I just crunched the numbers and did a tax inquiry on a rental building that was on the same street as a condo I owned. The buildings are in the same category: historic downtown rowhouse with four units. One is a rental building (my guess on the current market value $700k to $800k), the other building was converted to condos in 2004 and with the conversion, the city reassessed the condos as new construction. In 2009, the tax on the entire rental building, which is assessed at its 1980s valuation, was $9600. This year, that tax went up $11,040. Take that $1440 increase and divide it up among four apartments over 12 months and that works out to a rent increase of $30 if the landlord were to fully pass on the increase. Sure there's an impact, but one that most renters can probably afford.

By comparison, the property taxes for ONE condo unit in that similar building on the same street that was converted in 2004 is approaching $10,000 this year. The tax increase of around $1200, or $100/month has to be absorbed by one household.

Of course, this is just one example, but it does give Yvonne's argument some credence. Renters, especially those in older buildings, just aren't affected the same way. The above example I just cited shows why a reval is so desperately needed and overdue.

Most of the people I know in JC who rent have seen only very modest rent increases the past five years or none at all - certainly nowhere near the scope of the property tax increases I experienced. My guess is that landlords of older buildings are still being assessed at the 1980s valuation. This means that even with a sharp increase in the tax rate, their relative tax burden is still less than people who bought nonabated condos in the past decade. I'm guessing these landlords have enough margin to absorb a good chunk of these property tax hikes. The real test on rents, I think, will come AFTER the city does its long overdue reval. As for renters in the "luxury" high rises, I'm assuming they're unaffected because the developers/owners of these buildings negotiated PILOTs with the city, so they're exempt from the increases.

Don't forget JC renters have a different way of looking at increases. Most of them see renting in JC as a way to get more space for your money than Manhattan while still having a relatively easy commute. A rent increase in JC won't translate into a renter thinking: "Crap, they just raised property taxes on my landlord, I'm voting against the incumbent administration." The likely line of thought is: "Is it still cheaper to live here than Manhattan? If so, I'll still pony up the rent each month."

It seems a bit simplistic to just dismiss people who are renting as unaffected by tax increases. You really think that landlords fully absorb these increases so as not to offend their tenants? I think not.

Now - whether or not the tenants understand why their rent is going up and whether or not they choose to vote are different questions, but there's no doubt that they are affected.

The data comes from census on the type of housing. In the past I collected this data from the Public Library on Jersey Avenue. However, things might be on line with the 2010 census.

Quote:

I would be interested in seeing the data that shows this. Can you provide a link or guide me in the right direction?

Newark taxes went up 16%. That is low compared to JC. Newark, Trenton, and Camden had layoffs in their police dept. to save taxes. JC is laying off Soccor coaches. Camden just recently received a tax increase. Their taxes have been frozen for years. We should have a city wide income tax and freeze property taxes to the national average of 1%. JC is close to 7% now.
To answer the question on the state income tax, it was promised to schools, but the money went to institutions.
Our taxes can continue to rise and Healy can be re-elected because taxes does not effect the majority of JC residents who vote.

Quote:

That 800 lbs gorilla will be broke by 2019, with the assumption of a VERY generous 8% return on investment. Unless we get a serious economic recovery, the ROI is going to be nowhere near that. I won't be shocked if the pension system implodes by 2015.

Why do people in these discussions keep talking about the revenue side of the equation? As a liberal, I'm sometimes appalled at the way fellow liberals keep framing the discussion: where else can we raise more money? When it comes to property taxes, I think the obvious question is where is the money being spent? The spending by the city and county is out of control, and there's been no real effort to seriously cut back. A couple of furlough days here and there is just a joke, especially when relatives and cronies of the powers that be still seem to find easy employment, and double- and triple-dipping remain prevalent. It also seems to me that everyone - Democrats and Republicans alike - have given up on tackling the 800-pound gorilla in the room: the bloated pension system.

We need to legalize gambling and lotteries and have that money go to NJ schools. That would be a boon for the state.

Wait, what?

Quote:

Newark instituted a payroll tax. The property taxes still went up. This city and state as a whole has a spending problem, not necessarily a tax problem.

Back in the 70's, the State instituted a income tax that is constitutionally mandated to offset property taxes. Have property taxes gone down? nope... Have income taxes now reached some of the highest in the country? yup....

The same thing will happen on a city level if the city starts implementing a payroll / income tax on residents and employers.

Quote:
What about the renters don't they get included in the mix too ? Well you did say residents.

I think propery taxes are out of control everywhere...even in new york outside of new york city property taxes are high plus income taxes are lower....

maybe the state should allow cities to have a tax surcharge on residents and workers

I do not agree because the majority of voters in JC are tenants many which live in protective housing: rent-control, public housing, affordable housing, and abated waterfront. And lets not forget protected seniors. Probably a 1/3 are homeowners who receive a tax bill.

The title could easily read 24%

Thats the amount of people who voted in the last Mayoral election.
You get what you pay for.

84 PERCENT!
Jersey City municipal taxes have skyrocketed over past years; residents weigh in with concern
by Ricardo Kaulessar
The Jersey City Reporter
Oct 10, 2010

Imagine that your overall property taxes are 50 percent higher than they were five years ago, and that the municipal portion of your tax bill alone has gone up over 84 percent during that time as well.

If you are a Jersey City taxpayer, you don?t have to imagine it. You are paying those taxes right now ? or trying to.

Your property tax bill for 2010 currently has a municipal tax rate of $35.68 per $1,000 of assessed property value. That means if you own a home assessed at $100,000 for taxation, you pay $3,568 per year in municipal taxes alone. Compare that with the municipal rate of $19.30 per $1,000 in 2005, the first year of Mayor Jerramiah Healy?s administration.

Last year, your overall tax rate was $60.01 per $1,000, about 15 percent lower than this year. The municipal portion of that was $28.58 per $1,000, around 25 percent less than today.

Now add in county taxes, school taxes, school bonding, and the Hudson County Open Space Trust Fund. Your overall tax rate in Jersey City today is currently $69.03 per $1,000, up considerably from the $46.05 per $1,000 in 2005.

And with a property revaluation underway that you can expect to see reflected in your tax bill due in January 2013, it?s anybody?s guess what size check you?ll be writing to the city.

A rate that?s not great

The city?s tax rate is determined by dividing the amount of the tax levy ? the revenue raised from all taxpayers for municipal spending ? by the total assessed value of all properties, known as tax ratables, in the city. Any increase in the tax levy, to fill a budget deficit for example, forces the municipal tax rate higher than the year before. This year the city?s budget had an estimated deficit of $80 million, which the city has tried to eliminate or at least reduce by raising the tax rate.

Once all property in the city has been revalued ? supposedly assessed at its current market value ? some believe the tax rate could go down, because the base of tax ratables will be worth much more.

The amount of municipal taxes levied this year was $210 million, an increase of $40 million from last year?s $170 million levy. This year?s municipal tax rate was attained by dividing the $210 million levy amount by the $5.89 billion total value for assessed properties in the city.

Taxing situation

These higher taxes for Jersey City residents are coming at a time of massive unemployment and rising costs in many areas, from health insurance to heating the home, in a city where crime is high and school test scores are low and many residents question the quality of life they?re getting for the taxes they?re paying.

The higher taxes have incited anger and have led to a recall movement aimed at Healy and members of the City Council.

And in the words of Yvonne Balcer, a frequent critic of city government, they have created a reason for her neighbors living in the residential neighborhood of York Street in downtown Jersey City to start making plans to get out of town.

?It?s to the point that everyone I know says, ?I have to sell,?? said Balcer, who posted the tax rates from 2005 to 2010 on her SpeakNJ website. ?A lot of people have put their houses for sale online because they don?t want their neighbors to know.?

Balcer and her husband, Charles, are paying over $10,000 in taxes this year on their 140-year-old home. Balcer was not sure if they can continue to live in town ? and they are not the only ones.

Kim Snyder is a single mother living in downtown Jersey City with her 15-year-old daughter.

Currently working as an executive assistant at Columbia University in New York, Snyder said, after paying thousands of dollars in rent for the past 13 years, she wants to move into her own home. But she sees that as impossible with the high taxes she would have to pay on the new house.

?I was born and raised here, and I still love this town,? Snyder said. ?But when my daughter graduates from high school, I am going to move out of here, because why am I paying taxes this high when you don?t get services like good schools for the amount you?re paying??

The high taxes are one of the reasons she is helping out with the recall.

A 22-year resident who declined to be named who owns a home in the city?s Greenville section and several other properties throughout the city also is considering moving out with his wife, but will continue to own his properties.

?I pay $9,000 to $10,000 a year in taxes on my properties, and the taxes are as much as my mortgage, which is ridiculous,? the Greenville resident said. ?I am not saying we should not pay taxes, but I could move out to another community and there?s better policing, better schools, better quality of life.?

Paul Bellan-Boyer, who has lived in a condo with his wife on Duncan Avenue for more than 10 years, said he was ?surprised a little bit,? but not completely taken aback, by hearing about the municipal tax portion going up more than 80 percent in the past five years.

?Any property owners in Jersey City at the low-end are getting squeezed,? said Bellan-Boyer, who works for the Jersey City Episcopal Community Development Corporation, which builds affordable housing throughout the city.

Bellan-Boyer said he is paying over $2,000 a month for a 30-year mortgage and thousands of dollars more in property taxes. However, he and his wife have no plans to move out of town.

Proposing their solutions

City spokesperson Jennifer Morrill said Mayor Jerramiah Healy and his administration have worked since he got into office ?to minimize any property tax increase,? including this year with such measures as laying off and furloughing city personnel, closing the Jersey City Police Academy, reducing the number of fire companies, and eliminating the rank of police inspector. She says the Healy administration is developing a consolidation plan for city services and additional layoffs.

City Councilwoman Viola Richardson, who represents the city?s Bergen-Lafayette section, said she was worried about seniors living in her community who are being forced out of their homes because of the high taxes. She recommends they call City Hall (201-547-5000) to find out about a program that will help freezes their taxes for a certain period of time. But she believes that the taxes will not continue their rise.

?I don?t think taxes will continue to go up and up, and at some point will level off,? Richardson said.

Richardson is concerned about the municipal budget deficit. Her solution?

A tax on the payrolls of companies operating in Jersey City. But her idea has been nixed by her council colleagues, who point out that legal challenges have defeated previous attempts by the city to implement such a tax.

Ricardo Kaulessar can be reached at rkaulessar@hudsonreporter.com.

Copyright 2010 Hudson Reporter. All rights reserved.