to answer your questions, my property is assessed at next to nothing. it is 13x65 i think, so not a big footprint. But it has four usable floors and is a nice house, hardwood floors, yard etc..
we have been here for less than five years, but the house has been here according to maps since pre 1900. still has those gaslight fixtures in some rooms (not working of course).
don't know if or when they plan to reassess or how that will work. in DC that had a law that you can't increase property taxes by more than a certain percentage each year no matter what happens with assessments. Do they have anything like that here?

Quote:
What is your property assesed at? When did you take posession of the property or has it been in the same name for many years? How big is the lot? I don't get this. My next door neighbor has a single family for maybe 25 years and he pays around 5K. I have a 2 family with a non standard small lot and pay about 6.5K. I have a long time elderly tennant on sec 8 and would never consider raising her rent which is quite low. I don't know what this place is worth right now and don't really care since I have no intention of selling but if there is a reassesment and my taxes skyrocket, I am on the street.

My understanding of it, based on previous posts, is that assessment doesn't change on turnover. That is, someone can buy an existing place and pay a lot less taxes than similar new construction (despite there being a new real market value to assess).

If someone's $10K place went to $300K they could easily get a home equity loan to pay the taxes forever or they could sell at a huge profit - in neither case would they "lose" their home. It seems that we have the current system because it doesn't make waves by annoying folks who underpay their taxes.

If existing houses have not been reassessed in 20 years, that puts a whole new perspective on real estate taxes here. I'm happy to be corrected and hopefully someone more informed can chime in...

Quote:

What's the right answer?

There are people around here who bought a town house in a drug infested area 25 years ago for $10k, who would be paying that yearly if they were accurately reassessed. But many couldn't afford that and would lose their homes.

Should the assessement only be changed on turnover, or continually using a computerized comp system like Zillow? Neither seems fair, so we end up with the sloppy system we have.

Most likely this will change the next time there is a reassessment. People who are paying way more for a similar place just because it is new construction (and therefore has a well defined market value and not one based on ancient history) will only put up with this for so long. Eventually either their pressure or a court decision will result in a reassessment and things will become fairer (to your detriment, I guess).

I heard that the last time JC did a reassessment was 20 years ago. Does anyone know for sure how long it's been?

Quote:

Quote:


I am dumbfounded by this as well. I hear stories about 3 floor homes in downtown jersey city paying 3 grand for taxes. Meanwhile I have a one bedroom (850 square feet)and i'm paying close to 8 grand. What gives?

I would assume that most properties will get an assesment and their taxes will go up 5 times. Who knows?

i'm in a single family house downtown and my taxes are less than 3,000 a year- i can't be the only one who pays what i think are pretty low taxes here. (not that the taxes i do pay are being put to the best use by our local govt.)
i know some people who bought newly built stuff around the corner and are paying like 15,000 a year- that seems insane.

Hey, they don't pay taxes in India or Pakistan or Africa, move there. You'll save a bundle.

I'd much rather be in New Jersey than North Carolina anyday of the year.

Jersey's high cost of housing tops nation
Ownership eats up residents' incomes
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
BY ROBERT GEBELOFF
Star-Ledger Staff
After moving to Chatham last year, Katie Young began to notice a harsh new fact of Jersey life.

She and her husband make more money than their old friends back in North Carolina. Yet, after spending $3,500 on her mortgage and taxes, there's not as much left to spend at the end of the month.

"It's crazy" she said. "We cut back on vacations, going out to dinner. We drive a Honda Civic. Everything is very basic."

Thousands of other families are living like the Youngs, new Census data indicates.

The Great Housing Boom that marked the first half of this decade didn't just drive up home prices -- it changed the way New Jersey families spend their money.

The Garden State now leads the nation in home ownership costs, and the number of residents devoting more than 30 percent of their income toward mortgages, property taxes and insurance is soaring, according to the new figures.

It now costs the typical homeowner $1,938 per month to own a house in New Jersey, well ahead of California and Massachusetts, which were second and third, and far ahead of Hawaii, the most expensive home-ownership states at the beginning of the decade, the new figures show.

And those are just median costs. One in six Jersey homeowners now pay more than $3,000 a month, compared with one in 14 just five years ago.

"We're very rich, but what these figures suggest is we're not really as wealthy as we think we are," said James Hughes, dean of the Bloustein School of Public Policy and Planning at Rutgers University.

While the typical New Jersey household earns 27 percent more than the national average, homeowners pay nearly 50 percent more to keep a roof over their heads, the new numbers show.

The figures released today come from the 2005 American Community Survey, a new annual demographic study by the Census bureau. While the survey covers a broad range of topics, the new information pertained mostly to housing.

Though such demographic statistics generally don't change much in five years, the state of New Jersey's housing is a notable exception.

Home values nearly doubled -- from a median of $170,800 in 2000 to $333,900 last year. These figures are similar to those reported previously by other organizations such as the National Association of Realtors.

But what the Census data shows more clearly is how these higher costs have translated into greater financial stress. Many state residents are going to be grappling with the ill effects for years to come, the new statistics seem to suggest.

Financial advisers generally don't recommend that homeowners spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. But that threshold was exceeded thousands of times this decade as homeowners took out bigger loans, put less money down and then saw property taxes rise faster on an annual basis than in the 1990s.

Five years ago, less than a third of homeowners were over the 30 percent mark. By last year, it was two out of five, and nearly a quarter of homeowners reported paying more than 40 percent of their income on housing costs.

"There are people all over this state leveraged out the wazoo," said Michael Jannone, a financial adviser at Tomorrow's Financial Services in Lincroft.

But many homeowners are willing to take on the debt to get into the "right" house or the town.

Anne Feltquate moved to Montgomery Township this year after her husband David, a medical doctor and a Ph.D., landed a job as a drug researcher Bristol-Myers Squibb. Already saddled with student loans, the couple took out two mortgages to pay for their $750,000 new home.

They pay nearly $5,000 a month for their new home.

Because one of their two children has autism, she said, getting into one of the state's top school districts was a huge priority.

"We kind of feel like we bit off more than we can chew," she said. "But people are always recommending buying at your uppermost limit because you expect your income to increase every year. So it's tight this year and maybe it will ease up."

She said she drives a hand-me-down minivan to save on car payments and that she can't afford to put much into the children's college fund.

"But it's not like it's way out of control," she said. "Nobody dragged us here kicking and screaming. It was our choice to live here and I'm grateful I can put food on the table."

In some cases, the rising costs are changing the very nature of towns.

In the 1990s, Montclair became very popular with middle-class families who wanted to live in a racially diverse community with an elegant stock of housing and bustling downtown.

The price war that ensued has changed the economics, said Fleming Meeks, a town resident and editor of Smart Money magazine.

"We moved here eight years ago, and the people who could afford to move here then couldn't afford to move here now," he said. "The people moving off of our street are more like me. The people moving in are investment bankers."

It's not only new residents with big mortgages that are driving up the state's average housing cost.

George McGrath figured he had found the perfect way to save money on housing. The Cranford firefighter years ago decided to live 50 miles to the west.

He also took a second job as the part-time construction official in Mountainside.

But this year, he got the shock of his life -- the taxes on his two-bedroom bungalow in Lopatcong were going up nearly 20 percent, thanks to a township-wide property revaluation.

"I know in this state, $600 seems like nothing," he said. "But that's $50 a month. That's like getting a second gas bill or electric bill. People say that if you can't afford your housing, you should go down in size. But my bungalow is 945 square feet. I can't get any smaller.

For many New Jersey residents paying high housing costs, the future will not be financial ruin, said Jack Oujo, a financial adviser from Wall. But the future isn't necessarily bright either.

"I think they're going to have to be working into their 60s and 70s instead of retiring, or be willing to accept a dramatic reduction in their lifestyle," he said.

Because mortgage loans tend to mask the true cost of homes -- unlike other luxury items where consumers realize the actual costs up front -- many consumers don't even realize the holes they're putting themselves in, he said.

"A lot of people in this state are living way beyond their actual means, and the day of reckoning is coming," he said.



Robert Gebeloff covers demographics for The Star-Ledger. He may be reached at (973) 392-1753 or rgebeloff@starledger.com.




? 2006 The Star Ledger
? 2006 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.