HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

RichMauro wrote:
What amazes me is that in a number of these suburban towns homeowners are living pretty nice lives in individual homes and payimg taxes in the same amount in some cases as people in JC who are crammed into condos and living with some horrible quality of life situations. For what?-proximity to NYC? It's outrageous.
Doesn't make sense.

That's not entirely accurate. The new estimated rate in JC is 1.62%, which is one of the lowest in the state. The rest of the state pays between 2.5-3% (I forget the exact average number, but it's well above 2%, so don't quote me)

Even post reval, JC is getting quite a deal on the backs of the rest of the state.

Yvonne wrote:
The explanation is quite simple, those towns had more property online and those properties were not tax abated. Non-tax abated properties are added to the tax rolls as ratables not contracts. As those towns ratables increase and you will see a tax deduction. The increased ratables affect all budgets not just the municipality.

For #JerseyCity -I?m signing an exec order 2day stopping JC granting demolition permits on 1-4 family homes unless engineering reports say eminent collapse. Bottom line: we?re losing many of our great/old homes +being replaced w/the architectural marvel known as ?The Bayonne Box?

MDM wrote:
The one thing about these appraised values:

If I bought either of these two buildings at the appraised price, I would be cash flow negative. No way the rents would cover, even at lower interest rates.

Something tells me at some point in the future, we will see the mother of price deflation when it comes to real estate.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

LoL what? People pay 105% of their abatements now?

Haven't you been paying attention? Yvonne is arithmetically impaired.

Just when you thought Yvonne couldn't get any kookier... This reminds me of the time someone tried to argue with me that 25% was not the same as dividing by four. Some people just don't understand numbers.

Yvonne wrote:
The tax abatement is not 95% city and 5% county. That is an error, in fact, check with the law department of JC if you think I am wrong. It is 100% Jersey City with an extra 5% going to the county. The 5% was a settlement from a Secaucus lawsuit against JC. It was to be 10% but was cut to 5% due to favors due to retribution.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Jersey City budget preview released.

https://hudsoncountyview.com/jersey-ci ... t-with-zero-tax-increase/

No tax rate changes and the total budget is $587 million, $2 million less this year than the 2017 budget.

It's a little odd that the ratable base and PILOT payments have increased this year, the budget has dropped by $2 million, but the tax rate stays the same...

It literally doesn't add up.

Not that odd. Direct real estate taxation only accounts for about 60% of the municipal budget. The other sources of revenue may be lower (state aid, permit fees, other taxes) which could explain a lower budget. A 2 MM drop is not even 0.4%, so that's essentially a rounding error in practical terms.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JC_rider wrote:
Does anyone know how to remove tax abatement from a property? Just got the new assesment and heading to City Hall tomorrow.

Bought a condo on Westside last year near Mallory and knew taxes were too high because it was originally sold at peak of 2005 with abatement. Now I get a tax bill and city is increasing the % on the improvements. If I were to get rid of the abatement it will save me more than 30% for 2018! Kicker is with abatement dropped some of that money will go to school system that badly needs it.

We knew that people in Greenville, B/L & Westside were subsidizing rest of downtown Hamilton Park but this is just crazy.If you have an abated property make sure to compare what it would be without it.

Yvonne, do you have anything to say about this?

I find it interesting because only improvements can receive an tax abatement. Land is taxed normally.

Are you seriously suggesting that because of the reval, your taxes are going up and you would pay 30% less if you were taxed normally?

Can anyone else help me understand this situation?

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

I've got no dog in this fight, as I'm a renter. but I do feel for my long-time neighbors who planned on retiring here, and will now probably have to sell. good for them for getting squillions on a home they bought for very little, decades ago. but it's a big bummer to have to uproot yourself in your golden years, just because you are now sitting on a hot property.

likewise, if my landlord has to double my rent, he'll lose a known tenant who's been trouble-free for years. instead he'll have to deal with someone new, who might make extra demands in line with market-rate rent, yet he'll have no extra $$ in the bank in exchange for that headache.

yes, of course he can sell. but he too was planning on retiring here, so please refer to paragraph one of my post.

A couple of thoughts:
- the hypothetical owner of your post would have many more options than just ?will have to sell?. Among them: reverse mortgage, HE loan, HE LOC, etc.

- no renter would see his rent double because his landlord's taxes have doubled. That?s sheer misunderstanding of the numbers involved. Take the extreme example of a homeowner going from 20K to 40K. If that landlord had a single tenant, and he wanted to pass on the entirety of the tax increase onto the tenant, that means charging an additional $1,666/month. That?s only a doubling if the tenant is only paying 1,666/mo today, which seems unlikely for that kind of property. That would be an easy one to fight in housing court.

$1666/month would not double my rent, it's true. but can you name anyone in your social circle who could handle that kind of increase, even if it's only 50%?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Total fees will be closer to $15,000 at the end of the day. Loan origination is just one of several.

Apparently the other biggest chunk is the Mortgage Insurance Premium, which can be 2% of value, but the important thing not broadcast is that if you take a "line of credit" style reverse, the MIP at origination is a fraction of that, it's dependent on your loan balance. My impression is a lot of the abusive loans came from brokers who were paid more for lump sum rather than line of credit style loans. Lump sum was certainly inappropriate for the lady in the article.

As I've said before, it would be so much better if the city set this up themselves to securitize "reverse mortgage" style tax liens for homeowners who met certain qualifications of age or income. It would be a win all around with less fear for homeowners and less uncertainty for the city coffers.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dmark526 wrote:
This is one example of why it might not be the best idea.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/20 ... r_eviction_from_home.html

The numbers and timeline in that article make no sense and do not add up. She got $104k on a $300k house in 2004 and it was gone by 2007? By a few years later the loan balance was $300k? WTF?

As far as I can tell she must have squandered most of the loan in some way, and was robbed by the shady bank of the remaining $180k of equity in her home, there's no explanation other than a mixup of mailing addresses. Even the article states "Reverse mortgage foreclosures are rare, and evictions rarer, experts say."

These are the scare stories I am very dubious about. There was no reason to lump sum this rather than take the taxes out every year like it was a line of credit. When I looked at the fees, they seemed to be about $4k to originate the loan, I don't see that as ridiculously high for the service rendered.

A little reading has revealed that some of these are set up to fail, the banks take no measures to insure taxes are paid the way they do with a standard mortgage and escrow. This is a huge hole in the system.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Ins't there also other programs like reverse mortgages which would allow someone to cash out their equity and live in the home for the rest of their lives. Not that I would ever recommend a reverse mortgage, but just pointing out it's an option if someone wanted to stay.

Please explain why you would never recommend a reverse mortgage to pay the taxes. I cannot find any legit criticism of using a 'reverse' in this way, only of pulling out large lump sums for stupid reasons. Someone 70 years old with $2m in equity and low income can pay their taxes easily for the rest of their lives, and maybe even have some extra pocket money, rather moving or sitting in their gold plated home feeling poor.

Do the numbers, it would take more than 25 years of zero appreciation to eat half their equity by paying their tax, and no one thinks there will be zero appreciation. Complaining about taxes because they wanted to leave the now valuable house to their heirs is not a reason to feel sorry for anyone.

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

likewise, if my landlord has to double my rent, he'll lose a known tenant who's been trouble-free for years. instead he'll have to deal with someone new, who might make extra demands in line with market-rate rent, yet he'll have no extra $$ in the bank in exchange for that headache.

yes, of course he can sell. but he too was planning on retiring here, so please refer to paragraph one of my post.

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
Dolomiti, you and Brewster and I seem to agree on these things, so I hope it doesn?t sound like I?m arguing with either one of you. You guys have really put in some time trying to call out these folks claiming unfairness. It?s unreal.

I?m really disheartened by the greed and audacity of longtime downtowners who claim in one breath to have spent decades creating and building this city and in another breath claiming that they had no idea about the taxes or that it comes as a complete shock. It?s really something else.

I've got no dog in this fight, as I'm a renter. but I do feel for my long-time neighbors who planned on retiring here, and will now probably have to sell. good for them for getting squillions on a home they bought for very little, decades ago. but it's a big bummer to have to uproot yourself in your golden years, just because you are now sitting on a hot property.

Monroe wrote:
What cracks me up is both DTJC and residents of other wards arguing over people paying their 'fair share', while being supported by suburban taxpayers to the tune of $500 million a year to support JC schools.

JC_rider wrote:
Does anyone know how to remove tax abatement from a property? Just got the new assesment and heading to City Hall tomorrow.

Bought a condo on Westside last year near Mallory and knew taxes were too high because it was originally sold at peak of 2005 with abatement. Now I get a tax bill and city is increasing the % on the improvements. If I were to get rid of the abatement it will save me more than 30% for 2018! Kicker is with abatement dropped some of that money will go to school system that badly needs it.

We knew that people in Greenville, B/L & Westside were subsidizing rest of downtown Hamilton Park but this is just crazy.If you have an abated property make sure to compare what it would be without it.

hilltopgirl wrote:
The Hilltop neighborhood was supposed to get a park as a consolation prize for this horrible deal. Any word on that?

Frinjc wrote:
I can appreciate having another reval to capture the impact of the current one. That being said, I got the feeling that it is already captured in quite a few assessments. Just looking at friends assessment cards and my own, we seem to be in the 10-15% discount which would make a county appeal unsuccessful. I wonder it was intentional from the appraisal company.

Instead of having a single broad reval 2 years later, it would be more useful to have a plan for a rolling reval, e.g. 20% of properties every 2 years. It would fit within the 10 year mandate.

Monroe wrote:
Abbott is a court mandated program and not likely to go away soon. While some state financial support might get redistributed to more needy cities the bulk of state cash for JC schools will remain.

Strawhat wrote:
Would really appreciate if someone took the time to explain something to me.

I'm in agreement that this reval is long overdue. Everyone should be paying there fair share, and its about time DT did as well. But I also see people on here fighting back against the abatement questions. It seems to me that these abated buildings are not paying their fair share AFTER the reval. For example: a poster earlier in this thread stated that he's still paying 10k while his neighbors are up to 30k. Is this not also unfair?

Someone (I believe Dolomite although I could be wrong) stated that abated properties do end up paying their fair share through abatement payments. Is this true? Are these payments going to the same services as property taxes?

Excuse my ignorance on the subject.