Yvonne wrote:
By the way, shame for Reverend Perry for admonishing downtown homeowners for their tax bills. He belongs to Jersey City Together and that group asked for affordable housing for Bayfront. Affordable housing is limited taxes.

RichMauro wrote:
Is this the beginning of the assault on the Island area?
Imagine the shadow 42 stories will cast.

hero69 wrote:
i'm just now reading nyt magazine article about nyc subway:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/mag ... on-wealth-inequality.html

article makes me appreciate PATH and the subway more...maybe fares should be raised to make necessary improvements?

val7101 wrote:
I don't think I'm the troll. Have you tried it?

hero69 wrote:
hahaha. just i still think double decker trains would be awesome. as i pointed out, i would be feasible...instead of traisn with 7' ceilings, you could have 2 levels with 6' ceilings but with much lower carriages...do i think it's gonna happen? nO. do i think it's a good idea? yes.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
No one should live in JC and not contribute to government especially if you vote, so I believe in a city income tax instead of property tax.

HAHAHAHAHA - the last thing Jersey City needs is a city income tax, like NYC.

And renters do pay property taxes indirectly. Where do you think landlords get the funds to pay property taxes on their rental properties, as well as other expenses? NJ's tax code recognizes this and offers a tax break for renters for implied property taxes paid, based on a function of the amount of rent paid.

A city income tax is literally the worst idea I've ever read on JCList. Even worse than the guy who wanted the Port Authority to run double-decker PATH trains to increase capacity...

Look, the tenants did not make the deal with the city, the politicians did, but the fact remains public housing in Jersey City pays zero to the city. NYC has a fair policy, everyone pays either through city sales taxes or income tax. You do not believe in fairness.

val7101 wrote:
For WTC commuters shut out at Grove:
Take the Newark train back to Harrison not JSQ. JSQ is frequently as bad as Grove now and Harrison is only 3 minutes away and frequently much more civilized. It's pretty annoying to take the train backward to JSQ and still get shut out of one or two trains. Particularly between 8 and 9am.

hero69 wrote:

concentrating all the poor in one area just breeds more poverty imo

Yvonne wrote:
No one should live in JC and not contribute to government especially if you vote, so I believe in a city income tax instead of property tax.

I_heart_JC wrote:
Can anyone explain the logic behind the elevator at Grove Street? I'm actually surprised this hasn't come up before.

To call the elevator, one must push - AND THEN HOLD - the button, until the elevator arrives.

Once on the damn thing, the passenger must push and hold the button until the elevator reaches its destination. Let go, and you're stuck between floors. And it's not just pushing the button, you really have to lean into it, hard.

It is an awkward maneuver for the able-bodied. I cannot imagine how an elderly person with a walker or a wheelchair-bound passenger could comfortably accomplish this.

I used the elevator because I had my hands full of heavy luggage. Oh hey, there's a button I need to press and hold my full body weight into. Handy.

In typical Port Authority manner, they've taken something simple, and made it complicated.

And how is this even ADA-compliant?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

As for "who cares about kids"... precisely the people that you highlight as not caring about kids (those childless by choice, or perhaps single) are precisely the kind of people who often find it objectionable to have to pay such high taxes when getting nothing in return! Often times, the people with kids choose to move further out into the burbs because, well, if you are going to pay 25 - 30 K annually in taxes, you "might as well get something out of it".

But the 1.6% property tax rate is less than the burbs. Why would someone without kids move to the burbs only to pay higher school taxes? If the burbs had a lower property tax rate, I could see where you have a point but the reverse is true.

I have no doubt there will be some people priced out of downtown Jersey City, but I also have no doubt there will be many more people moving into downtown Jersey City (from Manhattan and Brooklyn). I don't see a market crash because of the reval.

I do not expect a full-blown crash. I do think there will be some churn, some instability, and probably a drop in values as some people feel forced to dump properties they are suddenly not able to afford. But, Jersey City is very enticing for many people, and not just financial refugees from NYC. But, there are a few factors that give me pause, and we will have to wait to see what happens. An elimination or capping of mortgage or SALT deduction, plus the uncertain state of school / BOE taxes (you can be certain that if we end up with a 1.6% tax rate, Trenton and many municipalities will be pushing for JC to take on a larger share of the local BOE budget) and there is the fact that we are in a 10-year period since the last correction/recession. Ideally, none of those three things will come to pass, but if one or two or all three come to be, well... all bets are off. The 2007 situation was bad (assuredly, DTJC fared better than the rest of JC, and recovered quickly) so a combination of all these factors could be brutal. But, long term, JC is likely to have a very bright future. Enough change has taken place and I think the city will be fine.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
One street over:
https://www.zillow.com/homes/82-prospect-st,-jersey-city,-nj-07307_rb/

Was the Heights supposed to be in the 1/3 that taxes stayed the same?

Yup. Can't wait for the reval to happen so we can see who had the best prediction. I'm thinking 1.75% of fair market value. Greenville will be in the best shape. There will be winners and losers in the heights. The biggest losers will be the land speculators that are sitting on $50 million properties that are only assessed for $100,000 back in 1987.

Bumping my post from March. I predicted 1.75%, when it's only 1.62% hahahaha!

I was expecting a 1.8% tax rate. Really surprised at the 1.62% (not yet final) so things are not as DIRE for DTJC, but will still crush a bunch of new homeowners who ought properties paying effective rates of 0.5 to 0.8. Those people are looking at increases of at least between 2 and 3 times the previous taxes. Ouch.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Thanks again for an informative post SAG. If only everyone, never mind an outsider with an agenda built into his name, were so civil and fact based.

All of stateaidguy's posts have been extremely informative and factual. I'm curious, who the outsider with an agenda built into his name - SOS? lol

I had a candid discussion with a long time city employee who's opinion I trust. This person isn't a politician and has served under many administrations. He believes that we'll have taxes of $25 per thousand (or what tax newbs call 2.5%) if we are very fortunate. It could easily be in the high 20's +. So if you want to shoot the messenger, go for it! I can guarantee that he knows more about the reval and jc taxes than anyone posting in this thread. Certainly more than me.

If your "source" is correct (he may be, or maybe not) then the hit will be much significant than even some are expecting. I wouldn't want to find myself sitting on a brownstone valued at over 1 million which currently pays 10K, or less. All those properties paying effective rates of 1% or less will get some nasty sticker shock.

BTW, not sure why you refer to people using percentages as tax newbs. In every other place where I have lived, taxes are always quoted as percentages. Ultimately, it is all the same. There is no difference between saying 2.5% or $25 per thousand.

Total aside: went to see a property last night that is being advertised for 1.5 MM at the site of a former bank on Montgomery (btw, the condo was way overpriced, it should be 1.2, or maybe even 1MM) and the taxes on it are a paltry 12K. If that property actually sells for 1.5MM, and your quoted rate of 2.5% comes to be, the updated tax bill would be 37.5K, a three time increase. What was particularly appalling is that the realtors were highlighting the low taxes in their advertising materials, without any mention of the impending reval. I wonder how many people are buying into the hot real estate market without any idea of what awaits them in less than two years.

ProdigalSon wrote:
From my understanding of the reassessment, the city will provide a fair market value for the home, if it sells at 1.8 it's a pretty good indication that 1.8 is the FMV. If the taxes go to 2.0%(seems low but humor me) that would make the taxes 36k annually, or 3k a month. That represents an increase of $2,117 in monthly overhead, which corresponds to about $580k in mortgage at 3.625%, I wouldn't touch downtown JC until after this is over.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
One street over:
https://www.zillow.com/homes/82-prospect-st,-jersey-city,-nj-07307_rb/

Was the Heights supposed to be in the 1/3 that taxes stayed the same?

Yup. Can't wait for the reval to happen so we can see who had the best prediction. I'm thinking 1.75% of fair market value. Greenville will be in the best shape. There will be winners and losers in the heights. The biggest losers will be the land speculators that are sitting on $50 million properties that are only assessed for $100,000 back in 1987.

ecoindie wrote:
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/ ... ble_after_phantom_15.html

Appraisal Systems (Fulop hired for Reval) caused Maplewood property owner's property taxes to rise 111 percent from $7,100 to $15,000 in 18 months with bogus claims of non existent improvements and features.

bodhipooh wrote:

As for "who cares about kids"... precisely the people that you highlight as not caring about kids (those childless by choice, or perhaps single) are precisely the kind of people who often find it objectionable to have to pay such high taxes when getting nothing in return! Often times, the people with kids choose to move further out into the burbs because, well, if you are going to pay 25 - 30 K annually in taxes, you "might as well get something out of it".

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

mfadam wrote:
Dolmoti is spot on. Tight inventory and high demand will soften the blow to DTJC RE in the short term. Longer term it's tough to say. 1.6% is less than I was expecting so frankly it could have been worse for DTJC.

The real issue is will DTJC buyers pay suburb level taxes for lousy city services (iffy schools). Trump's tax plan ain't making the case any easier. Taxes are sunk costs, owners aren't building equity with those payments.

My take is DTJC is overvalued as are stock markets and RE in general. I think if the other bubbles deflate DTJC will take it a bit harder than average. As always tough to know when or if other bubbles pop...

No one cares about schools. You're either living the life with no children or sending your kids to private schools if you can afford a $7,000 a month mortgage payment.

Downtown prices will continue to appreciate because they're still a bargain compared to New York City prices.

I am not so sure I agree with this take. Take an upper middle class family, paying 5K for monthly mortgage, now add 2K for taxes, and if they have a kid that's another 2K for private school. That's 9K / month. Or, you can go to BK, or even Manhattan, and be able to get an 8K mortgage, with almost negligible property taxes (definitely below 1K for that mortgage) and free schooling and you end up spending the same or less in NYC, with better city services at your disposal. At some point, the combination of crazy property taxes + shitty city services + private schools starts to bridge the gap in real estate costs.

jc201jc wrote:
I don't see a way that the increase in DTJC taxes in conjunction with the proposed changes to the federal tax laws will be offset by local market economics. The main reason that the RE market economics in DTJC have operated this way is because net expenses (principal + interest + taxes - tax shield savings) have made it attractive to purchase.

From a demand side, in 2018 you'll be paying significantly more out of pocket on a monthly basis due to the tax reval, and this pain will be magnified by also getting less $$ back at the end of the year from your tax return. This combined effect will have a marked downward effect on demand.

From a supply side - I'm assuming supply will not go down (i.e. they will not tear down any buildings) - if anything supply will increase as some people will not be willing or able to absorb such a dramatic increase in taxes, and will look to move to lower cost areas.

So you've got softening demand plus increased supply...seems to be a good predictor of lower average RE prices through 2018.

mfadam wrote:
Dolmoti is spot on. Tight inventory and high demand will soften the blow to DTJC RE in the short term. Longer term it's tough to say. 1.6% is less than I was expecting so frankly it could have been worse for DTJC.

The real issue is will DTJC buyers pay suburb level taxes for lousy city services (iffy schools). Trump's tax plan ain't making the case any easier. Taxes are sunk costs, owners aren't building equity with those payments.

My take is DTJC is overvalued as are stock markets and RE in general. I think if the other bubbles deflate DTJC will take it a bit harder than average. As always tough to know when or if other bubbles pop...