped more than 15%, or some combo thereof. Then, you have to be able to prove it with comparable sales.

Let's say that by fall 2018, the market crashes by 25%. You pull together comps that show the value at $1,500,000 and you get a full adjustment. Your new tax bill is $24k.

Is that numbery enough for you? ;)

brewster wrote:
...
I think most people saw that low assessment number and thought they better keep their mouths shut.

Dolomiti wrote: Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote: Quote:

Dolomiti wrote: That's like saying the city should remove every single traffic light, and make it the responsibility of individual drivers to know when to safely proceed at intersections.

Oh please, spare us the ridiculous nonsense. Obviously, not appealing property taxes is absolutely 100% nothing like removing every single traffic light.

sigh You missed the point. Since you appear to have problems with analogies, let me help you through this: The municipality has caused a problem by failing to uphold its legal responsibilities (removed traffic lights). You are throwing responsibility for fixing the situation on the citizens (crossing without lights). That won't work, because there is still a systemic problem (no lights) that individuals do not have the ability to fix. Quote:

Dolomiti wrote: It is not the responsibility of tens of thousands of JC residents to fix a systemic refusal by the city to uphold its legal responsibilities.

No dispute about that. But it is up to an individual to appeal their taxes if they are unjust or unfair because they are too high.

That?s why there?s an appeal system and that?s how it works. An individual brings an appeal ? get it??

Can?t disagree that Jersey City was wilfully negligent in neglecting to conduct revals for the past 30 or so years. Nevertheless an individual could have fixed their own problem all during that time with an appeal. It?s no secret and many people did appeal successfully. Stop crying now if you didn?t. I feel sorry for you, but you alone are responsible if you didn?t appeal.

Steve Fulop was willfully and wantonly negligent when he stopped the reval after becoming mayor.

Oh, by the way, I think you?ll find that the road rules hold you responsible for safely proceeding at any time you?re driving on public roads ? whether or not a traffic control signal is installed.

Bamb00zle wrote: Quote:

Dolomiti wrote: That's like saying the city should remove every single traffic light, and make it the responsibility of individual drivers to know when to safely proceed at intersections.

Oh please, spare us the ridiculous nonsense. Obviously, not appealing property taxes is absolutely 100% nothing like removing every single traffic light.

Dolomiti wrote: It is not the responsibility of tens of thousands of JC residents to fix a systemic refusal by the city to uphold its legal responsibilities.

That?s why there?s an appeal system and that?s how it works. An individual brings an appeal ? get it??

Can?t disagree that Jersey City was wilfully negligent in neglecting to conduct revals for the past 30 or so years. Nevertheless an individual could have fixed their own problem all during that time with an appeal. It?s no secret and many people did appeal successfully. Stop crying now if you didn?t. I feel sorry for you, but you alone are responsible if you didn?t appeal.

Steve Fulop was willfully and wantonly negligent when he stopped the reval after becoming mayor.

Oh, by the way, I think you?ll find that the road rules hold you responsible for safely proceeding at any time you?re driving on public roads ? whether or not a traffic control signal is installed.

Monroe wrote:
What cracks me up is both DTJC and residents of other wards arguing over people paying their 'fair share', while being supported by suburban taxpayers to the tune of $500 million a year to support JC schools.

Dolomiti wrote:
That's like saying the city should remove every single traffic light, and make it the responsibility of individual drivers to know when to safely proceed at intersections.

Dolomiti wrote:
It is not the responsibility of tens of thousands of JC residents to fix a systemic refusal by the city to uphold its legal responsibilities.

Dolomiti wrote:
Appealing one's property taxes is not the most difficult thing in the world. However, tens of thousands of property owners have no idea how it works, or that it's a viable option at all.

Dolomiti wrote:
Individual appeals also does not fix the situation where tens of thousands of property owners, whose properties have increased in value and are underassessed, are underpaying their taxes.

Dolomiti wrote:
Unfair imbalances in property tax assessments is not the fault of individuals who are issued incorrect assessments. This is the responsibility of the politicians who are refusing to uphold their legal responsibilities, along with the citizens who encourage them.