Hey look at that - you quoted me NNJR, thanks!

I would've posted the same thing but as long as you took care of it, I'll comment on the other absurd law, the transfer tax fee.

So here's the thing - the legislators are such morons that they charge the full 1% transfer tax on a transfered property even if only a fractional interest is transfered. That means if someone owns a 10% investment stake in a building (as is common with commercial property) and that person sells his/her stake only, the tax charged is 1% of the whole properties sale value as if it had all been sold at the pro-rata price! No one in NJ or JC seems to understand how stupid this is, but as a result, you will see a major drop in property values because it becomes impossible to sell an investment in a commercial property and therefore because unwise to invest in them (property value goes down as a result of non-liquidity of asset).

So all the commercial property owners can march down to the tax assessors office and demonstrate how the law damaged their property values and get a decrease in their assessments in tax certiorari court - hence transfer tax goes up means real estate taxes go down.

Moron Mayor Martini never learns, you can't rob peter to pay paul.

i understand what you are saying, i just wish that you had posted your personal opinion, rather than quote another's.
of course any tax has the potential to be misappropriated, i just like to keep my fingers crossed and hope the "right thing" gets done.

well everything here is somebody's opinion, should I not reply to any of your posts?

The point is that raising this tax as well as any tax IS a big deal. I agree with you that he should use it for "non evil" things however the mayor has not proven he can do that responsibly.

At first sight raising a commercial tax seems great for home owners because of the assumption that they can get some benefit from the tax that will not affect them.

I was simply showing that the other side to this issue. You can continue with your opinions.

Quote:


thats nice. what i said was only my opinion.
debating facts is one thing. debating opinions is futile.

Quote:

Not rly... A Mayor who can do nothing but raise taxes, even if for commercial properties is not a good thing.

Read JCLAW's take on the situation here:

Just to put this in context, New York's hotel tax scheme is as follows:
Real Estate taxes: NO real estate taxes for years 1-11 after construction, PARTIAL real estate taxes for years 11-20
Room tax: 5% of room rate tax contributed to NYC & Co. citywide hotel tourism marketing fund.

JC's tax scheme is as follows:
Real Estate taxes: FULL or PILOT (same as full if you do the math) taxes from day 1 after construction
Room taxes: 6% of room rate contributed to general revenues of Jersey City. JC spends $0 on tourism promotion and marketing.

As a result, Jersey City hotels will literally pay DOUBLE the taxes of NYC hotels. What makes JC think it can charge higher taxes than NYC - the tourist capital of the world - and expect to see hotels be developed? Hubris or insanity?

good job! now let us use the money for good, and not evil!

the hotel tax should not be that big of an issue for the hotels as many tourists prefer to stay in JC because they can go to a nice hotel and still enjoy NYC in an affordable way.

Hotel tax passed
Ricardo Kaulessar - Jersey City Reporter

The changes to the city's "hotel tax" that was introduced by the City Council came out of legislation that Mayor Jerramiah Healy advocated for on a state level, that was passed by state legislators in July. The council is expected to approve the new tax at their next meeting on Sept. 13.

The new law will forbid hotel and motel owners from deducting their property taxes from the hotel tax they pay to the city.

However not everyone was on board with the changes.

John Rojan, manager of the Courtyard by Marriott hotel on Washington Boulevard, said the change would pose a financial problem as the hotel would be forced to cut back on their mostly minority, predominately local staff. He said hotel rates could increase, hurt their ability to bring in customers.

City Business Administrator Brian O'Reilly said that several new hotels will be built in the next year in Jersey City and that rates at local hotels have gone up 40 percent.

City Council President Mariano Vega also said that Secaucus collects taxes directly from the hotels in their town.

Ricardo Kaulessar can be reached at rkaulessar@hudsonreporter.com

Hotel tax introduced by council
Friday, August 18, 2006
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Following up on legislation Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy pushed at the state level, the City Council introduced the so-called "hotel tax" at its Wednesday meeting.

The ordinance, which is likely to be adopted at the council's meeting next month, would add roughly $5 million a year to the city's coffers, officials said.

The ordinance doesn't raise the 6 percent local occupancy tax already in place but it eliminates the ability of hotels to deduct real estate taxes - or payments-in-lieu of taxes in the case of tax-abated properties - from the total they turn over to the city.

Taking this option away from the hotels required a state law, which was passed last month.

John Rojan, manager of the Courtyard By Marriott on the Jersey City waterfront, told council members on Wednesday that the ordinance could well cost his mostly minority work force jobs.

"I was concerned if the owners now have to pay this money, rates might have to be raised," Rojan said. "It could slow the occupancy growth. It could affect our employment status as well."

Jersey City Business Administrator Brian O'Reilly responded quickly, saying the hotel industry has long charged the tax, but it was used to offset the taxes and not used to provide property tax relief to the residents.

"The rates in the local hotels have gone up 40 percent over the past several years, and we are just getting what we rightfully deserve," O'Reilly said.

Journal staff writer Jarrett Renshaw contributed to this report

Healy talks as if increased taxes is the only option. Another option? Lower spending. The city (and county) is full of no-show and political jobs. Healy has not once mentioned lowering spending, and he and his city council puppets (everyone except Fulop and Viola) attack mercilously a sensible Fulop suggestion to put in a hiring freeze. Its expensive keeping a political machine running.

I agree with Brewster, I think the city should soon look again at some sort of payroll tax, I hope that Mayor Healy, Steve Fullop and others keeps it in mind when there is that gap between the budgets and the taxes.

I would worry more about real estate taxes going up than starting some kind of payroll tax.

Seems to me that anyone who has opposed the tax abatements for waterfront construction should support the hotel & large employer payroll tax bills as alternative ways to tax businesses that didn't need a break to begin with. Both taxes are still a fraction of NYC's versions. Alternatively you must consistently believe that businesses still need to be lured here by tax breaks.

This city needs to find ways to tap it's new prosperity since the abatements have forestalled market rate real estate taxes for decades. That is, other than on the backs of homeowners like the proposed transfer tax and rising RE taxes.

Steve Fulop: I don't believe your constituents would be against payroll tax on employers of more than 100. I would guess that few of them are employees or owners of such. These businesses need to pull their weight in JC.

Healy: No payroll tax, but I want other two
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy says he's now against the city payroll tax proposal he initially asked state representatives to pursue.

Healy's explained his apparent about-face by saying, "In order to avoid having property owners potentially pay more in taxes in the future, I asked our state Legislature to give me some options for generating annual sources of revenue."

Along with a city hotel tax and city real estate transfer fee, legislators generated a bill that would enable Jersey City to implement a payroll tax "at our discretion," Healy said.

But, he said yesterday, he never intended to actually implement one.

"I am not an advocate of the payroll tax because it would be a disincentive to commercial investment in Jersey City and it may cause some existing businesses to seek greener pastures in other cities who do not impose that tax," Healy said.

The proposed city payroll tax would allow Jersey City and Newark, the state's only cities with populations of 150,000 or more, to hit companies with 100 or more employees with a 1 percent payroll tax.

Healy reiterated his support of the proposed hotel tax and real estate transfer fee, which he says would each generate roughly $3.5 million annually for the city.

The payroll tax and the real estate transfer fee also have lost the backing of Lou Manzo of Jersey City and Brian Stack of Union City - two of the six Hudson County state legislators who've co-sponsored the bills.

Instead, Manzo has proposed a bill he says would help the city generate more revenue from abandoned or vacant property while not going after residents, and Stack has thrown his support in that direction.

A resolution by Downtown Jersey City Councilman Steve Fulop opposing both the real estate and payroll tax was put on hold at the City Council's caucus meeting on Monday night.

City Council President Mariano Vega explained the measure was prepared too late to be placed on tonight's council meeting agenda.

Vega said he supports the real estate transfer and hotel tax, but isn't sure how he feels about the payroll tax.

"It could do more harm than good," he said.

From Jersey Journal

Fulop opposes 2 proposed new taxes
Monday, June 12, 2006

Downtown Councilman Steven Fulop, who is frequently at odds with the city's administration, will ask the City Council this week to voice its opposition to a proposed city payroll tax and increase in the real estate transfer fee.

"In a year in which Jersey City residents are hit with an 18 percent tax hike from the city and another 9 percent from the county, this proposed legislation would directly and unfairly further impact our homeowners and businesses," Fulop said.

Fulop said he will attempt to introduce a resolution at Wednesday night's City Council meeting opposing the two bills. One bill would increase the real estate transfer fee, while the other includes the hotel tax and payroll tax.

He said he supports the hotel tax, but it's tied to the payroll tax.

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, who has pushed the bills, said that Fulop is doing a disservice to his constituents.

"I respect Steve's right to disagree, but not just for the sake of disagreeing," Healy said.

Healy said the real estate transfer fee "is something he should get behind and he's only hurting the people he represents."

Healy supports that fee as well as the hotel tax, but has not stated where he stands on the payroll tax.

Fulop responded, "The mayor has never seen a tax he didn't like."

JARRETT RENSHAW

---------------------------
Manzo, Stack support, then switch on Assembly bill
Monday, June 12, 2006

The two bills that would create three new taxes in Jersey City were sponsored by all of the county's representatives in the Assembly: Joan Quigley, Charles T. Epps Jr. and Lou Manzo, all of Jersey City; Vincent Prieto of Secaucus; Albio Sires of West New York; and Brian Stack of Union City.

But Stack and Manzo - the only two officials to return the newspaper's phone calls Friday - now say they plan to pull their support for the real estate transfer fee and the payroll tax, but will continue to support the hotel occupancy tax.

Both explained the reversal from sponsoring a bill to opposing it by saying they'd changed their minds after they were asked about it by The Jersey Journal. Instead, Manzo is pitching a bill -with Stack's support - that would allow Jersey City to get more revenue out of vacant or abandoned property.

"My bill would create more revenue than the real estate transfer fee and the payroll tax, and it would likely get more support," Manzo said. "Plus, it would help force real estate speculators to do something with their property."

----------------