brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Brewster, I'm ok with the tax-but disturbed that JC would find a way to exempt JC residents from the tax.

Why? Something well north of 80k people commute to JC, that's what it was a decade ago, best data I could find. They spend at least 40 hrs a week here, why is it outrageous to suggest they contribute more than maybe buying lunch?

As for school aid, bullshit. You've made clear for years that you want state support to JC ended, not just cut back to SFRA levels. Your stuff is nothing more than classic right wing social darwinism orthodoxy: everyone look out for themselves, and justify failure with your armchair sociology.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Yay JC! Start paying a comparable property tax rate! Start paying for your own schools!! LOL.

How many cities you keep citing that have high tax rates are working with a 2018 valuation?

JPhurst wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep saying that state funds are somehow the suburbs money going to the city. The urban areas are where the jobs are located, and where business that generates sales tax is located. Sure there are some exceptions like the Short Hills Mall, and some income is generated from investments and the like, rather than jobs. But many of those suburbanites demanding their "fair share" commute into NYC, and pay their income tax to NY, not NJ. (The same is true, of course, for Jersey City residents that hop the PATH train in).

Whatever the issues with "fair share" of property taxes going to schools, Jersey City and other urban areas provide the lion's share of funding to the state.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Monroe, and non JC residents like him, quite frankly, have just as much skin in the game with JC as residents do.

No, they don't. Same as we don't let foreigners, even ones who live here, vote in our US elections. If a JC public employee chooses not to live in the city that employs them, they give up the right to vote in that city. They can choose to work elsewhere, same as all the people who complain about street noise and parking are told to move if they don't like it.

I hate the fact that we have Monmouth County resident cops who, when told of a crime, think and even occasionally say, "what do you expect, living in this shithole?" I had a friend who taught in the system say the other night that one of her colleagues was an deep racist who hated all the kids in the school. When your city employees are only interested in what they can extract from a city they don't live in, you don't give them a say in the budget.

Doesn't it smack you of "taxation without representation?" While I agree that non-residents can't (or, shouldn't) directly affect local politics, I do find it more than a little ironic to feign some indignation at non-residents for wanting to more say (or, visibility) into local spending when the city (and, its residents) are more than willing and happy to take the money of non-residents to help pay for local matters.

It reminds me of the proverbial free loader whose family will help finance his expenses, but who gets upset when someone questions his lifestyle and choices. Talk about chutzpah, really.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Does this mean that if you're a resident of JC you would be untaxed on the 1%, while JC workers from other towns have to pay it?

Sounds like yes, unless JC decides to tax it's residents too. So...NYC does it, Newark does it, will the world end if we do it too rather than raise the rate 25%? Obviously this is a component of how NYC keeps it's residential property taxes so low.

I'd rather see school cost reformed, but that ain't going to happen, we're talking seriously entrenched interests. And BTW, a lot of those so interested city employees don't even live here, same as you don't.

Adonis wrote:
With the amount of wealth in Jersey City now there should be no way that we aren't funding our own way in such matters. But with a mayor that is so proud whenever Jersey City expands services without having its residents pay for it self funding is very difficult.

TheBigGuy wrote:
And then you can be real cynical... and wonder if Sweeney is sticking it to Fulop to make sure the Jersey City Miracle flounders and kills Fulop's statewide political aspirations.

heights wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
LOL paying $40k on a rate of 1.62% means a valuation of $2.5mm. Take that $2.5mm property and pay the average state tax rate (I forget the exact, but spot it at 2.23% to be generous) and you'd pay $55061. So, yes, that person is getting a STEAL of a deal.

LMAO, Yvonne, you are a funny one. I'll give it to you though; at least you're consistently hilarious.

I agree with Yvonne, it's not about the rate it's the absurd assessment that hurts, although we here in the Heights section have been over charged for years now.

landshark wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
And now I read the post reval rate may be closer to 1.4%. Hahaha the party and free ride is most certainly over!!

Where did you see the 1.4% rate?

RichMauro wrote:
Quote:

Saradove wrote:
Parkman, I'm with you. I have an 82 year old friend who, with his wife, bought a home in 1968, raised their kids & became a beloved neighbor to many. The house never had a major updating, it was their home with no thought to it becoming a goldmine. He doesn't want to sell ... it's his home, his neighborhood. A home is an emotional thing, sentimental, not always a money-maker as some see it. I realize that this doesn't mesh with today's reality but I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

Way to go Sara. That sounds like Jersey City heart you're speaking with; something that seems to be in short supply amongst the money changers on this forum. It's about home not bucks all the time.

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
The timing couldn't have been worse - most properties were reassessed at the height of the market

This argument shows a lack of understanding about the revaluation and property taxes. Whether it had been at the height of the market, or bottom, it doesn't matter. If the market had been lower, then the property tax rate would have been higher.

The city needed collect X amount of money.

X = (total value of market) * (tax rate)

If (total value of market) is lower, then (tax rate) has to go up, as X is constant in a revaluation.

The only thing that would make a difference is how different areas stack or compare against each other. The almost four year delay in the reval actually helped DTJC, as that period saw an accelerated increase in valuation in areas outside of DTJC, which translated into properties outside of DTJC getting relative higher levies than they would have 5 years ago.

In any case, the timing matters little. The reval was overdue, and DTJC was in for a HUGE increase regardless of when the reval had been completed. Those who claim the timing was terrible because it is a high market don't understand the issue clearly.

No I completely understand the market - DTJC assessed at the highest values ever with no regard for corresponding drop in market value after taxes double and no guidance moving forward.

Yes it was way overdue and definitely not fair for residents in other words to overpay for years, but also not fair to saddle downtown with absurdly high taxes with no clear plan to reassess more regularly in the future.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:

5) People who were fueling the fire and hoping this would be the mayor's downfall have their mouths agape at how well it worked out.

See?

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

landshark wrote:
2018 assessments are posted on the NJ website. Vacant land was missing from the previous lists. As I expected look low from the ones I checked downtown.

239 Montgomery: Assessed at 375k but the neighboring property the same size has a land assessment of 765k

63 Mercer: Sold in 2016 for 3mm but assessed at 774k

208 Columbus: Sold in 2015 for 1.45mm but assessed at 727k

131 Morgan: Sold in 2016 for 1.98mm but assessed at 775k

I've been saying for a while the land valuations were going to be a mess. Clearly they don't use comps for empty land and they use an ass-backwards subtractive system for developed land.

I had thought that since abatements are not on the land, just on the improvements, that we would see tax increases from abated properties. Solomon said no that's not the way it works. Funny, huh?

I hate to ever entertain, or partake in, conspiracy theories, but given the history of shenanigans related to this reval, and the powerful vested interests, one can?t help wonder if this botched implementation is perhaps a way to further delay the implementation of the reval results.

Too Machiavellian??

JPhurst wrote:
Another sculpture by Pitynski, "The Partisans" was moved from its original location in Boston and rededicated. I don't see why this would be any different.

ecinjc wrote:
I love the statue.

I actually have no idea why the mayor is going down this path antagonizing Polish people. He needs to apologize. Also, Let the public have some mechanism for input on the SID for exchange place. Developers can?t just have a free hand on public space. Every candidate in Ward E ran against the unchecked power of developers.

It?s cool art and not divisive. It?s a monument to a terrible event perpetrated by a dictator. That Russia denied until 2010. The reason we need reminders and dialogue is tha people forget how monstrous Hitler and Stalin were. My kids are privileged. They feel protected. But I bet many middle class soldiers and Jews felt safe before WW2. Atrocities happen and we have remember them.

HCResident wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

HCResident wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

HCResident wrote:
If I?m correct, it?s being moved to the corner of Washington and Montgomery. That?s two and a half blocks away.

All this brouhaha over two and a half blocks?

Oh, just for the record, I think it?s ugly. I used to live in Paulus Hook. I moved there in 2000. I thought it was ugly then, as I do now. It is not a welcoming image to the city.

And...my grandmother was the first child of her Polish born parents to be born on American soil. You can disagree with my opinion, but do not mistaken it for an anti Polish sentiment.

To be fair, the debate over aesthetics is subjective and everyone will feel what they feel.

What is not up for debate is Fulops handling of the situation. No community input or discussion, and outright bigotry on Twitter in the style of Trump. It's disgusting and he is disgusting.

I don?t care.

Then you should keep quiet.

No, I have an opinion, and the right to express it. If you don?t like it, too bad.

HCResident wrote:
Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:
Quote:

HCResident wrote:
If I?m correct, it?s being moved to the corner of Washington and Montgomery. That?s two and a half blocks away.

All this brouhaha over two and a half blocks?

Oh, just for the record, I think it?s ugly. I used to live in Paulus Hook. I moved there in 2000. I thought it was ugly then, as I do now. It is not a welcoming image to the city.

And...my grandmother was the first child of her Polish born parents to be born on American soil. You can disagree with my opinion, but do not mistaken it for an anti Polish sentiment.

To be fair, the debate over aesthetics is subjective and everyone will feel what they feel.

What is not up for debate is Fulops handling of the situation. No community input or discussion, and outright bigotry on Twitter in the style of Trump. It's disgusting and he is disgusting.

I don?t care.

HCResident wrote:
If I?m correct, it?s being moved to the corner of Washington and Montgomery. That?s two and a half blocks away.

All this brouhaha over two and a half blocks?

Oh, just for the record, I think it?s ugly. I used to live in Paulus Hook. I moved there in 2000. I thought it was ugly then, as I do now. It is not a welcoming image to the city.

And...my grandmother was the first child of her Polish born parents to be born on American soil. You can disagree with my opinion, but do not mistaken it for an anti Polish sentiment.