|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
While I'm opposed to this tax bill on many grounds, including the removal of the SALT deduction, we won't really know how this affects NJ for some time. For example: Livingston is an affluent suburb. While there are many middle class and fixed-income residents, the median income is $120,000 per household. That's double the national average, and nearly 50% higher than the NJ average. It is entirely plausible middle-class residents will benefit from the increased standard deductible, while the wealthier residents will benefit from a variety of other tax breaks in the bill. We just don't know yet. I.e. A report that "affluent suburbanites are terrorized!" doesn't tell us how their taxes will actually change.
Posted on: 2017/12/18 20:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
** yawn ** Those federal tax changes are going to hit the entire NYC area and beyond; and inventory is so tight that properties forced on the market by the reval will be snapped up quickly. In other words, the same forces which have driven up DTJC real estate for years have not gone away. And if the market can handle years of double-digit growth in real estate value (and years of predictions of DOOOOOM for DTJC), it can survive the reval. Of course, you should feel free to put your money where your mouth is, and if you personally own in DTJC you should sell now. Right?
Posted on: 2017/12/17 20:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Sure. But... so what? DTJC prices have been on a tear for years. A 10-20% drop in prices will hurt, but it's not like thousands of DTJC sellers will be underwater. The increase in supply will be short-lived, probably most of 2019. I for one doubt that supply will vastly outstrip demand in the short term, and definitely not in the long term. (There are currently 170 units for sale in 07302; let's see how that changes over the next 3 years....) Oh, and DTCJ != All Of JC. Other neighborhoods, some of which are already gentrifying, should see reductions in their property taxes, which should mean a rise in demand and their home values.
Posted on: 2017/12/15 17:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'll give it a whirl Let's start by looking at the aggregate. Most of downtown is underpaying property tax; most of the rest of JC is overpaying property tax. DT buildings will pay more (as noted above, 50-75% seems likely) -- but property taxes will drop in other parts of town. On average, it ought to more or less average out, especially for areas near JSQ which are starting to gentrify. Next, let's look at a situation where property taxes will increase by what we expect is a typical amount (around 60%). We'll look at a DTJC single-family home on the market for $1.5 million. 3 beds, 2 baths, backyard, renovated etc. Assuming 20% down, a likely monthly mortgage payment is $5500/month. Property taxes are $10,000 per year. Their annual costs are $76,000 per year. After the reval, they will now pay $24,000 per year. Their annual housing costs are now $90,000 a year. That's an increase of $1160/month. I can see how that can cause someone to seriously consider moving. If we try to offset the entire cost of property taxes by reducing the home price, and thus the mortgage, the new price would be around $1.2 million. At the same time, property taxes in other parts of JC will fall, and presumably become more attractive. Will the owner drop the price by nearly 20%? That's certainly possible. Would the owner be upset? Probably. However, that's also only about 1 year of unrealized gains, and a much softer blow than 2007-2008. However, inventory in DJTC is still very tight. My understanding is that demand vastly outstrips supply, and properties don't remain on the market long. I suspect that some buyers are discouraged by the lack of inventory, and look elsewhere. If inventory increases in 2019, those properties will be snapped up quickly, and prices will resume their upward trend. Demand may be so high that prices drop far less than 20% -- or might not drop at all. Another way to put this is: The lack of revaluations over the years has caused home prices to become unfair and inequitable. DTJC real estate values are higher than they ought to be, and other areas are lower than they ought to be, because DT owners have received a tax break at the expense of their poorer neighbors. The reval could make both property tax and home values more fair overall.
Posted on: 2017/12/15 2:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, I'm merely responding to them. That's normal behavior in these types of conversations. I see no reason for further discussion with you on the topic. Have a nice night.
Posted on: 2017/12/10 23:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Because... as I said... You're changing your rationale in almost every post. 1st post: Worried about stoned drivers. Then claims that governments want stoned citizens, which are easier to control (a ludicrous claim on numerous counts btw). Accuse state of just wanting tax revenue. 2nd post: Claims the state is jeopardizing citizen health. Accuses legislators of hypocrisy. 3rd post: Conflates marijuana and tobacco. Government is wrong to promote marijuana use. 4th post: Big Tobacco is getting involved! 5th post: Marijuana must cause cancer because it leaves residue on your fingers! Medical use for terminal patients is fine, but do we really want a society of stoners? 6th post: Drags gambling and prostitution into the discussion. Don't want to hear about tax revenues. Kids shouldn't get a criminal record over this stuff. Should we let the government run our lives? 8th post: Think of the children! Pick a lane. Quote: I said I am struggling with the issue of making it not so much legal, but more available, particularly to teenagers. No, as a matter of fact, you haven't said that. You haven't discussed minors at all. Plus, the law will set the minimum age to 21.
Posted on: 2017/12/8 22:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Port Authority plans to extend PATH to Newark airport
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What the what? Gordon is talking about a contingency plan in the event of a major catastrophe -- one of the Amtrak tunnels failing before a replacement can be put into place. If that happens, all NJ commutes will be a total disaster. He is not making a proposal for normal commuting patterns. In terms of cars, guess that? PA is already expanding all lines to 10 cars, and is being very public about it. In terms of frequency, guess what? PA is already working on that. The new signaling system should allow trains to operate closer together. PA is public about this as well. In terms of PA playing hush hush... Aren't you pointing to an article reporting a state Senator discussing a big plan? In public? Where anyone can read it? Maybe you should actually read the article again. The only reason Gordon is discussing this is because he's concerned that the Gateway project won't be done in time.
Posted on: 2017/12/8 22:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yeah, thing is? The push for marijuana legalization is largely coming from citizens, not elected officials. Citizens want the laws to change, and have wanted those laws to change for years. The legislators, and now governor, are responding to their constituents. That's how a representative democracy is supposed to work. In addition, marijuana is very different than other drugs. Unlike opiates or stimulants or alcohol, it is not habit forming. You can't overdose from marijuana. You can't die from the effects of marijuana. Marijuana does not cause acute toxicity. Evidence does not show that marijuana smoke is carcinogenic. It's not completely harmless, but it's substantially less harmful than pretty much every other recreational drug. Quote: I am more accepting of the argument to decriminalize possession rather than listening to a pro-legal point of political view that talks about all the new tax revenues. OK, how about this? "Marijuana prohibition is not working, and enforcing those laws causes all sorts of harm to American citizens, especially in minority communities which already have enough issues relating to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Marijuana itself causes minimal harm, and has some potential health benefits in certain situations. It should never have been outlawed in the first place. We can take steps to mitigate some of the potential issues, such as establishing laws against operating vehicles or heavy machinery under the influence, and barring access by anyone under 21. Plus, if we legalize it, the state can collect tax revenues." Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Quote: All I am doing is posing some questions about the about what boundaries are good for a society... and what isn't. And also what is the role of government in controlling the lives of citizens? Why shouldn't we legalize prostitution? Odd, it sounds more like you're fumbling for reasons to oppose legalization. Your reasons seem to change with every post. I see no reason to get bogged down in unrelated issues like prostitution.
Posted on: 2017/12/8 5:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It doesn't look that bad. Over 65, NJ resident for 10 years, paid your property taxes, meet income limits, no 2nd homes etc. Is JC exempt because of PILOT?
Posted on: 2017/12/7 15:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, and everyone knows it. Including people pushing to legalize it. Is that supposed to be an objection?
Posted on: 2017/12/7 5:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: AirBnB taking much-needed rentals off the market
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You sure about that? The BI article is not exactly a resounding attack, as it openly admits that "it not possible to say definitively that Airbnb puts up the price of rents and properties." The closest it comes is repeating a report written by Mobilization for Justice (not exactly neutral when it comes to housing/gentrification). It claims that adding the 8000 "Impact Listings" units to the rental pool would increase the vacancy rate to 4%. Even if their claim is correct, the idea that a mere 8000-unit increase would make a serious dent in rents in NYC is laughable. The Guardian article contains no data, just anecdotes that Air is allegedly ruining New Orleans. Meanwhile, checking zip code 70116 on Zillow shows rental prices peaking in 2014, and dropping about 15% since then; 70117 (Bywater) is basically flat. While this is obviously a crude analysis, perception does not quite mesh with reality. (This is why we should actually pay attention to data rather than anecdotes.) The 3rd paper is pretty solid. However, it's not an attack either. The authors conclude that Air might raise costs slightly, but also enhances the value of homes; they're not sure of the overall effects. But what happens when we look at JC? Rental prices actually decreased in 07302, peaking at $2875 in August 2015, and is currently at $2686. Does that mean a bunch of Air rentals closed up shop? No, it means that an effect that small is basically noise in markets as complex and volatile as JC. Now, in a city like San Francisco, where the vacancy rate is around 1.2%, and there's a ton of units on Air, it's probably an issue. NYC, with a 3.6%... maybe. In Jersey City, even DTJC, with a 12% vacancy rate? Highly unlikely. I'm not saying that AirBnB is the most awesome amazing thing ever. I wouldn't be too happy if someone tried to turn my building into a hotel. What I'm saying is that blaming AirBnB for housing problems in JC doesn't add up. It's just a convenient punching bag, for people who don't want to face the fact that the only solution is to build more affordable units in JC.
Posted on: 2017/12/7 5:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Does anyone know how NJ's property tax relief programs will impact the reval costs?
I know there is some sort of income-based rebate and a "senior freeze," but I don't know how that might impact some bills or rebates.
Posted on: 2017/12/6 23:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Legal Weed Is Coming to New Jersey
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Is that why marijuana and opiates have been illegal in the US and almost all states for decades? And why the push to legalize marijuana has been pushed by the public in dozens of states, while the government in almost every one of those states has opposed legalization? Quote: The vice story said one NJ proposal wanted to start the tax at 7%, then after several years it would grow to 25%. No idea what alcohol is taxed at but it is pretty obvious the only thing they want is immediate increased usage and a new revenue stream that grows to feed their spending addiction. Oooookay First of all, alcohol is taxed at 12 cents a gallon for beer, 87.5 cents for wine, spirits $5.50. Second, both governments and pro-pot advocates are openly saying they could use this to raise taxes. Third, spending levels haven't changed much in NJ since at least 2009. Finally, feel free to go over the NJ budget and tell us all what ought to be cut. You know that property tax relief is a huge chunk of spending, right? Maybe we can cut education spending, perhaps? Police? CHIP?
Posted on: 2017/12/6 23:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: AirBnB taking much-needed rentals off the market
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
AirBnB has absolutely nothing to do with any housing crunch in JC. There are over 110,000 housing units in Jersey City. About 300 of them are listed on AirBnB. That's less than 0.3% of all housing units. The real issue in JC is the same as the area as a whole, namely a lack of affordable housing. The only real option is to build a ton of affordable units. Needless to say, that's not the easiest thing to do in an area that is already developed, and where the locals are not exactly thrilled by the idea of adding more high-density buildings.
Posted on: 2017/12/6 22:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Are they killing individual AMT, or just raising the cap?
Posted on: 2017/12/5 17:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
More Fun With NYT Discovering Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
According to the NY Times, NYC dwellers who look down on Jersey City are pretentious. #MakeItYours
Trigger warning: The women who rented the DTJC apartment seem to like Steve Fulop. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/rea ... oncollection%2Frealestate
Posted on: 2017/12/5 15:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The law is definitely much more likely to pass now than when I wrote that. Even so, the bill is not finished, and may not be as big a hit as some people fear. The current plan is to allow a $10,000 deduction in property taxes, and interest on mortgages up to $500,000. This could change at any moment, but let's assume it will be something along those lines, or worse. On one hand, even with the property tax deduction, this is going to hurt -- particularly with the reval. Quite a few large properties will have bigger property tax deductions, and mortgages over $500k. On the other, this is not happening in a vacuum. It's happening right next to Manhattan, and in an area with very little inventory. What this means is that more people will get priced out of Manhattan, and will be looking at JC. It's going to suck for a lot of current JC residents (including me) who will get hit with higher taxes. It will likely force more than a few home sales. But overall, I don't think it will make a serious dent in DTJC prices, especially in the longer term.
Posted on: 2017/12/5 15:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What are you basing this on?
Posted on: 2017/12/5 15:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Symes / Solomon runoff
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Oh, whatever Yes, PACs are a bad system. However, there is only one PAC operating, and Symes has no control over it. Her campaign is not allowed to coordinate with it in any way, shape or form. She can't even tell them to stop. Meanwhile, Solomon seems intent on buying the election outright. He's loaning money to his own campaign, and apparently his rich out-of-town buddies are giving to his campaign. He's outspending Symes and the PAC. It's hard to see how that's any better. Quote: Some people suggested this is a labor pac and does appear to have some labor individuals attached to it. It?s labor with close connections to development interests. But we actually have no idea who is spending this money and probably never will. And yet, you are perfectly happy to insinuate that it's connected to developers? Nice. Y'know, I'm pretty neutral on this election; their platforms are very close. However, all this negative crap from Solomon supporters and the candidate is turning me off.
Posted on: 2017/12/3 17:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Beware of Symes Volunteers Infiltrating Your Building
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Cool story bro
Posted on: 2017/12/3 0:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: PATH - proposed Newark Airport extension
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Apparently so, since you claim the trains are packed at 7:30 AM, when that isn't the case. I've also seen plenty of instances where a train rolls in during rush hour and it's packed - and it's immediately followed by another train with room. Plus, I have to say, spending an extra 10 minutes on your commute is a disaster? Cry me a freaking river. Nearly every other public transportation system in the area faces much worse problems, and are far more expensive. I can't imagine any commuter system in the area that doesn't deal with longer delays on a regular basis. First world problems. They are just the worst, huh?
Posted on: 2017/11/30 2:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Port Authority plans to extend PATH to Newark airport
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, they're not. That is complete and total nonsense. The economics get much worse if ridership falls, even if fares increase. The number of actual riders isn't what drives system costs, it's the frequency of the trains, and that won't change by whacking those two lines and running more trains on the remaining routes. Quote: With a PATH extension to EWR, the tunnels to WTC can carry thousands of higher-fare paying riders everyday. Sorry, but that is just more nonsense. If they started charging $10 per fare, ridership will plummet, which will reduce revenue overall and make the system significantly less efficient. And let's face it, there are lots of people who will ride the PATH, even at $10. They'll just be really, really pissed off about it, and bombard the governor's office non-stop. Quote: The PA isn?t spending $1.7 billion for us and a few lower Manhattanites to pay $2.75 for a quick ride to Newark airport. No, it?s about finding a lot more commuters who will pay higher fares to use PATH. ooooooh so close. It's definitely about driving more traffic to EWR. It's not about turning a profit on the PATH. That will never, ever happen. Public transportation systems are not profit centers. Even the most efficient public transportation systems lose money on every single rider and fare. Quote: Heck, the PABT will never be re-built if NY gets its way. They?d happily leave us stranded in NJ. Did you somehow not notice that PA's board answers to the governor of NJ? Do you really think that Christie and Phil Murphy and Cuomo have identical agendas here? Do you really think Cuomo will delight in hearing that more NJ commuters will pile into NYC subways during rush hour? Did you really not notice how quickly Port Authority drew back from the mere suggestion of closing the PATH system for a few hours every night? Quote: There?s some good news for JC in all this. With the crossing points gone, PATH can operate faster and more frequent service on the lines that remain, EWR ? WTC and HOB ? 33rd. No, it can't. PATH is already running as many trains as it can during rush hour. It won't be able to run more trains by eliminating lines. If it can only run X number of trains under the Hudson at a time, it doesn't matter at all if those trains were last in Hoboken, or Pavonia, or Exchange Place. Even if it did happen somehow, that change will slam other transit systems, primarily the HBLR and MTA. It will outrage commuters on both sides of the river. It will outrage Wall Street and other firms, whose employees will complain about the changes in commutes. Where did you come up with this boondoggle of an idea? Florida? ;)
Posted on: 2017/11/30 2:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: PATH - proposed Newark Airport extension
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Oh, really? Last week I caught a 7:30 AM train at Grove Street, and was able to get a seat. Yes, it does get busy and crowded around 8:15 - 9:15, and I've had some unpleasant commutes, but it's rare that I can't get onto a train. I have never even considered riding out to JSQ first. The new signal system should be in operation soon, and that will allow more trains to run. They're expanding platforms to allow 10-car trains on all lines. Although I don't expect it to happen any time soon, they could switch to accordion-style cars that increase capacity by 10%. And let's get a little perspective. We aren't in Tokyo, we don't have subway pushers. Rush hour on the PATH is definitely not fantabulous, the system definitely has problems, but it also isn't the nightmare some people claim, and isn't going to explode because one more person tries to commute during rush hour. 
Posted on: 2017/11/29 15:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
There is no "7 year cycle." I see no indication that anyone is running scared right now. I haven't seen any indication that waves of homeowners are bailing before their property taxes go up, or that interest in JC has cratered for the same reason. Hoboken hadn't done a reval in 25 years, and there's no question that properties faced increases in property taxes. What protected Hoboken's property values overall are the same factors that will protect JC's values overall: A lack of inventory, and stupendous RE prices in Manhattan ($1790/sq ft, vs JC's $472). Oh, and don't forget, a lot of people's property taxes are going to drop. That should increase their property values, no...?
Posted on: 2017/11/29 1:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Someone's an optimist ;) I don't see any indication of a major economic slowdown any time soon. Of course, anything could happen, but it's not like we are scheduled to have a recession in early 2019. The reval is not going to kill real estate prices. Just look at Hoboken, property values have consistently risen since 2012, despite a big reval. The current tax reform plan is probably the only real issue here. However, the bill is very far from a done deal, as is completely killing off SALT. (E.g. the House wants to keep $10k of the SALT deduction.) Keep in mind that the pressure to pass tax reform is equaled by the pressure to repeal the ACA, and that also failed. Despite that change, though, it doesn't alter the fundamental dynamic driving up real estate prices in much of JC: Demand vastly outstrips supply. So much of JC is rental that there is almost no inventory. For every 1 buyer discouraged by an increase in costs, there are 2 willing to take their place.
Posted on: 2017/11/29 0:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Dark Money in Ward E Race
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
So it's OK for Solomon to have wealthy out-of-state voters who max out their contributions to him, but not OK for a PAC -- which by law can't coordinate with the Symes campaign -- to spend money on a pro-Symes ad?
Don't get me wrong, I'd really like full disclosure on all donations and campaign spending. But this is not something either of them can control; they can't even stop PACs from running ads on their behalf. Sounds to me like you're splitting a pretty thin hair here.
Posted on: 2017/11/28 23:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2017 Reval ~ Property Inspections
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
...yes, that's what it means when they say "we've inspected 75% of properties."
Posted on: 2017/11/27 22:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ward E for Sale - How Dixon $$$ bought Symes a candidacy.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
And yet, as an undecided voter, it seems to me like you're the one throwing around innuendo and smears. You haven't pointed to a single policy position advocated by either candidate that you believe will be positive or negative for the city. All you do is tar Symes by association with developers, and scream about her title as listed on a few donation forms. ~yawn~
Posted on: 2017/11/27 14:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Ward E for Sale - How Dixon $$$ bought Symes a candidacy.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So what? There's nothing she can do to reduce Dixon's property tax bills. The reval is already happening. It can't be stopped. We know what buildings Dixon owns. The valuation and property tax bill will be public. The Council can't change those valuations. The Council isn't going to give Dixon properties a bunch of after-the-fact abatements, either.
Posted on: 2017/11/21 21:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Landlord question
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Your friend should talk to a lawyer.
Posted on: 2017/11/21 20:02
|
|||
|
||||