Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
It isn't that our residential RE tax is especially high for the area, it's that NYC is ridiculously low. NJ is no higher than the NY cities surrounding NYC, which uses the commercial base to subsidize the residential. If you owned a 5+ unit building or any commercial building in NYC it would be high too. It's just like how Ma Bell used to subsidize local calling by rapacious long distance rates.
Posted on: 2014/5/14 15:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
 |
Quote:
Dan, I would like to think that you are not foolish enough to really believe that your argument of ?location, location, location? is wholly separate from the fact that due to the development creating the domino effect of improved restaurants, bars and entertainment thus making the area you live in a desirable location. Decades ago, when Newport was getting built, the mall was used as a wall. Those brownstones you see in Hamilton Park could have been picked up for $80,000. Since we both know those brownstones didn?t pick up and move locations; what changed is the area. Assuming that you do own property, what you are saying is that your taxes are higher than the luxury high rise and it isn?t fair. In reality, your taxes wouldn?t have gone up and neither would your property value if those buildings were never built. Quote:
Hamilton Park is receiving a spillover effect. Once DTJC became attractive, HP became an area which could be expanded to. I am making no illusion to the fact that some people are certainly paying more, and unfairly so. However, you don?t get to have the benefit of improved property value without cost. It is a short term subsidy designed to drive in a higher class of resident which will drive the value of the homes in the area up. In the long term, it benefits everyone in the area.
Posted on: 2014/5/14 14:03
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That and higher sales tax on discretionary items and a city income tax. When I met with my accountant earlier this year to do my taxes (she's in NYC), she said she's always appalled by how much NJ residents pay in property tax. For most middle-class people in the state, property tax is the most regressive tax you'll pay. And because of years of successive hikes in property tax rates, NJ residents pay more in real taxes than they would under a city income tax system like NYC. Yet, many NJ residents will stupidly think they're getting a great deal because they're not paying the NYC resident income tax. The thing with an income tax is they can't tax it if it's not there.
Posted on: 2014/5/14 13:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The people in the downtown areas that did not get recently reassessed (i.e. did major renovation work) may get hurt in the revaluation because you are under-assessed.
About 9 years ago, I went through appeal at the county level. I think I was the only person from the Heights there. Most of the people there were downtown condo owners who for whatever reason, got re-valuated. A lot of shocked people who had their taxes go up 50% - 100%. I imagine there will be a similar situation, but a much larger group this time around. Though people in the Heights and other areas that have seen a lot of new construction (but not the $ appreciation of the downtown) might get a tax decrease. That is the problem with the real estate tax system. It punishes you for improving your property. The people that win are the ones who slumlord, stuffing way more people into a building than it was designed to house. Or who let their properties deteriorate then appeal. Some cities like Pittsburgh tried taxing the land at a higher rate with far less emphasis on the improvements. The results were a mixed bag from what I read. Frankly, I am warm to the idea of putting more of the taxation on the water / sewer side.. sort of a consumption tax. If you stuff 20 people in a 2 family (like my neighbors down the street have done / are doing), you can't avoid the tax increase short of shutting off the water to the building.
Posted on: 2014/5/14 13:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
As long as the reval is done on all properties at the same time, the recent spurt in home prices should be irrelevant. When done properly, a reval is supposed to erase the inequity that exists between a property taxed at its assessed 1987 value (when the last reval was done in JC) versus one taxed at, say, a 2008 assessed value. If the city has to raise $100 million via property tax, the reval itself doesn't change that amount, but it changes the distribution of that amount among property owners. If your property value has gone up 10% in the past year, so too would the values of all your neighbors' properties. Your share of that $100 million would still remain the same. If the reval is resumed, I suspect they will have to start from scratch.
Posted on: 2014/5/14 13:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I agree, but I hope that the re-revaluation does not reflect the recent spike in sales. Last year when Fulop stopped the revaluations the inspections were taken during a dip in the market. Now homes are back up to bubble prices (at least on my block). It seems like we may have missed a good opportunity to get the revaluation done at more reasonable level.
Posted on: 2014/5/14 3:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I believe what is implied is that the construction of abated luxury rentals that would have otherwise not have been built helped "heat up" the overall market by making the area as a whole more attractive. I'm not sure I buy it wholly, areas of Downtown like HP & VVP with very little abated property have done just fine. But no doubt there is some of that effect.
Posted on: 2014/5/14 1:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21 Last Login : 2019/12/26 15:30 From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
5356
|
Jersey City has been up for sale since the mid 90's I think its time to take down the for sale sign. We need to recognize our self worth and stopping depending on developers.
Posted on: 2014/5/14 1:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
because we have a property tax based system, there is no choice, we must do a property tax revaluation.
homes that have appreciated have done so for a variety of cumulative reasons, first being location, location, and location; the population shifts back to cities, cities becoming both safer and perceived safety, access to transportation etc, I cannot see how property tax subsidies have increased the value of non-subsidized properties. tax abatement agreements are property tax subsidies, so for the public to get a return benefit, we would need to see development in the mid-term future that we would not see otherwise. Quote:
Posted on: 2014/5/14 1:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The thing is the old timers don't want development in McGinley Park.
They want us "interlopers" to stay in DTJC (or preferably, to move to Hoboken or the city or burbs) so that our voice is muted and things can go back to the way they were. The more abatements, the more affluent voters who shun the machine politics, no show jobs, and political corruption of yore. The more abatements, the more it becomes a given that Osborne is the next mayor. They saw what happened in the city and Hoboken and are petrified. That is a reason. It has nothing to do with being equitable.
Posted on: 2014/5/13 20:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
I just want to add one more thing...
How does anyone believe that a home in Van Vorst Park could sell for $1,160,000. If you answer anything other than... the city gave abatements to developers in the area, then you're a fool. All that profit didn't come from nothing. As such, you have to pay it back a bit by paying some higher taxes. It seems as though too many people want to just be handed free cash.
Posted on: 2014/5/12 20:11
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
So Dan, what is it that you would propose? Downtown seems to be quite solid in terms of pricing and safety. Do you think that we should just avoid abatements in areas that could use the incentive to push developers to venture out? If abatements are removed entirely, why would someone think of developing a property near McGinley Square as opposed to Hamilton Park? It is ok to be someone that says NO. It is better to be the person that can provide an actual answer to what should be done to generate development in certain areas.
Posted on: 2014/5/12 20:08
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Quote:
Her evidence, even her own current home, is in favor of a reval but her mouth isn't. Yvonne's VV Park home 283 York, sold in 2012 for $1,160,000, tax $12,318 Yvonne's Heights home bought in 2012 for $325k tax 8,384.32 More: 239 Clerk St sold 2012 $231,000, tax $9,634. 20% the value of 283 York, 78% of the tax. 702 Ocean sold 2013 $200k tax $8,650 All I did to find these is use Zillow to look for a greenville property sold recently for over $200k. These were 2 of the 1st 3 hits.
Posted on: 2014/5/10 15:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 think Yvonne did an excellent job on the property tax piece, let the facts speak for themselves, and they do. property taxes are all over the place - all over the city and need to be fixed. tax abatements, redevelopment and road projects while overlapping are different issues.
Posted on: 2014/5/10 14:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43 Last Login : 2023/9/5 18:27 From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1980
|
Quote:
I agree... We should go back and get rid of those abatements on churches. Yvonne, it's great that you have these theories but where is any evidence to back it up? 1. Who is impacted negatively by a tower on an empty lot in McGinley Square? 2. How would bringing college students into the area, presumably positive members of the community, be a downside? 3. Is it not possible for the city to improve crime prevention better after the towers are built and more money comes in from the individuals living there? On the closing of Newark Ave 1. "It will harm the public traveling to the PATH for work and business." This is an opinion unsupported by any evidence. The people that take the PATH do not drive to the PATH and park their cars on Newark Ave. In fact, for "safety", I could see that walkers would be safer due to the fact that they won't be constricted to the width of a sidewalk. 2. What bus route travels down Newark Ave? You say "people are complaining about the loss of bus routes" but those routes were gone already and the street isn't closed. 3. Cars that drop people off do NOT drop people off on Newark ave. This would be foolish. You either drop the person off on Manilla, Grove or Columbus. You ARE aware that Columbus is the designated zone. As such, if you are dropping someone off any place else YOU are the problem because YOU would be causing congestion by illegally double parking. 4. You need evidence before making a claim like "Columbus will become more crowded once the city closes Newark". 5. If any ambulance is driving down Newark near grove to get to the NJMC, the drivers of that ambulance should be fired for being incomprehensibly stupid. 6. Don?t you want kids to be farther away from traffic? I?m sorry. I fast forwarded through the 20 minutes of giving addresses and taxes. You spent 7 minutes talking about your fears of change. You?ve proven nothing but that you have some silly fears. The future is the removal of cars from the road. You either adapt or get out. EVERY city is going that direction.
Posted on: 2014/5/9 19:36
|
|||
|
Dos A Cero
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Do you seriously call it "the liberry"?
Posted on: 2014/5/9 17:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
What people pay in taxes
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoFJY- ... =UUPZCDR4rCUMJtCl7__MaEag
This 27 minute video covers 4 parts: What people pay in taxes, Fulop?s abatements, McGinley Square, and the closing of Newark at Barrow/Bay for an outdoor mall.
Posted on: 2014/5/9 16:28
|
|||
|
||||