Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
37 user(s) are online (21 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 37

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 4 ... 15 »


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5274
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
[quote]
I doubt many people will do the math and then the legwork to terminate their abatement contract in favor of regular taxes. Like I said earlier, I think the power of inertia is such that most people will remain in their abatements, even if regular taxes are lower. Most people automatically assume they are saving money by being in an abatement contract.


Same as all the people paying effective tax rates of 3 to 4% who looked at their assessment of a fraction of fair market value, assumed they were getting a deal on their taxes rather than getting ripped off, and never appealed them.

So much of this whole casino game of taxes runs on deliberate obscurity and confusion. Even just the ridiculous method of quoting taxes by "dollars per thousand" value rather than just a fucking percentage which any grade-schooler would understand.

Posted on: 7/22 23:23
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 152
Offline
Bodhi you're right and I apologize. I misread the quotes and attributed your comment to someone else and mistakenly called you a shill. You're far from it. The points I made still stand, but again, apologies on the vitriol.

Posted on: 7/22 22:57
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3540
Offline
Quote:

llee wrote:
In other words, tax reval is actually a relief on the tax burden of recent dtjc owners of tax-abated buildings, as opposed to how the media sometimes depicts it.

Based on that ratable base should increase well before abatement expires as more and more owners choose to opt out.



Well, I wouldn't make THAT assumption. I doubt many people will do the math and then the legwork to terminate their abatement contract in favor of regular taxes. Like I said earlier, I think the power of inertia is such that most people will remain in their abatements, even if regular taxes are lower. Most people automatically assume they are saving money by being in an abatement contract.

But, if I am wrong and your assumption is correct, then the city will be facing a deficit in revenue. That could be an interesting development given the expected drop in state funding of our local BOE, even despite the potential revenue from the business tax.

Posted on: 7/22 22:08
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/4/30 13:27
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 6
Offline
In other words, tax reval is actually a relief on the tax burden of recent dtjc owners of tax-abated buildings, as opposed to how the media sometimes depicts it.

Based on that ratable base should increase well before abatement expires as more and more owners choose to opt out.


Posted on: 7/22 16:25
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3540
Offline
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
On the topic of Fulop, I'm kinda pissed off One Journal Square remains a vacant plot of land collecting weed and garbage.

Yeah, that's mostly the Kushner family's fault.

After buying the property, the Kushners got it on the EB-5 program. This allows foreign investors to get fast-tracked for a green card. The Kushners got caught using this as a selling point for Chinese investors to the project, which in turn started a federal investigation.

The project stalled, an anchor tenant (WeWork) pulled out, the Kushners couldn't get it funded. It was only a few months ago that the city declared the project in default.

It might make sense to start the clock on the Fulop blame now, but yeah, most of the failure is because the Kushners got busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors.


Wow... that's some incredibly selective retelling of history. That lot has been sitting empty, and used as political booty, since the previous decade. The project has changed hands at least twice over the past 10 years. Every time an election cycle rolled around, Healy and his cronies would announce some new project, make a huge splash outside the site, and garner votes by making empty promises. As far back as 2009, we were promised imminent construction with a completion within 3 years. Obviously, that didn't happen, so in 2013 more empty promises were made, but Fulop managed to eke out a victory. Then the Kushners took over in 2015.

That last paragraph is also disingenuous: they [the Kushners] weren't "busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors". What triggered the investigation was the mentioning (and, use) of Jared's name and connections to the White House. The use of conferences in overseas markets to drum up investments and funding for hot real estate markets in several US cities is very, very common. It is how so much of Miami has been built up over the years. How do you think all those rich Mexicans, Brazilians, and other Latin American families manage to get visas to live in Miami year-round? The US immigration code/law allows for foreigners to get permanent residence in exchange for investments of at least half a million dollars. Some satisfy the requirement by opening businesses and hiring the requisite number of time employees (I think it is a minimum of 10, but I can't remember right now) and others do this by putting up half a million dollars towards real estate. There is nothing illegal about advertising this to a foreigner. It is 100% legal.

Posted on: 7/22 15:43
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3540
Offline
Quote:

llee wrote:
Quote:

At 1.488, the need for abatements is probably diminished. I'm okay if they go away, but don't expect any developer to voluntarily build affordable housing.



In fact, a lot of realtors are advising their clients to opt out of tax abatement in dtjc properties. PILOT tax = rate x SALE price and that rate is generally in the 1.6-1.9 range, whereas in the opt-out scenario, it would be 1.488 x assessed value. Wouldn't it be a no-brainer to opt out of abatement unless home owner feels that tax rate will eventually exceed their PILOT rate?


BINGO! Any smart, savvy person should do the math on their tax situation and take the appropriate actions. Sadly, lots of people will continue to to pay PILOTs that exceed regular taxation because... well, inertia. I am sure lots of people on PILOTs on recent sales are likely paying a rate that is higher than 1.488. For example: all those condos in CanCo Lofts are definitely paying a higher rate via PILOTs than 1.488. In fact, I don't know of any new building paying less than 1.488 in PILOTs, except for The Oakman, which got a sweetheart deal of a 0.9% rate in a 20-year abatement program. Most of the buildings in the PADNA area are now paying well over 1.488% in PILOTs. But, I also doubt that they are paying enough attention to do the math and make the moves to switch to the lower tax rate.

Posted on: 7/22 15:27
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3540
Offline
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.


“Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.”

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here’s what “Stateaidguy” said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.


Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.



Yes and the part YOU and Fulop's shills keep distracting from is that under the PILOT scenario, ZERO of it goes to the schools. This was the greatest scam going as long as the state agreed to keep picking up the bulk of the school budget.

But again, at an avg property tax rate of 2.4%, the state woke up, and is pulling back educational funding to JC, which it should have done long ago.

This long term abuse of abatements, coupled with the delayed reval, is a huge financial powder keg waiting to blow. Steve got lucky the state allowed him to impose a business tax. That's a bandaid to a hatchet wound.


Dude, you are attacking the messenger. My only aim is to present facts, devoid of feelings or emotions. I was an early supporter of the reval and it pretty much played out the way I expected, except for the final rate, which I initially fully expected to end up being close to 2%, and later on 1.8%. I am quite surprised it ended up at 1.488%.

In any case, I am neither in favor, or against, abatements. I think abatements can be used smartly to spur development, but they are likely not necessary in DTJC, or even JSQ nowadays.

Of course, I also recognize that the city is "pulling a scam" on the state and county residents by abusing abatements and leaving it to them to subsidize our school budget. I even noted as much when I stated "they [JC] collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state". Facts are facts. My stating them does not make me a shill. In fact, I am far from that, as I have been quite vocal about my disapproval of the many delays of the reval. If you were to go through my posting history on the topic of taxes, the reval, and other such things, you will find a consistent position.

Posted on: 7/22 15:21
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/8/6 18:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 976
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
On the topic of Fulop, I'm kinda pissed off One Journal Square remains a vacant plot of land collecting weed and garbage.

Yeah, that's mostly the Kushner family's fault.

After buying the property, the Kushners got it on the EB-5 program. This allows foreign investors to get fast-tracked for a green card. The Kushners got caught using this as a selling point for Chinese investors to the project, which in turn started a federal investigation.

The project stalled, an anchor tenant (WeWork) pulled out, the Kushners couldn't get it funded. It was only a few months ago that the city declared the project in default.

It might make sense to start the clock on the Fulop blame now, but yeah, most of the failure is because the Kushners got busted trying to sell green cards to Chinese investors.

Posted on: 7/22 14:55
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 152
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.


“Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.”

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here’s what “Stateaidguy” said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.


Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.



Yes and the part YOU and Fulop's shills keep distracting from is that under the PILOT scenario, ZERO of it goes to the schools. This was the greatest scam going as long as the state agreed to keep picking up the bulk of the school budget.

But again, at an avg property tax rate of 2.4%, the state woke up, and is pulling back educational funding to JC, which it should have done long ago.

This long term abuse of abatements, coupled with the delayed reval, is a huge financial powder keg waiting to blow. Steve got lucky the state allowed him to impose a business tax. That's a bandaid to a hatchet wound.

Posted on: 7/22 14:29
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/4/30 13:27
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 6
Offline
Quote:

At 1.488, the need for abatements is probably diminished. I'm okay if they go away, but don't expect any developer to voluntarily build affordable housing.



In fact, a lot of realtors are advising their clients to opt out of tax abatement in dtjc properties. PILOT tax = rate x SALE price and that rate is generally in the 1.6-1.9 range, whereas in the opt-out scenario, it would be 1.488 x assessed value. Wouldn't it be a no-brainer to opt out of abatement unless home owner feels that tax rate will eventually exceed their PILOT rate?

Posted on: 7/22 13:35
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 825
Offline
On the topic of Fulop, I'm kinda pissed off One Journal Square remains a vacant plot of land collecting weed and garbage.


Posted on: 7/22 13:30
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 825
Offline
How does the reval and the 1.488 rate change this?

The PILOT number would stay the same but the conventional tax number would go down, no?

At 1.488, the need for abatements is probably diminished. I'm okay if they go away, but don't expect any developer to voluntarily build affordable housing.


Posted on: 7/22 13:27
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3540
Offline
Quote:

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.


“Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.”

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here’s what “Stateaidguy” said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.


Perfect example of presenting facts without understanding them. The figures quoted from the stateaidguy page are correct, but they dont represent what you think they do. What he is saying is that the abated properties are paying a total of 127.8 million in PILOTs, and JC gets to keep 121.4 MM (95% of the the PILOTs) but with regular taxation the city would only get 104 MM (49% of the theoretical 212 MM the properties would pay in regular taxes).

So, the difference is a deficit of 17 MM for the city. That is why the city is more than happy to keep giving out abatements: they collect MORE money, at the expense of the county and the state.

It should also be pointed out that be 212 MM figure quoted by stateaidguy is now completely irrelevant and incorrect now that the tax rate has been calculated to be 1.488. At the time of that article, the property tax rate was about 2.1% once equalization was factored in. In other words, those abated properties would only generate 71% of the assumed/calculated tax. Or, in other words, those abated properties would pay $150 MM. Or, to put it another way, abated properties are paying ~85% of regular taxes, and the city is keeping almost all of it.

So, if you go with the 150 MM figure, the city would get 73.5 MM (49% of 150 MM) and compare that to the 121 MM generated through PILOTs (see above explanation) and you are staring at a 48 MM deficit for the city.


Posted on: 7/22 13:24
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/28 21:47
From DT JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 195
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.


“Last year Jersey City's PILOT program took in $127,800,476 from tax-abated properties. If all these properties were taxed conventionally, the total would be $211,967,791.”

Looks to be about $84,167,315 less to me. The numbers are from Terrence T. McDonald.
https://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... _force_jersey_city_t.html

Here’s what “Stateaidguy” said about it some time ago:
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/20 ... atements-hurt-jersey.html

Obviously, some projects would have been built with a delay, some perhaps not at all, without tax expenditure support from the City. Yes, it’s taxpayer money being spent to encourage development. However, exactly how much needed to be spent to encourage exactly how much development can never be conclusively, definitively established. We don’t, and can never, know what would have happened in the absence of this expenditure. You’ll all be arguing about it till kingdom come….

The developer shills and Fulop lackeys who frequent this Board would have it that minimal or no re-development would have occurred, so there would be minimal PILOT revenue. Instead JC would still be a bunch of derelict buildings and vacant lots, located 5 minutes train ride from one the world’s greatest, economically vibrant cities. Seems highly implausible to me….

That said, in my view, it’s well past time to turn off the expenditure of taxpayer funds to these private developers in JC. Let these private companies make their development decisions on the basis of the underlying economics and marekt forces, rather than on the basis of how much tax expenditure subsidy they can extract out of JC (and NJ) taxpayers.

Posted on: 7/22 13:09
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5274
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
You were not at the budget hearings either Brewster. You do not hear the questions being asked or the answers given. You are another person who feels threaten facts are presented.


Some of us have lives and don't feel we need to be at meetings and harass officials to understand this. Why don't you start by presenting facts? At no time have you ever acknowledged that PILOT payments are a significant part of the the city's income. Your "facts" are incorrect, and when called on it, you double down and say "you weren't there" rather than actually show your work like in any grade school math class.

If you want to prove your case show the 2 numbers that you never do:

Current total PILOT revenue
Total revenue from Abated property if it were ratable.

The DIFFERENCE between these is the number that would would affect the rate, and you avoid this like the plague, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Yes, this bypasses the issue of the county and schools, but that hasn't been your point, you just yammer on and on that "our taxes are high".

Posted on: 7/22 11:29
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4588
Offline
You were not at the budget hearings either Brewster. You do not hear the questions being asked or the answers given. You are another person who feels threaten facts are presented.

Posted on: 7/22 8:47
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5274
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
bodhipooh, when did you speak to the business administrator or the county tax board? I do all the time. So, yes I do believe what I post because the information comes from those who do our budgets. By the way, I did not see you at the last budget hearing.


I believe you understand about as much when you talk to these officials as my cat does when I've repeatedly tried to explain quantum physics to him. He seems interested and attentive, but I guess it's just beyond him.

Posted on: 7/21 18:53
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4588
Offline
bodhipooh, when did you speak to the business administrator or the county tax board? I do all the time. So, yes I do believe what I post because the information comes from those who do our budgets. By the way, I did not see you at the last budget hearing.

Posted on: 7/21 17:44
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3540
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Abatements artificially keep our taxes high because they are not added to the ratable base. Using the 2017 formula, the residents had a tax rate of $78 per thousand. If tax abatement were ratables, then the rate would probably be around $55 per thousand. That is the reason why other towns do not grant tax abatements.


You must love to believe your own nonsense. You *know* that those properties are paying to the city just as much money (and, in some cases, much more money) in PILOTs than if they paid regular taxes. PLEASE, stop your lies by omission.

If those abatements were to go away, the city would need to raise the same amount of revenue they currently do, so the taxes would have to go up to make up the difference between what those properties pay to the city now, and what the city would get through the regular property taxes.

Posted on: 7/21 17:17
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4588
Offline
My information comes from the county, there are separate columns for rateables, tax exempt such as public properties, and properties not public but not ratables either. The reason Fulop was able to spend but not increase taxes was the expiration of many tax abatements given under the Schundler Administration. The ratable base was $5.1 billion in the early 1990s under Schundler, it rose to $6.2 billion with the expiration of tax abatements that became ratables. Spending increased more than $100 million under Fulop, he lucked out with the expiration of tax abatements.

Posted on: 7/21 13:40
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 825
Offline
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Yvonne, do you acknowledge the existence of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payments?

If so, do you acknowledge that most tax abated properties still send PILOT payments to the city?


Yes but they send ZERO TO THE SCHOOLS. That's the whole point to the argument against PILOTS to the extent JC uses them.

It allows steve to keep funding his PR happy pet projects and assumes state aid doesn't change. Clearly that's not the case going forward.


I don't disagree. The city gets more revenue from a tax abated property with PILOTs because it isn't shared with the schools. Personally, I want to see thschool board starved. It's too bloated and inefficient. A private school could do wonders if they got $29,000 per capita. Instead, Jersey City school kids are treated like pawns.

Posted on: 7/21 12:26
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 16:13
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5274
Offline
Yvonne's numbers assume there are no PILOTS lowering the tax rate already.

Does anyone remember where in the mess of city/county/state docs is the table that shows the total PILOTS vs what they'd pay as ratables? I saw it once, but can't find it anymore.

Posted on: 7/21 12:12
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4588
Offline
Abatements artificially keep our taxes high because they are not added to the ratable base. Using the 2017 formula, the residents had a tax rate of $78 per thousand. If tax abatement were ratables, then the rate would probably be around $55 per thousand. That is the reason why other towns do not grant tax abatements.

Posted on: 7/21 9:25
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2017/9/20 21:56
From Chilltown
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 152
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Yvonne, do you acknowledge the existence of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payments?

If so, do you acknowledge that most tax abated properties still send PILOT payments to the city?


Yes but they send ZERO TO THE SCHOOLS. That's the whole point to the argument against PILOTS to the extent JC uses them.

It allows steve to keep funding his PR happy pet projects and assumes state aid doesn't change. Clearly that's not the case going forward.

Posted on: 7/21 6:08
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 825
Offline
Yvonne, do you acknowledge the existence of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) payments?

If so, do you acknowledge that most tax abated properties still send PILOT payments to the city?

Posted on: 7/20 23:10
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4588
Offline
The laws for tax abatement were changed by the 31st District who were also lawyers and working for the developers. Tax abatements prior to 1990 could only go to affordable housing. Society Hill which is more toxic than Porte Liberte did not receive a tax abatement. Neither did Dixon Mills or the first 4 buildings in Newport. Later, Mayor Cucci gave Newport a tax abatement for 271 units of affordable housing. LeFrac place ads in the New York Post and that affordable housing mainly went to New Yorkers. Newport also was built on contaminated soil. The bottom line, developers were building without tax abatements on contaminated land prior to the change in the tax abatement laws.

Posted on: 7/20 17:27
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/11/8 10:38
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 167
Offline
I'm not going to get into details here Yvonne, but you don't seem to understand the idea behind tax abatements. Let me explain how it works where I'm living now. I live in Port Liberté. 40 years ago this area was a total mess, it was filled with toxins and other really bad crap, and other than the fact that it was on the waterfront, had not a damn thing going for it. How much do you think it would have contributed to tax roles? Not much. So the city government at the time realized that some impetus should be given to a developer to get the area going again. The impetus was the right to sell the finished properties on this piece of land with a tax discount that would end in 30 years. They turned that decrepit piece of land into an oasis on the water. 30 years after the abatement went into effect, 440 fully rate-able units are now on the tax rolls, instead of the zero that would probably be here if no abatement was offered.

Hoboken, OTOH, doesn't have vast wastelands with toxic sludge or no development. They may have small pockets, but land there is incredibly valuable, so no abatements are needed.


Posted on: 7/20 17:08
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4588
Offline
I use to volunteer and tape Hoboken meetings for a friend. Hoboken has a very small school population. While I don't recall the exact number, it is less than 3,000 with the city population probably close to 60,000 residents. Hoboken is smart in the fact they do not give tax abatements, so everyone is paying with the exception of public housing and some senior housing. I finally got the figures recently, JC has exempt $12 billion from the ratable base that is not paying school taxes. This is the 2018 reval figure.

Posted on: 7/20 16:47
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/27 20:34
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 825
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Final rate is 1.488.


Oh man; once the rest of the state gets a whiff of that rate...


Hoboken was 1.592 last year, and no one made a stink about their Abbott. At least you can see the Abbott money in their schools, they have far more extracurriculars and enrichment.


Of course no one made a stink about their Abbott: Hoboken pays for 80% of their school operating budget! It's not about Abbott status. Even when you look at total revenue for the Hoboken school district, the revenue from all state sources, including grants, amounts to ~34% (24.5MM out of 72MM). That's a far cry from the current situation in JC, where the city pays for about 17% of the local school budget. That's really the issue that I think (would assume) other municipalities will use to lobby for reduced assistance.


I had a laugh when DanL was trying to justify the current funding!

The school tax rate will soar in the coming years, hitting the revaled downtown properties hardest but will hurt literally everyone.

Posted on: 7/20 15:27
Print Top


Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 14:31
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3540
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo2 wrote:
Final rate is 1.488.


Oh man; once the rest of the state gets a whiff of that rate...


Hoboken was 1.592 last year, and no one made a stink about their Abbott. At least you can see the Abbott money in their schools, they have far more extracurriculars and enrichment.


Of course no one made a stink about their Abbott: Hoboken pays for 80% of their school operating budget! It's not about Abbott status. Even when you look at total revenue for the Hoboken school district, the revenue from all state sources, including grants, amounts to ~34% (24.5MM out of 72MM). That's a far cry from the current situation in JC, where the city pays for about 17% of the local school budget. That's really the issue that I think (would assume) other municipalities will use to lobby for reduced assistance.

Posted on: 7/20 11:36
Print Top




(1) 2 3 4 ... 15 »




[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