Dolomiti wrote:
Guess what? Property values in DTJC haven't dropped yet. They might not drop at all. As pointed out so many times, supply in DTJC is extremely tight, and demand is very high. Don't hold your breath expecting a huge property tax break in any follow-up revals.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

They're not "absurdly high taxes"; they're exactly the taxes one should pay for a residence in a particular market. Also, at a rate of 1.62% is still one of the lowest tax RATES in the entire state. Try paying 2.3% or whatever the state average is, on these valuations, then I'd say whoa. But again, there are options: reverse mortgages, the senior freeze, etc.

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

RichMauro wrote:
Quote:

Saradove wrote:
Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

Way to go Sara. That sounds like Jersey City heart you're speaking with; something that seems to be in short supply amongst the money changers on this forum. It's about home not bucks all the time.

Saradove wrote:
Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

They're not "absurdly high taxes"; they're exactly the taxes one should pay for a residence in a particular market. Also, at a rate of 1.62% is still one of the lowest tax RATES in the entire state. Try paying 2.3% or whatever the state average is, on these valuations, then I'd say whoa. But again, there are options: reverse mortgages, the senior freeze, etc.

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Saradove wrote:
Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

And he can't part with some of his unexpected millions via reverse mortgage to pay his taxes because....?

Saradove wrote:
Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

jerseymom wrote:
By Terrence T. McDonald tmcdonald@jjournal.com
The Jersey Journal

Bill would allow towns to delay revaluations to curb 'fiscal shock'

Jersey City lawmakers in the state Legislature want to halt implementation of this year's property revaluation until 2019, citing the "fiscal shock" faced by property owners anticipating huge tax hikes.

The bill, (S-2566), would allow municipalities who did not apply reval results to tax bills before April 1 to postpone doing so until Jan. 1, 2019. The delay would allow for towns to provide "revaluation relief abatements" or "mitigate fiscal shock" from steep tax hikes. The bill was introduced last week.

More

jerseymom wrote:
By Terrence T. McDonald tmcdonald@jjournal.com
The Jersey Journal

Bill would allow towns to delay revaluations to curb 'fiscal shock'

Jersey City lawmakers in the state Legislature want to halt implementation of this year's property revaluation until 2019, citing the "fiscal shock" faced by property owners anticipating huge tax hikes.

The bill, (S-2566), would allow municipalities who did not apply reval results to tax bills before April 1 to postpone doing so until Jan. 1, 2019. The delay would allow for towns to provide "revaluation relief abatements" or "mitigate fiscal shock" from steep tax hikes. The bill was introduced last week.

More

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can?t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

Or, it just doesn't make sense.

The reval is done. Property tax changes are already getting rolled out. They won't roll everything back because of issues with vacant lots.

You seem to miss the point: lots of improved lots are seeing wildly different valuations, even when located immediately next to each other or within the same block. The point that some are making, including myself, is that assigning completely different values to the built upon lots opens the door for a legal challenge that could potentially delay, or stop, implementation of the reval results.

It's too late to stop the reval. It's over.

Also, think about what you're proposing:

1) The city loses in court and has to do the reval.
2) They pay a company to do the reval
3) They secretly order Appraisal Systems to use a formula that is completely screwy with land values, but the final values generally get within 15% of comp values for developed properties
4) They hope that enough people notice the issue with vacant land that they sue the city not to adjust those vacant properties, but to force another reval (even though Appraisal Systems could just rerun the numbers with a new set of formulas)
5) This happens months after the city has already published a lot of new valuations AND taken the heat from downtown residents AND seen property values in other parts of JC go up when taxes there go down AND discussed doing a follow-up reval in ~2 years.

Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? ;)


Quote:

How can the valuation company, or the city, justify that which defies logic or reason? That is, how can two lots (of similar size) in the same vicinity have totally different values?

I have no clue whatsoever. You'd have to ask Appraisal Systems. (201) 493-8530.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can?t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

Or, it just doesn't make sense.

The reval is done. Property tax changes are already getting rolled out. They won't roll everything back because of issues with vacant lots.

You seem to miss the point: lots of improved lots are seeing wildly different valuations, even when located immediately next to each other or within the same block. The point that some are making, including myself, is that assigning completely different values to the built upon lots opens the door for a legal challenge that could potentially delay, or stop, implementation of the reval results.

How can the valuation company, or the city, justify that which defies logic or reason? That is, how can two lots (of similar size) in the same vicinity have totally different values?

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can?t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

Or, it just doesn't make sense.

The reval is done. Property tax changes are already getting rolled out. They won't roll everything back because of issues with vacant lots.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can?t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

bodhipooh wrote:

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can?t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can?t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

brewster wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

landshark wrote:
2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k