Ralph_Abutts wrote:
It would have been a lot easier if you admit what you originally wrote, that is PILOT owners would pay less on property taxes than the payment in lieu. That is what I responded to. It is on you to correct what you have written.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
You wrote:

"Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! "

"Amount collected in PILOTs: $136,939,997
Assessed Value: $2,708,599,122
Taxes if Billed in Full: $208,589,218"

The 1st paragraph is wrong. The second paragraph is correct. Take a deep breath. Do you understand the problem?

Now, back to the original thread title. If all PILOTS were to expire overnight, yes indeed there would be less (tax) revenue for the municipal government** and more for the school district. However, all other things remain equal, Jersey City would still remain an Abbott school district.

Collectively, there is not enough revenue among the municipality and the school district. The district has a big budget deficit. That redistribution of tax revenue would only go towards plugging the district deficit, while creating a deficit in the municipal budget (short term)

I'll let you do the math, i sure am not going to do so on my phone - but the MUNICIPAL property tax rate would increase dramatically on the 100% PILOT overnight expiry. That will create great economic harm to many JC residents. There is a very good reason why JC was designated as an Abbott district.

Also it would be counterproductive to NJS, despite all their school aid doled out to the district, the City does generate a lot of tax revenue for the State, much like NYC overwhelmingly does for NYS. How much that is above my pay grade, but I bet it is very significant. The folks in Trenton should realize that. That shock in residents and commercial property taxes would hurt the local economy. Leas economic activity means less revenue for the State.

Overtime, as PILOTs do expire and RE development activity drops off, then I could see JC losing its Abbott status. That is less shocking - fiscally, economically, and the thought itself.

Losing such status - it is not quite there, yet. **In part, with emphasis on "in part" due to what you meant to write originally - a big drop in revenue for the municipality.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.

As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.

You still write a lot of nonsense.

Here is what you do. Go to the city's website, finance section. Click on a link for the "User Friendly Budget" in that budget, there is a sheet that lists all PILOTS - what they currently pay and what they would/will be paying if it is not an abatement. Compare the two lists. You will see that you are wrong.

It is really as simple as that. There is no mystery. It's a simple fact.

Alternatively you can simply look up the definition of "abatement". It will be time better spent than typing out ignorant comments.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.

As JCGuys already pointed out, you are 100% incorrect in your understanding. That's not surprising, since abatements have become the go to scapegoat for all financial ills faced by the city, and people are quick to believe all the misinformation that is out there.

The way abatements are structured, the city gets to keep 95% of the PILOT amount being paid. The schools, and the county, got shafted out of their portions. Now, compounding the problem, and this is the part that so many detractors fail to grasp, is that abated properties are not paying less in PILOT than if they were paying regular taxes. Read that again. Abated properties could be paying MORE in PILOTs than if they were paying regular taxes! How is that possible? Well, up until the reval was completed and the new tax rate was calculated to be 1.48%, it was universally assumed/thought/estimated that the JC average tax rate was ~2.2%. All abatements up until the reval was completed were compared against that number. For example, when CanCo Lofts was first selling units years ago, one of their selling point was that they were abated and only had to pay PILOTs equivalent to 1.57%. If you believed that the tax rate was the one published to be close to 2.2%, your abated rate looked very enticing at about 30% below the "official rate". There are a TON of properties in DTJC paying similar abatement PILOTs. And, here is the kicker: so many people believe that abated properties are somehow robbing everyone else by paying less, but since the post-reval rate came out so low, it turns out that a bunch of abated properties are paying higher rates than if they were paying the regular tax rate.

I know of only one property in DTJC paying a ridiculously low abatement, and even THAT example shows how the city stands to lose as abatements expire. The property is The Oakman, which pays a 0.9% abatement PILOT. When you calculate the city's share (95%) of that amount, you end up with 0.855%, which is MORE than the city will get when the abatement expires and the properties start paying the regular rate, as the city only gets to pocket ~50% of the total tax levy, and half of the standard 1.48% is only .74%. In other words, the city stands to collect 13% less when those condos start paying the regular rate!

But, please, continue to spew FUD and misinformation. There is a large audience out there willing to consume all the lies and falsehoods being tossed around, because it is easier (apparently) to hate on your fellow citizens than to demand accountability and fiscal restraint from the local government and the school board.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Incorrect. The city will receive more revenue once the abatement expires; that is by definition.

azsrz wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.

Look at the numbers it will probably be around 2%, not too bad. And many of the abatements are going to expire soon. IMO they should put the rate at 1.8% like many people expected and start increasing from there so there wouldn't be another outcry like the reval.

bodhipooh wrote:
https://hudsoncountyview.com/judge-den ... y-school-funding-lawsuit/

While JCBOE may have succeeded in getting a judge to reject the state's request for a dismissal, the BOE is likely to lose the case.

I suspect that the BOE's final, last gasp argument as the trial runs through will be "if you allow the proposed cuts to stand, we will have to raise taxes too much, which will lead to an exodus, which will destroy real estate value, which will ensure the schools don't have enough people or money." Translation: we created this problem but, if you make us fix it, it will be too painful. Reminds me of the old story/joke about the man being tried for killing both his parents that asks the judge for leniency because he is an orphan. BTW - this would not be all that different than the argument put forth by the city administration in trying to sue to stop the revaluation, or the one put forth by DTJC residents protesting against the fairer tax rates that came about after the reval.

"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

For anyone paying attention, and willing to do some rational thinking, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. All those DT owners that think/feel a local real estate tax of 1.48% is an imposition, should be terrified. Once the state proposed cuts are fully phased in, the school taxes will have to be almost tripled, pushing our local real estate taxes closer to 2.5%.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:


"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

Well that's the argument of the state, not necessarily the law.

The argument simply begs the question - whether the SFRA, as amended by S2, is constitutional. One way the legislature was able to convince the court it was, was that it provided for the hold harmless/adjustment aid. The aid that Jersey City and other Abbott districts received was based on prior court findings and mandates.

SFRA tried to cobble that all into a one size fits all formula. If they had not included the hold harmless/adjustment aid, the court may very well have rejected the formula entirely, because it would be ignoring the needs that had been demonstrated and the remedies that had been ordered.

SFRA used anodyne terms such as "local fair share" and "adequacy budget" in order to sell the SFRA as equitable. It doesn't mean one way or another that those terms have meaning as applied to the NJ Constitution's requirement for the state to provide a thorough and efficient education.

bodhipooh wrote:


"The issue is not whether the state is providing sufficient funding, the issue is a legal question of whether the state is supposed to continue to subsidize their failure to raise their local fair share at the expense of all the other districts in the state [emphasis mine], who are either meeting their local fair share or are going over it."

JCGuys wrote:
We need a new slate that will defund the school board and keep taxes low.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Bullshit. That's not what the link nor the cut and paste I posted from the state site says. Call the the state document wrong if you like, but don't say I'm misleading anyone or failing to understand.

I worked with the State Board of Education and the Jersey City Public School district and specifically on this matter.

You can go to the source, the NJ School Report Card Database and look up _the source_ of this information, as in the link you provided, for starters - but you are just too lazy or full of yourself to do so - much like your unwillingness to comprehend the information provided. Likewise, you can do the same - look at the school (capital) budget as I indicated earlier.

brewster wrote:
Bullshit. That's not what the link nor the cut and paste I posted from the state site says. Call the the state document wrong if you like, but don't say I'm misleading anyone or failing to understand.

Monroe wrote:

East Newark isn't a Abbott school system, doesn't contribute 200 million less than its local fair share like JC taxpayers, and isn't trying to put its hands in the pockets of other NJ taxpayers like JC is. So yeah, given JC's historic, epic, and continuing tradition of graft and corruption should be a part of this conversation.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
The link you provided is for total maintenace costs, which include other expenses than salry and benefits. Your comments are ignorant and misleading.

JPhurst wrote:
And do you think that the districts clamoring for more funding are free of corruption, graft, and waste?

As I've noted before, this school board was told there was a $75 million gap. They closed it with no layoffs.

Some of it was cutting unnecessary expenses. Some of it involved sacrifices. Some of it involved taking bold steps in the face of vocal opposition (like saving $13 million by pulling out of the State School Employees health fund).

I am confident other districts could undertake similar measures and recognize spending.

We all talk about corruption in Jersey City. Let's not pretend other districts are free of it. East Newark's Micro-District just hired a superintendent under investigation, for goodness sake. "He's a good fit" said the board. Well ok then!