LoraJ wrote:
My mortgage company pays my taxes. Will they be the ones to get the new tax amount from the city?

K-Lo2 wrote:
Let's see where it actually sells before proclaiming trends.

hero69 wrote:
wow. they're asking $2.4 million for a townhouse in dtjc with taxes poised to rise sharply. what happened to the market collapse people were talking about?

https://jerseydigs.com/250-grove-street-for-sale-jersey-city/

LoraJ wrote:
My mortgage company pays my taxes. Will they be the ones to get the new tax amount from the city?

LoraJ wrote:
My mortgage company pays my taxes. Will they be the ones to get the new tax amount from the city?

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ILRie wrote:
I'm trying to figure this out- is it possible that 100% of the value of the abatements goes to the city, and then the city needs to make a separate payment, calculated as 5% of that, to the county?
It sounds weirdly convoluted to me but if it resulted from a settlement from a lawsuit... anything's possible, I guess. (And isn't that basically 95/5 when it comes right down to it? Like, 100 out of 105 is 95.2%?)

This why Yvonne is continually mocked, she attends meetings and calls officials, but is unable to actually understand numbers. most of us can instantly see that 95-5 or 100-5 comes out the same no matter what you call it.

This. All the brouhaha over the numbers is simply a distraction. Even if her contention is right (which I seriously doubt) 5 out of 105 works out to 4.8%.

So instead of reaching out to the city law department or calling the city clerk for the ordinance, it is easier to mock me. It is easy to mock anyone when you hide behind phony names. I challenge anyone of you to attend the next council meeting and ask any city attorney the break down of JC tax abatements. I stand by what I said.

Jersey City (the municipality) consumed 95% of the PILOT, siphoning money from the county (which received 5%) and and schools (which received 0%).

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ILRie wrote:
I'm trying to figure this out- is it possible that 100% of the value of the abatements goes to the city, and then the city needs to make a separate payment, calculated as 5% of that, to the county?
It sounds weirdly convoluted to me but if it resulted from a settlement from a lawsuit... anything's possible, I guess. (And isn't that basically 95/5 when it comes right down to it? Like, 100 out of 105 is 95.2%?)

This why Yvonne is continually mocked, she attends meetings and calls officials, but is unable to actually understand numbers. most of us can instantly see that 95-5 or 100-5 comes out the same no matter what you call it.

This. All the brouhaha over the numbers is simply a distraction. Even if her contention is right (which I seriously doubt) 5 out of 105 works out to 4.8%.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ILRie wrote:
I'm trying to figure this out- is it possible that 100% of the value of the abatements goes to the city, and then the city needs to make a separate payment, calculated as 5% of that, to the county?
It sounds weirdly convoluted to me but if it resulted from a settlement from a lawsuit... anything's possible, I guess. (And isn't that basically 95/5 when it comes right down to it? Like, 100 out of 105 is 95.2%?)

This why Yvonne is continually mocked, she attends meetings and calls officials, but is unable to actually understand numbers. most of us can instantly see that 95-5 or 100-5 comes out the same no matter what you call it.

ILRie wrote:
I'm trying to figure this out- is it possible that 100% of the value of the abatements goes to the city, and then the city needs to make a separate payment, calculated as 5% of that, to the county?
It sounds weirdly convoluted to me but if it resulted from a settlement from a lawsuit... anything's possible, I guess. (And isn't that basically 95/5 when it comes right down to it? Like, 100 out of 105 is 95.2%?)

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?

user1111 wrote:
Just received my letter, my taxes went from $6,100.00 to $4,500.00. We Greenvillians have been overpaying for too long.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The problem, Brewster, you pretend you know everything, but you do not sit down with the people who make the budgets and create the ordinances. I have been doing this since the 1970s, I have attended more budget hearing at the county and local level than I care to admit.

Yvonne, you can put the NY Times under a bird cage for 20 years, and Polly will still not be able to give you a coherent explanation of local politics.

Yvonne wrote:
The problem, Brewster, you pretend you know everything, but you do not sit down with the people who make the budgets and create the ordinances. I have been doing this since the 1970s, I have attended more budget hearing at the county and local level than I care to admit.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
[quote]
My take is that much of the rise in JC, especially the Heights, is fueled by demographic change not just market fluctuation.

Unfortunately, we will be fully gentrified with 2 family homes complete with butt-ugly pink faux-brick.

I have two more under construction near me.

brewster wrote:
[quote]
My take is that much of the rise in JC, especially the Heights, is fueled by demographic change not just market fluctuation.

MDM wrote:
I've had a back and forth with the wife about cancelling further capital improvements and just selling everything, except the place we live in.

My concern that this might be the mother of all bubbles and prices like this won't be seen again. Sort of like selling Dot.Com stocks when the NASDAQ was pushing 5,000.

brewster wrote:

MDM: the GRMs have been out of control for a while. Think about all these condos people are purchasing to rent out at purchase multiples well over 20 times yearly rents. Our 2012 Heights 4U purchase had a GRM of 7, and those rents were low.

MDM wrote:
The one thing about these appraised values:

If I bought either of these two buildings at the appraised price, I would be cash flow negative. No way the rents would cover, even at lower interest rates.

Something tells me at some point in the future, we will see the mother of price deflation when it comes to real estate.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?

Haven't you been paying attention? Yvonne is arithmetically impaired.

Just when you thought Yvonne couldn't get any kookier... This reminds me of the time someone tried to argue with me that 25% was not the same as dividing by four. Some people just don't understand numbers.