Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
60 user(s) are online (51 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 60

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 ... 18 19 20 (21) 22 23 24 ... 43 »


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5571
Offline
Quote:

DanL wrote:

enough squandering of tax payer money on bogus lawsuits. jersey city now must pay $1m plus interest and legal fees, eat the whole cost of the now worthless reval, eat the city's own legal expenses of over $300,000 and now go out and hire another reval company to start over.

we now will have a tax increase.

thank you jersey city council members for funding this fiasco.


Not to mention all the councilmembers who failed to represent the interests of their non DT constituents.

Can't wait to see Fulop field this one in a gubernatorial debate: "Mayor Fulop, can you explain why you squandered millions of your citizens dollars to cancel a revaluation already a decade and a half late, and perpetuating the tax inequity of the wealthiest ward being subsidized by the working class areas of your city?"

Posted on: 2016/4/14 23:29
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/13 15:03
Last Login :
9/2 2:35
From Western Slope
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4421
Offline
If the reval does take place the mayor's property tax will double if the assessment is based on the property value of his purchase price.

Posted on: 2016/4/14 23:27
Get on your bikes and ride !
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13
Last Login :
7/30 1:08
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1204
Offline
enough squandering of tax payer money on bogus lawsuits. jersey city now must pay $1m plus interest and legal fees, eat the whole cost of the now worthless reval, eat the city's own legal expenses of over $300,000 and now go out and hire another reval company to start over. we now will have a tax increase. thank you jersey city council members for funding this fiasco. Quote:
Stringer wrote:

Judge rules against Jersey City in reval contract case

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
on April 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, updated April 14, 2016 at 5:45 PM

JERSEY CITY ? Jersey City has lost the breach-of-contract case filed by the assessment firm hired in 2011 to oversee the long-stalled citywide property revaulation, with the judge presiding over the case using the decision to slam Jersey City's "unfair" tax system.

Hudson County Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz ruled this afternoon that the city showed bad faith when Mayor Steve Fulop stopped the reval in 2013 and ordered the city not to pay West New York firm Realty Appraisal Co. the remainder of its $3.2 million contract.

The city must pay the firm $984,511 plus interest and attorney's fees dating to Realty Appraisal's October 2015 settlement offer, Schultz ruled.

Read more: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ty_in_reval_contract.html


Posted on: 2016/4/14 23:19
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/2/20 18:20
Last Login :
Today 14:12
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2622
Offline

Judge rules against Jersey City in reval contract case

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
on April 14, 2016 at 4:12 PM, updated April 14, 2016 at 5:45 PM

JERSEY CITY — Jersey City has lost the breach-of-contract case filed by the assessment firm hired in 2011 to oversee the long-stalled citywide property revaulation, with the judge presiding over the case using the decision to slam Jersey City's "unfair" tax system.

Hudson County Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz ruled this afternoon that the city showed bad faith when Mayor Steve Fulop stopped the reval in 2013 and ordered the city not to pay West New York firm Realty Appraisal Co. the remainder of its $3.2 million contract.

The city must pay the firm $984,511 plus interest and attorney's fees dating to Realty Appraisal's October 2015 settlement offer, Schultz ruled.

Read more: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ty_in_reval_contract.html


Posted on: 2016/4/14 22:55
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/13 15:03
Last Login :
9/2 2:35
From Western Slope
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4421
Offline
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval

By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal The Jersey Journal
on June 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM, updated June 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Jersey City Mayor-elect Steve Fulop today ordered the West New York company conducting a citywide revaluation to halt work immediately, and said he would audit the firm?s work because of its ties to a former city business administrator.

Fulop, who attacked outgoing Mayor Jerramiah Healy on the campaign trail for ordering the reval, today called the process ?flawed,? saying in a statement from his office that it will result in tax hikes homeowners cannot afford.

Full JJ piece....

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... e_reval.html#incart_river
It seems that the state of N.J. wants many towns to catch up on their revals, and I bet the 1/3 that does go up will be non abated properties in gentrified areas like Downtown and the east side of the Heights.

Posted on: 2016/4/14 22:08
Get on your bikes and ride !
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/3/19 15:20
Last Login :
2020/6/2 11:06
From Scenic McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 668
Offline
It's official. The city lost it's case.Link


Best quote from the judge:
"The evidence in this trial is clear and convincing," the judge said. "The city simply does not want a revaluation. Period."

Posted on: 2016/4/14 21:50
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/30 22:23
Last Login :
2019/3/8 17:09
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 686
Offline
how this impacts overall dtjc valuations is tough to say. I know some people who have improved their brownstones and pay 20K+ in taxes. I know others that hire the night crew to work under the radar and still pay 9K. How many people are paying their share versus getting a free ride? My guess is more are in the free ride camp so there will likely be a dent in overall valuations.

Obviously down payments, mortgage type and tax rates vary, but my guess is you can start by looking at what the monthly payment is on a $1mm place with 1% taxes and compare to one with 2.1% in taxes. So in this example - you put down 200K, take out a 30 year 4% mortgage and taxes are 1%. Monthly payment is $4650. If you take the same scenario and change the taxes to 2.1%, the monthly goes to $5569. That is round numbers a 20% difference.

My guess is since not all dtjc places are paying 1% in taxes that 15% is perhaps a good guesstimate as to correction. So for all the hysteria around this issue you are looking at a giveback of less than a year's worth of gains of late.

Posted on: 2016/4/14 19:51
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4964
Offline
Written by Jeannette Josue

?One house is worth half a million dollars, probably more today, the other house worth $175 000, right now both of these houses are paying the same taxes of $6,733.80 per year,? said Rev. William Sweeting.

He presented two photos to city council to help address the current inequalities of tax distribution.

?The actual value of the home, one of the houses, the one on Greenville, is paying three times the property tax rate of the house on 1st Street in Downtown Jersey City. We believe this is an issue of justice and fairness and we hope that you as our elected officials will address it that way.?

More

Posted on: 2016/4/14 18:23
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3761
Offline
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
It was sincerity, since you asked. Rare on these pages, but not extinct...


Indeed, sometimes it IS hard to tell. ;)
I am glad I was able to help / explain.

Posted on: 2016/4/14 17:37
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/9/19 1:29
Last Login :
2020/3/12 17:59
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 190
Offline
It was sincerity, since you asked. Rare on these pages, but not extinct...

Posted on: 2016/4/14 15:23
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3761
Offline
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

That's not how it works. The reason DT is underpaying is that, under the current system, all areas of JC (city-wide) are assumed to have appreciated at the same rate. Obviously, that is NOT the case. But, because that is the assumption, all current valuations are based on the value determined in 1988, adjusted for appreciation on a yearly basis, and so you end up with houses in areas outside of DTJC that are assumed to have appreciated at the same rate as a home in DTJC, so their taxes are assessed on that valuation, but that is obviously not correct.



Way to go Bodhipooh. What a succinct and cogent explanation of an unnecessarily convoluted issue. Well played sir.


Resized Image


My explanation (and example) were a bit long winded, so maybe I failed at making it all more clear. Or, maybe after a couple of readings, it makes some sense. Regardless, the short of it is that all property city wide has been assumed to appreciate at the same rate over the past 28 years. I think that is plainly obvious not correct.

Posted on: 2016/4/14 15:14
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/9/19 1:29
Last Login :
2020/3/12 17:59
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 190
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

That's not how it works. The reason DT is underpaying is that, under the current system, all areas of JC (city-wide) are assumed to have appreciated at the same rate. Obviously, that is NOT the case. But, because that is the assumption, all current valuations are based on the value determined in 1988, adjusted for appreciation on a yearly basis, and so you end up with houses in areas outside of DTJC that are assumed to have appreciated at the same rate as a home in DTJC, so their taxes are assessed on that valuation, but that is obviously not correct.



Way to go Bodhipooh. What a succinct and cogent explanation of an unnecessarily convoluted issue. Well played sir.

Posted on: 2016/4/14 14:10
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5571
Offline
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
"Listing of effective tax rates in NJ -

http://www.joeshimkus.com/NJ-Tax-Rates.aspx
JC's current effective tax rate is 2.4%. Newark is 2.48, Maplewood 3.1% and Montclair is around 2.9%

I wouldn't be surprised if the JC effective rate ends up close to 3%. If Fulop can't delay this we'll find out in 2018."


The "Effective Tax Rate" is also called the Equalized Tax Rate.

ETR = the tax levy divided by Equalized Valuation.

Using 2.1% or 2.2% is a reasonable way to estimate what taxes will be post-reval because if the reval is done correctly JC's General Assessment = Equalized Valuation.

However, don't assume the ETR will stay 2.1%. If JC's Equalized Valuation increases by more than the tax levy the ETR will decrease.



To restate this in simpler terms, that 2.1% thrown around is a guesstimate. What they do is reassess the properties, add up the total value of all them, then create a tax rate to bring in the same amount as previous to the reval. So purely as an example, if the previous rate was 4% on $10B assessed value, and the property values doubled, the new rate would be 2% on $20B.

What makes it more confusing is that the official "tax rate" is on assessed value, rather than equalized value. the latter being what the system thinks your market rate value is. For 2015 the official rate was 7.482%, and the effective rate 2.216%.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 20:16
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3761
Offline
Quote:

SOS wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the JC effective rate ends up close to 3%. If Fulop can't delay this we'll find out in 2018.


I actually disagree with this, but it really is anyone's guess. We will not know for sure until the reval is complete. I think that the current JC real estate market has been SO HOT over the past few years, that the overall worth of the market will be higher than currently estimated, which should result in an overall lower tax rate for tax levy purposes.

But, if you happen to be right, then I truly do fear for DTJC homeowners sitting on 1 MM properties that currently pay under 10K. I just don't see how a family, even a well to do one, can absorb a 20+ K increase in taxes from one year to the other. And, this coming from someone who is in favor of the reval because of the current inequalities. But also, such a drastic change in the effective rate would be even more clear evidence that DTJC homeowners have gotten a very, very beneficial free ride for far too long.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 20:00
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/9/6 16:45
Last Login :
2018/11/22 17:15
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 137
Offline
User111, didn't you just write in another thread that your place just appraised at $288,000 (thank god for the light rail) so your taxes would be just over $6,000 which is definitely a grand less than you're paying now but not $3,000.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 19:59
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3761
Offline
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:

I'm also curious where this 2.1% number is coming from. Isn't the tax rate derived from some arcane formula, the result of which changes year after year? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that the percentage of assessed value people will pay would actually be 2017's tax rate (whatever it comes out to be) and not 2.1%?


The 2.1% number is a "best guess estimate" based on the overall valuation of real estate in JC, and current total tax levy. For example, if you assume the total value of JC real estate to be worth 10 billion dollars, and the city was currently collecting 210 MM in property taxes, then the effective rate is determined to be 2.1%. And, to be clear, the numbers I used are completely made up just to illustrate the point.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 19:54
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4964
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
Several folks here have said that 1/3 will see tax increases, 1/3 stay flat and 1/3 see decreases. They've also said that the net amount of taxes collected by the city will remain unchanged. But this method seems antithetical to the reval's goal of ensuring each and every home pay 2.1% of its assessed value in taxes.

Hypothetically, say all the homes DT are paying just 1% of current value in taxes. All these homes are hit with a 110% increase in taxes to bring them up to the 2.1% level. Now lets say all the homes in the Heights, JS, GV and BL have at least retained the value they had at the last reval in 1988, so their 2.1% tax rate is still appropriate. This means their tax bill stays the same. In this scenario no one gets a tax reduction - all that happens is that the City raises a ton of new tax revenue from DT.

Folks on this thread have said homes in GV and the Heights are paying a disproportionate percentage in taxes above 2.1%. Is this actually the case? If I understand things correctly, for this to have occurred, these homes have to have a lower value today than they did in 1988 meaning that their current tax burden is northward of 2.1%.

I would have thought that almost every home in JC has appreciated at least somewhat since 1988 - even on MLK and Ocean Ave. Are their really any areas of JC where you will find a house assessed today at a lower value than it was assessed 28 years ago - and consequently paying more than 2.1%?

The point I'm trying to make is, just because DTJC is underpaying on its tax, it doesn't necessarily follow that the other hoods are consequently overpaying on property tax and are due for a tax reduction. The under-taxation of DT has no bearing on whether homes in Greenville are paying 2.1% of their assessed value or not - the relationship between the two is not causal.



That's not how it works. The reason DT is underpaying is that, under the current system, all areas of JC (city-wide) are assumed to have appreciated at the same rate. Obviously, that is NOT the case. But, because that is the assumption, all current valuations are based on the value determined in 1988, adjusted for appreciation on a yearly basis, and so you end up with houses in areas outside of DTJC that are assumed to have appreciated at the same rate as a home in DTJC, so their taxes are assessed on that valuation, but that is obviously not correct.

Let's use a theoretical example:

House A in DTJC
House B in Greenville
House C in BeLa

In 1988, House A was assessed at 100K, B at 50K and C at 70K. And, at the time, each of those homes were levied the same tax rate, which let's assume was 2%. That rate is completely made up, but it's go with it. So, House A was levied 2K in taxes, while B was assessed 1K and C 1.4K. Now, in today's market, House A is worth 1MM, but valued at about 600K. Their tax assessment is 12K (based on the 2% rate) but really they should be paying 20K. Meanwhile, House B is assumed to be worth 300K (the same 500% appreciation as House A) but really it is only worth 150K in the market. They are assessed 6K, when in reality they should be paying 3K. For House C, the house is assumed to be worth 420K, but really it is now worth about 250K. They should pay 5K, but are paying 8.4K based on the incorrect valuation.

The issue of why the reval is so overdue is that OVER 28 YEARS, the market is assumed to have appreciated the same across the entire city, but that is not the case. You end up with properties paying taxes on assessments that are completely out of line with the market.

BTW, in my example above the end result of a reval is that the effective rate would go down (which is a completely possible outcome for our reval) because the end result has to be that the city collects the same amount of taxes when all is said and done. So, using my example, the city needs to collect 26.4K in taxes which, divvied up among the current valuations, would yield a rate of 1.9% for all three houses. So, House A would pay ~19K, House B would pay ~2.8K and House C would pay ~4.7K.


Thank you! well said. Me and my neighbors should be paying 3k in taxes but we are all paying close to 7k and homes in my area are no where near 1.5 million dollars.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 19:27
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/10/21 0:40
Last Login :
2019/5/15 18:48
From One of the Oranges
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 135
Offline
"Listing of effective tax rates in NJ -

http://www.joeshimkus.com/NJ-Tax-Rates.aspx
JC's current effective tax rate is 2.4%. Newark is 2.48, Maplewood 3.1% and Montclair is around 2.9%

I wouldn't be surprised if the JC effective rate ends up close to 3%. If Fulop can't delay this we'll find out in 2018."


The "Effective Tax Rate" is also called the Equalized Tax Rate.

ETR = the tax levy divided by Equalized Valuation.

Using 2.1% or 2.2% is a reasonable way to estimate what taxes will be post-reval because if the reval is done correctly JC's General Assessment = Equalized Valuation.

However, don't assume the ETR will stay 2.1%. If JC's Equalized Valuation increases by more than the tax levy the ETR will decrease.


Posted on: 2016/4/13 19:27
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3761
Offline
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
Several folks here have said that 1/3 will see tax increases, 1/3 stay flat and 1/3 see decreases. They've also said that the net amount of taxes collected by the city will remain unchanged. But this method seems antithetical to the reval's goal of ensuring each and every home pay 2.1% of its assessed value in taxes.

Hypothetically, say all the homes DT are paying just 1% of current value in taxes. All these homes are hit with a 110% increase in taxes to bring them up to the 2.1% level. Now lets say all the homes in the Heights, JS, GV and BL have at least retained the value they had at the last reval in 1988, so their 2.1% tax rate is still appropriate. This means their tax bill stays the same. In this scenario no one gets a tax reduction - all that happens is that the City raises a ton of new tax revenue from DT.

Folks on this thread have said homes in GV and the Heights are paying a disproportionate percentage in taxes above 2.1%. Is this actually the case? If I understand things correctly, for this to have occurred, these homes have to have a lower value today than they did in 1988 meaning that their current tax burden is northward of 2.1%.

I would have thought that almost every home in JC has appreciated at least somewhat since 1988 - even on MLK and Ocean Ave. Are their really any areas of JC where you will find a house assessed today at a lower value than it was assessed 28 years ago - and consequently paying more than 2.1%?

The point I'm trying to make is, just because DTJC is underpaying on its tax, it doesn't necessarily follow that the other hoods are consequently overpaying on property tax and are due for a tax reduction. The under-taxation of DT has no bearing on whether homes in Greenville are paying 2.1% of their assessed value or not - the relationship between the two is not causal.



That's not how it works. The reason DT is underpaying is that, under the current system, all areas of JC (city-wide) are assumed to have appreciated at the same rate. Obviously, that is NOT the case. But, because that is the assumption, all current valuations are based on the value determined in 1988, adjusted for appreciation on a yearly basis, and so you end up with houses in areas outside of DTJC that are assumed to have appreciated at the same rate as a home in DTJC, so their taxes are assessed on that valuation, but that is obviously not correct.

Let's use a theoretical example:

House A in DTJC
House B in Greenville
House C in BeLa

In 1988, House A was assessed at 100K, B at 50K and C at 70K. And, at the time, each of those homes were levied the same tax rate, which let's assume was 2%. That rate is completely made up, but it's go with it. So, House A was levied 2K in taxes, while B was assessed 1K and C 1.4K. Now, in today's market, House A is worth 1MM, but valued at about 600K. Their tax assessment is 12K (based on the 2% rate) but really they should be paying 20K. Meanwhile, House B is assumed to be worth 300K (the same 500% appreciation as House A) but really it is only worth 150K in the market. They are assessed 6K, when in reality they should be paying 3K. For House C, the house is assumed to be worth 420K, but really it is now worth about 250K. They should pay 5K, but are paying 8.4K based on the incorrect valuation.

The issue of why the reval is so overdue is that OVER 28 YEARS, the market is assumed to have appreciated the same across the entire city, but that is not the case. You end up with properties paying taxes on assessments that are completely out of line with the market.

BTW, in my example above the end result of a reval is that the effective rate would go down (which is a completely possible outcome for our reval) because the end result has to be that the city collects the same amount of taxes when all is said and done. So, using my example, the city needs to collect 26.4K in taxes which, divvied up among the current valuations, would yield a rate of 1.9% for all three houses. So, House A would pay ~19K, House B would pay ~2.8K and House C would pay ~4.7K.


Posted on: 2016/4/13 19:17
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
Folks on this thread have said homes in GV and the Heights are paying a disproportionate percentage in taxes above 2.1%. Is this actually the case? If I understand things correctly, for this to have occurred, these homes have to have a lower value today than they did in 1988 meaning that their current tax burden is northward of 2.1%.


That isn't necessarily the case for all properties outside of DTJC. Here is the most recent sale in my building http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/44- ... y-NJ-07307/38894726_zpid/ . The online tax website shows the annual taxes are $2543.88, or 1.4%. So we will see the taxes on our modest condos go up by almost 50%. Admittedly, out apartments are small and the taxes are not a huge amount of money, but it could mean sacrificing something else for some of my neighbors.

At the end of the day, this needs to be FAIR - if our taxes go up due to the reval, it's important to know that the City is being responsible about it - not just protecting the interests of Steve Fulop's core supporters, or old-timers sitting on cash-cows, but fair to all of us. That means being transparent about the process, as well as committing to doing more with the increased revenue if your point about that holds true.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 18:46
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/9/18 3:58
Last Login :
9/23 15:07
From Between Thought and Expression
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 830
Offline
Listing of effective tax rates in NJ -

http://www.joeshimkus.com/NJ-Tax-Rates.aspx
JC's current effective tax rate is 2.4%. Newark is 2.48, Maplewood 3.1% and Montclair is around 2.9%

I wouldn't be surprised if the JC effective rate ends up close to 3%. If Fulop can't delay this we'll find out in 2018.


Posted on: 2016/4/13 18:40
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/9/19 1:29
Last Login :
2020/3/12 17:59
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 190
Offline
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:

I'm also curious where this 2.1% number is coming from. Isn't the tax rate derived from some arcane formula, the result of which changes year after year? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that the percentage of assessed value people will pay would actually be 2017's tax rate (whatever it comes out to be) and not 2.1%?


I'm by no means the expert on this - it's my first rodeo. But I retrieved this from the NJ taxation department website. JC effective property tax rate in 2015 was 2.216%

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtrhud15.pdf

Posted on: 2016/4/13 18:39
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 22:12
Last Login :
Today 5:13
From DTJC
Group:
Banned
Posts: 419
Offline
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
Several folks here have said that 1/3 will see tax increases, 1/3 stay flat and 1/3 see decreases. They've also said that the net amount of taxes collected by the city will remain unchanged. But this method seems antithetical to the reval's goal of ensuring each and every home pay 2.1% of its assessed value in taxes.

Hypothetically, say all the homes DT are paying just 1% of current value in taxes. All these homes are hit with a 110% increase in taxes to bring them up to the 2.1% level. Now lets say all the homes in the Heights, JS, GV and BL have at least retained the value they had at the last reval in 1988, so their 2.1% tax rate is still appropriate. This means their tax bill stays the same. In this scenario no one gets a tax reduction - all that happens is that the City raises a ton of new tax revenue from DT.

Folks on this thread have said homes in GV and the Heights are paying a disproportionate percentage in taxes above 2.1%. Is this actually the case? If I understand things correctly, for this to have occurred, these homes have to have a lower value today than they did in 1988 meaning that their current tax burden is northward of 2.1%.

I would have thought that almost every home in JC has appreciated at least somewhat since 1988 - even on MLK and Ocean Ave. Are their really any areas of JC where you will find a house assessed today at a lower value than it was assessed 28 years ago - and consequently paying more than 2.1%?

The point I'm trying to make is, just because DTJC is underpaying on its tax, it doesn't necessarily follow that the other hoods are consequently overpaying on property tax and are due for a tax reduction. The under-taxation of DT has no bearing on whether homes in Greenville are paying 2.1% of their assessed value or not - the relationship between the two is not causal.



I'm also curious where this 2.1% number is coming from. Isn't the tax rate derived from some arcane formula, the result of which changes year after year? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that the percentage of assessed value people will pay would actually be 2017's tax rate (whatever it comes out to be) and not 2.1%?

Posted on: 2016/4/13 18:32
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/9/19 1:29
Last Login :
2020/3/12 17:59
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 190
Offline
Several folks here have said that 1/3 will see tax increases, 1/3 stay flat and 1/3 see decreases. They've also said that the net amount of taxes collected by the city will remain unchanged. But this method seems antithetical to the reval's goal of ensuring each and every home pay 2.1% of its assessed value in taxes.

Hypothetically, say all the homes DT are paying just 1% of current value in taxes. All these homes are hit with a 110% increase in taxes to bring them up to the 2.1% level. Now lets say all the homes in the Heights, JS, GV and BL have at least retained the value they had at the last reval in 1988, so their 2.1% tax rate is still appropriate. This means their tax bill stays the same. In this scenario no one gets a tax reduction - all that happens is that the City raises a ton of new tax revenue from DT.

Folks on this thread have said homes in GV and the Heights are paying a disproportionate percentage in taxes above 2.1%. Is this actually the case? If I understand things correctly, for this to have occurred, these homes have to have a lower value today than they did in 1988 meaning that their current tax burden is northward of 2.1%.

I would have thought that almost every home in JC has appreciated at least somewhat since 1988 - even on MLK and Ocean Ave. Are their really any areas of JC where you will find a house assessed today at a lower value than it was assessed 28 years ago - and consequently paying more than 2.1%?

The point I'm trying to make is, just because DTJC is underpaying on its tax, it doesn't necessarily follow that the other hoods are consequently overpaying on property tax and are due for a tax reduction. The under-taxation of DT has no bearing on whether homes in Greenville are paying 2.1% of their assessed value or not - the relationship between the two is not causal.


Posted on: 2016/4/13 18:00
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/10/23 18:47
Last Login :
2018/2/27 0:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 858
Offline
This is a classic example of why a reval is so badly needed. This home just went on the market with an asking price of $1.7 million. I checked the taxes on it: just $12,700. And it's not the mythological old timers selling. Looking at the tax history, the current owners bought in 2012 for $751K, probably renovated it (without sparking a reassessment - plenty of that going on downtown). If the sellers get their asking price, that means a gain of nearly $1 million in just four years, less upgrade costs. Not a bad investment.

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandh ... 6653-80994?ex=NJ613689002

Clearly not the mythological old timers that Yvonne keeps harping about. Most of those people cashed out a long time ago. There are plenty of two bedroom condos in my building that pay several thousand more in PILOT a year. What people keep conveniently forgetting when it comes to PILOTS is that they do sunset at the end of their term (most of the downtown PILOTs were set for 15 or 20 years). Whereas a great tax deal like this one lasts forever unless there's a reval.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 13:41
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/1/10 16:53
Last Login :
2019/4/19 10:44
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 26
Offline
it's called "spring market"...

Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
....., and there seems to be a bunch of units coming onto the market in the past 1-2 weeks, more than usual.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 13:06
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
2020/9/30 18:46
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2294
Offline
I think bodhipooh is right.

Ironically, and kind of to my chagrin, I've always considered DTJC as evolving into more of a family-friendly place, while Brooklyn/Queens is where the cool kids want to be, with the higher concentration of bars and nightlife options there, while JC has much less of that. It now seems that the Brooklyn/Queens markets, with soon to be similar tax burdens overall, will be more appealing to families as there are significantly better school options in many/most neighborhoods.

All this really means, as it's been said, is that DTJC housing prices are going to soften; I think by quite a bit. I monitor the market as I'm quasi-considering a purchase, and there seems to be a bunch of units coming onto the market in the past 1-2 weeks, more than usual.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 12:02
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3761
Offline
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Where were you looking in Queens and how long ago? In the last couple of years, prices have really escalated. I'd still say compared to the "desirable" areas (LIC, Astoria, Sunnyside and possibly Woodside) I'd still say Queens is at least equal, if not slightly higher than DTJC. LIC and Astoria are certainly higher. Still gotta factor in the city tax you'll pay as well (and that money is as good as gone - you'll still get tax deductions for property tax).


I was looking less than two years ago, and I continue to look at all three markets regularly. The "gotta factor in the city tax" thing that everyone keeps throwing around is a red herring: while a person (or, couple) would end up paying a small percentage of salary in city taxes, the MUCH LOWER property taxes more than make up for it. All of my friends living in BK and Queens pay effective property tax rates of well under 1%. Their combined tax levy (city income tax and property taxes) is the same or lower than if they lived in DTJC, but they have many more good public schools where to send their kids.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 11:40
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 22:12
Last Login :
Today 5:13
From DTJC
Group:
Banned
Posts: 419
Offline
Quote:

Err... no. For brownstones and other properties currently paying effective rates of under 1%, the correction will be at least 100%, and in the most egregious cases the correction may be 200%. Simply put, some properties downtown are currently paying effective rates that are less than 1%, and when assessed the "correct" rate of 2.1%, their tax bills will be twice or three times as high.


No doubt a brownstone could see its taxes rise 15-20k, but that's also assuming the demographic that's prepared to throw ~$2 million down on housing is going to sweat 15k/year. I don't think people planning on using them as long-term investment units are going to care too much either, the expense will just get passed onto the renters anyway. Property taxes are a tax deduction at the end of the day as well, so it wouldn't be an absolute monetary loss of whatever amount it goes up, either.

I'd be more concerned about the lower/middle tiers of the DTJC housing market. 1 bedrooms in non-luxury walkups and lower end 2 bedrooms, the potential buyer demographic of which an increase would weigh heavily.

Quote:

This is not so accurate. I looked very closely at the markets in Queens and BK before moving to DTJC: it's definitely cheaper than the desirable BK areas (DT BK, BK Heights, etc) but DTJC was definitely more expensive than Queens. I chose to stay here because I do enjoy/prefer living in JC, even the nicer areas of Queens are super crowded, which is an issue for me (and, many others, I am sure) and because my commute is as good (i.e., short) as that of friends living in the nicer, closer areas of Queens.


Where were you looking in Queens and how long ago? In the last couple of years, prices have really escalated. I'd still say compared to the "desirable" areas (LIC, Astoria, Sunnyside and possibly Woodside) I'd still say Queens is at least equal, if not slightly higher than DTJC. LIC and Astoria are certainly higher. Still gotta factor in the city tax you'll pay as well (and that money is as good as gone - you'll still get tax deductions for property tax).

Posted on: 2016/4/13 5:24
 Top 


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2898
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
How bad do you think a correction in downtown would be? 10%? 15% at the most?


Err... no. For brownstones and other properties currently paying effective rates of under 1%, the correction will be at least 100%, and in the most egregious cases the correction may be 200%. Simply put, some properties downtown are currently paying effective rates that are less than 1%, and when assessed the "correct" rate of 2.1%, their tax bills will be twice or three times as high.

Quote:

I'm thinking whatever correction happens, there's so much pent up housing demand coming in from NYC, any excess inventory would get absorbed quickly and the dip would be very short lived.


This is probably true.

Quote:

DTJC is still dirt cheap compared to gentrified areas of Brooklyn and Queens, even with today's prices.


This is not so accurate. I looked very closely at the markets in Queens and BK before moving to DTJC: it's definitely cheaper than the desirable BK areas (DT BK, BK Heights, etc) but DTJC was definitely more expensive than Queens. I chose to stay here because I do enjoy/prefer living in JC, even the nicer areas of Queens are super crowded, which is an issue for me (and, many others, I am sure) and because my commute is as good (i.e., short) as that of friends living in the nicer, closer areas of Queens.


The poster you responded to is referring to a "correction" in home prices, not an increase in taxes.

Posted on: 2016/4/13 3:25
 Top 




« 1 ... 18 19 20 (21) 22 23 24 ... 43 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017