Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Tax abatements we’re a necessary evil when much of Jersey City was a no man’s land. Honestly, Journal Square would be a much different place without them as it would be too risky to build anything. Obviously that’s not the case anymore.
I don’t blame Jersey City, however. I blame New Jersey state law for setting up this mess. At one point, it was more profitable for Jersey City to grant the abatement and collect the PIlot revenue because the County and the school board was cut out. A really stupid law and no wonder the schools are in the sorry state that they are in. My solution, keep building the Yuppie condos and more buildings like 99 Hudson. Huge boost to the tax base without consuming much in city or school services. 99 Hudson did not receive an abatement and those suckers contribute a combined total of $6 million annually in property taxes. As much as I disagree with Yvonne, she has a point that affordable housing, especially tax abated affordable housing, consumes more in city services than it provides in taxes, especially if there are school aged kids.
Posted on: 2021/8/1 19:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
So ridiculous, right on the waterfront and the developer needed to have a higher abatement than they already had?
The rich getting richer at the expense of all taxpayers. I love it. I suppose things aren't as bad now as they used to be, but the city council was just giving this city away back then. Quote:
Posted on: 2021/7/30 12:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
 |
actually, all that was necessary was for the Board of Education to approve the necessary funding and raise the school tax levy which in the turn put the onus on the administration to deal with a huge overall tax increase and using ARP (American Rescue Plan Act) funds offset the increase by reducing the local levy. It works for this year, but we will see if sustainable.
[quote] val7101 wrote: A lot of people think the tax abatements and PILOT agreements went on way too long. Jersey City was a hot location and developers were dying for projects here, there was just no need after many years. It's also interesting that after months of listening to doom and gloom over the the gap in the school budget that over $60 million was
Posted on: 2021/7/30 1:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
I believe you are referring to what was known as Crystal Point at the foot of 2nd Street. The building was completed and the developers came back to city council to sweeten the tax abatement due to poor sales during the great recession and the council did it.
Quote:
Posted on: 2021/7/30 1:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Society Hills was built on contaminated land in the 1980s and received no tax abatements and Dixon Mills, the downtown pencil so received no tax abatements in the 1980s. Newport did not originally receive tax abatements because they won a $40 million UDAG grant in the 1980s. So when did tax abatements become popular? It is when the city asked Newport to give affordable housing. In exchange Newport asked for a tax abatements, years after the first 4 buildings went up as well as the mall being built. Newport advertised their affordable units in the New York Post and many New Yorkers grab them. 271 units out of 1500 became affordable and developers then start asking for tax abatements since LeFrak got a sweetheart deal.
Posted on: 2021/7/29 15:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
A lot of people think the tax abatements and PILOT agreements went on way too long. Jersey City was a hot location and developers were dying for projects here, there was just no need after many years.
It's also interesting that after months of listening to doom and gloom over the the gap in the school budget that over $60 million was "found" to fill the gap. Election year bs.
Posted on: 2021/7/29 13:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I can't recall any exact details of it here but there was one condo project in Jersey City that received an abatement some years ago when it was first built, then the developers asked for an additional abatement quite some time after the agreement had already been signed because the individual units in the project weren't selling fast enough. Whether or not they received the additional abatement or not I don't remember but the fact that the city even took this request seriously just blew my mind. Did anybody here not understand the basic economic concept of supply and demand? If the units were not selling fast enough, did the possibility of LOWERING their prices ever occur to the developers?
Maybe I'm the idiot here, to think that any developer Jersey City should be required to take some RISK when there is a potential REWARD, rather than pushing the risk onto to the taxpayers and collecting the reward for themselves. The economics class I took in high school and business classes I took in college must have been total bunk. Our previous President, in his days as a businessperson was all about capitalist profits and socialized losses, after all.
Posted on: 2021/7/28 23:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Call up the rent leveling board, they will tell you increases are based on the Consumer Price Index which is between 1 to 4%. The last time it was 4% was 2009, it was on the city's website until it was removed last year. Then call the Hudson County Tax Board to ask them about assessment being lowered because JC, unlike other Hudson County towns cannot pass on a tax increase so landlords always win in tax court.
Posted on: 2021/7/28 20:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Rent control is a problem now? All along you've been insisting that all renters don't pay property tax of any kind and therefore should be excluded when it comes to any kind of city-wide decision making or zoning.
Posted on: 2021/7/28 19:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It is not just tax abatements, it is rent control laws which has expanded thanks to Councilman Solomon to cover non-occupied homeowners of 2 to 4 houses. Rent control is covered by the Consumer Price Index, not taxes. So when taxes go up, the landlord goes to tax court to appeal. The tenants do not pay. All of the taxes including the art tax that everyone voted on is passed on to the small homeowner and condo owner. JC has become a socialist city where some pays for everyone.
Posted on: 2021/7/28 14:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
A New Study Revives the Debate Over Property Tax Abatements
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2021/1/17 15:17 Last Login : 2022/9/27 19:45 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
446
|
Property tax abatements will cost local government $108 million this year in lost revenue according to an analysis by Brigid D’Souza, an assistant professor of accounting and taxation at St. Peter’s University, raising an old debate about the use of abatements to spur redevelopment.
https://jcitytimes.com/a-new-study-rev ... -property-tax-abatements/
Posted on: 2021/7/28 14:19
|
|||
|
||||