Tax Abatements

[jcpeace]

   It seems like the statement of someone who would like this situation to change, but hasn’t been involved in any attempt to enact that change, so has no clue as to how it is to be done.

 

first time post and you're copying and pasting hillary clinton debate rhetoric?

pathetic.

thanks for the enlightening posts, G_Elkind

[G_Elkind]

Those folks who do know me, know that I've been around the block more than just a few times in Jersey City downtown political circles.

If I have to say something, I say it straight, and do so with no screen names or avatars to hide behind -- and it's never personal. Additionally, I say what I mean, and mean what I say. If I didn't say it, it's not implied; no one has to interpret or read between the lines.

If I meant "grand-standing" you would see those words, but they're not anywhere to be seen. In fact, to the contrary, what I did say was that that I didn't "agree with Mayor Healey's characterization about 'power plays'."  (Soshin take note about nay-saying.)

A non-emotional, objective read of my post is clear about where I stand on abatements, on school funding, and on holding the school system accountable. In that regard, my orientation is perhaps not all that different than the Councilman's. We all want to reach the same outcome and objectives.

Where we really do differ is on the matter of strategy and approach to implementing effective reform and change in a place as politically challenged as Jersey City. In my opinion, while the Councilman's resolutions have a great degree of surface appeal, they would neither address the school funding issue (even for starters), and would actually help perpetuate a fundamentally flawed process.

I would further add that the School Board needs to refocus efforts on getting their own house in order. Establishing policies to hold BoE executive management professionals personally accountable for their own performance (or lack thereof) and for our school system's performance would be a great place to start.

JRoberts: Yes, it would be naive of me to advocate the wholesale obliteration of the abatement system in one stroke, however, that's neither what I said or advocated. There ain't no way, no how that type of result is ever going to happen in Jersey City, absent an Act of God or other natural disaster, like a Supreme Court decision.

On the otherhand, my view is that the resolutions as framed by the Councilman are too timid, didn't go far enough, and weren't fully promoted at the grassroots level in the same way that the pay-to-play / ethics initiatives have been to date.

Althea: If you're going to survive as a councilperson's aide or being on the front lines of effecting change in City Hall, you will need to grow a thicker skin... and please avoid going personal. It just isn't becoming a public facing professional.

I'm sorry that I won't be able to speak at tonight's City Council meeting. If anyone cares, they can read my original post, below, fully into the record. It says exactly what I would say if I had the opportunity to be present in person.

All the best and good luck tonight.

Geoff

[pinky]

A few things on this thread:

Geoff Elkind: has been a resident of Hamilton Park for over 20 years, he has been an one of the most outspoken advocates for Historic Preservation, our poor infrastructure and what this mass development is doing to it, and continues to be front, line and center on most issues that effect this city. While most people burn-out and   walk away, Geoff continues to stay vocal and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him and his efforts. Geoff has never been quiet on his feeling regarding what developers should be giving back to Jersey City and has spoken before council against most abatements and the terms of these abatements. In my opinion our newest member, jroberts has jumped the gun and posted without doing any research on Mr Elkind.

Steven Fulop: is an elected official and is subject to public scrutiny, Non has ever right to voice his opinion. Nuff said!!

In my opinion, at no time did NON, or G_Elkind  ever denounce the organization or it's initiatives that Shelley and Thebes are part of.

One last thing:
Never allow politics or politicians to get in the way of real friendships, people need to separate the two. At the end, when the politicians are gone, your friends are not. Don't allow anyone in business ( and yes, politics is a business) to come between you and your friends or use your friendships for leverage.......just my opinion!!

[Hurtle]

Can I get a pair of that underwear with me on the front?

[thebes]

For all those planning on attending, it looks like the meeting will start closer to 7 p.m. and not the usual 6 p.m.

I hope to see many of you there!

[Soshin]

Wow, this hurts considering how hard Shelley and I have worked on this. I did not realize we were grandstanding along with Councilman Fulop. I thought we were fighting for real change. I guess it is best to assume that big or small steps will not work and we should give up now.

I'm extremely surprised by your words, although maybe I should not be. I'm not really sure what you think those that toil long and hard to improve this city should do when the vote is almost always 8-1 against. Read the transcripts and come to the caucus meetings. This is not grandstanding and I deeply DEEPLY resent you knocking everyone down with one fell swoop by saying the only person willing to listen to our concerns and brave enough to stand up to everyone else is grandstanding.

We've formed grassroots organizations, gone up to the state and back down. Please tell me what more we can do that won't appear to be grandstanding? Please tell me what we can work really hard for that won't instantly get put down by you, dismissed with such hard words? Work better with the rest of the council? Coalition build? What? Seriously what? Because it has been a year of us begging to all the Council people to answer our questions, address our concerns, and help the City prepare for the eventual city take over of the school system.

The mayor told us point blank, that he doesn't want city control back because they can't afford it and it isn't going to happen anyway. The Council said, we hear your concern and we will study this and get back to you... OVER 6 MONTHS later, what are they saying? We need to study this more before passing this resolution.

So you can take your "grandstanding" and shove it where the sun don't shine!

Thebes, please don't be discouraged by naysayers like Non and Elkind, concerned parents like myself appreciate everything you are, and have been trying to do (with Jersey City Families) to make people realise that the school system is in dire trouble and that steps need to be taken NOW in order to try to stem the tsunami of debt that is about to be dumped on the city.

5% may not be much but from little things, big things grow.

Keep up the good work.

[Bobblehead]

Please, folks, lighten up on the name calling and fingerpointing, it gets old fast. No one in this thread seems to favor abatements--start from there and work forward.

[Admin note- edited by request of original poster]

[thebes]

Wow, this hurts considering how hard Shelley and I have worked on this. I did not realize we were grandstanding along with Councilman Fulop. I thought we were fighting for real change. I guess it is best to assume that big or small steps will not work and we should give up now.

I'm extremely surprised by your words, although maybe I should not be. I'm not really sure what you think those that toil long and hard to improve this city should do when the vote is almost always 8-1 against. Read the transcripts and come to the caucus meetings. This is not grandstanding and I deeply DEEPLY resent you knocking everyone down with one fell swoop by saying the only person willing to listen to our concerns and brave enough to stand up to everyone else is grandstanding.

We've formed grassroots organizations, gone up to the state and back down. Please tell me what more we can do that won't appear to be grandstanding? Please tell me what we can work really hard for that won't instantly get put down by you, dismissed with such hard words? Work better with the rest of the council? Coalition build? What? Seriously what? Because it has been a year of us begging to all the Council people to answer our questions, address our concerns, and help the City prepare for the eventual city take over of the school system.

The mayor told us point blank, that he doesn't want city control back because they can't afford it and it isn't going to happen anyway. The Council said, we hear your concern and we will study this and get back to you... OVER 6 MONTHS later, what are they saying? We need to study this more before passing this resolution.

So you can take your "grandstanding" and shove it where the sun don't shine!

Wow, accusing Geoff Elkind of having never been involved in an attempt to enact change? That's a good one.

I'll refrain from getting personal on you, first-time poster jroberts, and simply counter your argument by pointing out that the 5% proposal has very little chance of success at this stage. Which Fulop knows, and knows well. Yet another feather in his cap to traipse out come election time, so he can purport that he stuck his neck out and got roadblocked by the machine. Rinse. Repeat.

That Geoff is smart enough to see these political grandstanding moves from a mile away (and calls them out, to no reply from the councilman) makes him far from the naive one in this equation.

[DarkMoment]

While I disagree with NON's take on Fulop's proposal of allocating 5% of tax abatements as "political grandstanding" and Geoff's statement that the "5% from tax abatement payments to benefit our local schools is cosmetic eye-candy", I have to comment on the poster below whose statement about Geoff is so off the mark as to be more than laughable.

Geoff Elkind is a lawyer who specializes in governance issues on an international basis where most of his time is spent. He is also a former Ward E (downtown)city council candidate,past President of the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Assn., former chairman of the city's Downtown Coalition of Neighborhood Associations, and involved in most of the major efforts of civic-minded individuals fighting for JC reform and against irresponsible development.

Next time, before you say someone "has no clue as to how it is to be done", spend some time on google.

I do agree with Geoff in that tax abatements are nothing but financial suicide for Jersey City in the long term. However, the assumption that a broad-stroke rescinding of our tax abatement system can occur is a bit naive.   It seems like the statement of someone who would like this situation to change, but hasn’t been involved in any attempt to enact that change, so has no clue as to how it is to be done.

[MÇA]

Plan to give PILOT money to schools looks doomed
by Ken Thorbourne
Wednesday January 23, 2008, 11:15 AM

Jersey City Councilman Steve Fulop refused last night to pull two of his proposals from tonight's council agenda -- both dealing with tax abatements and school funding -- even though they appear to be heading toward defeat.

One measure calls for urging the state Legislature to change the statute that governs tax abatements so the city school district would receive a 5 percent cut of the payments in lieu of taxes made by property owners.

Under the current law, the city gets to keep all the money, with the owners paying an additional 5 percent to the county.

The other measure calls for adding two Board of Education members to the mayor's Tax Enhancement Committee, the group that negotiates the terms of abatements with developers.

Mayor Jerramiah Healy had called this proposal an "unauthorized power grab" by Fulop last week and it didn't have much council support. But Council President Mariano Vega had predicted easy passage of the 5 percent-to-schools proposal -- until last night.

Several council members blasted the idea during the council caucus, arguing that it is not clear how much state aid Jersey City will receive under Gov. Jon Corzine's new school funding formula. Therefore, they argued, it would be foolhardy and premature for the city to voluntarily give schools a slice of the PILOT pie.

Instead, they proposed establishing a committee to study the matter.

Council members Bill Gaughan and Steve Lipski said the cost of the state-run school district had nearly doubled in 15 years.

"The school board has made no attempt to reduce spending," Gaughan said.

Fulop accused his colleagues of "circling the wagons" and playing politics with the issue.

"Our kids are definitely worth it," said Fulop. "And I'm not willing to back down on that."

He then offered to agree to the committee idea if his colleagues would declare a moratorium on tax abatements, to which Vega replied, "Do you think it's responsible to say 'Let's put a moratorium until I get my way?'"

[NON]

Wow, accusing Geoff Elkind of having never been involved in an attempt to enact change? That's a good one.

I'll refrain from getting personal on you, first-time poster jroberts, and simply counter your argument by pointing out that the 5% proposal has very little chance of success at this stage. Which Fulop knows, and knows well. Yet another feather in his cap to traipse out come election time, so he can purport that he stuck his neck out and got roadblocked by the machine. Rinse. Repeat.

That Geoff is smart enough to see these political grandstanding moves from a mile away (and calls them out, to no reply from the councilman) makes him far from the naive one in this equation.

I do agree with Geoff in that tax abatements are nothing but financial suicide for Jersey City in the long term. However, the assumption that a broad-stroke rescinding of our tax abatement system can occur is a bit naive.   It seems like the statement of someone who would like this situation to change, but hasn’t been involved in any attempt to enact that change, so has no clue as to how it is to be done.

 Our government, city or otherwise is set up to protect us from radical, knee jerk shifts in policy or law.  As frustratingly slow as this can make change for the good, the system is in place to keep government from going too swiftly in the wrong direction. Therefore, even though it’s a nice, albeit quaint thought, an all-or-nothing approach to tax abatement reform will most likely yield a result of zilch.  I think the point is to chip away, and work within the process in order to enact change.

Thebes bolsters my argument when writing that some at the caucus “claimed that the 5% was too much, but defended to the hilt the abatements and the mayors right to spend that money as he sees fit.”  Clearly, the people defending the abatement system, as it exists, know that even this small change is the first step toward its extinction.

[jroberts]

I do agree with Geoff in that tax abatements are nothing but financial suicide for Jersey City in the long term. However, the assumption that a broad-stroke rescinding of our tax abatement system can occur is a bit naive.   It seems like the statement of someone who would like this situation to change, but hasn’t been involved in any attempt to enact that change, so has no clue as to how it is to be done.

 Our government, city or otherwise is set up to protect us from radical, knee jerk shifts in policy or law.  As frustratingly slow as this can make change for the good, the system is in place to keep government from going too swiftly in the wrong direction. Therefore, even though it’s a nice, albeit quaint thought, an all-or-nothing approach to tax abatement reform will most likely yield a result of zilch.  I think the point is to chip away, and work within the process in order to enact change.

Thebes bolsters my argument when writing that some at the caucus “claimed that the 5% was too much, but defended to the hilt the abatements and the mayors right to spend that money as he sees fit.”  Clearly, the people defending the abatement system, as it exists, know that even this small change is the first step toward its extinction.

[thebes]

It's very interesting that Geoff has made these statements because i was at the caucus meeting tonight where they not only claimed that the 5% was too much, but defended to the hilt the abatements and the mayors right to spend that money as he sees fit.

I hope you will speak tomorrow night against tax abatements Geoff and everyone else who pays taxes (abated or unabated) because our tax bills will continue to rise.

Unbelievable!

[shelleyskinner]

Geoff- I take what you say on board but respectfully disagree. This is the first real and important step in addressing this issue and it is long over due. The message it send to our elected leaders is also important. I personally feel it is critical that the JCBOE have say in policies that directly impact their budgets whether it is 5% or 40%. There are many many other states that allow for this and for good reasons as it has been shown to actually slow the overall amount of PILOTs.

The Jersey City school district has so many issues in regards to less than satisfactory academic performance, safety etc. The looming funding crisis only exacerbates this when many important programs potentially on the block. It is all interconnected. I don't think anyone disagrees that district management  on levels needs to be improved. The city and the district need to start having a legitimate working relationship. We have to work with the district to turn things around particularly now that district is being reintegrated back to local control. QSAC in many ways provides a unique opportunity for instructional reform.

Shelley Skinner

[G_Elkind]

The proposal to allocate 5% from tax abatement payments to benefit our local schools is cosmetic eye-candy. It will neither help the school budget, nor lower our residential taxes.

Let's get back to the real core issues -- there are two of them:

1. Abatements distort our tax base, unfairly shifting the real year-on-year tax burden to residential taxpers. Although I don't agree with Mayor Healey's characterization about "power plays", adding two School Board members on the PILOT panel will not add any real value, and sounds more like a traditional Jersey City "business-as-usual" solution. Contributing a paltry, fixed 5% of each PILOT payment makes School Board representation unnecessary and would simply inject more politics into an already flawed and non-transparent process.

The real problem is that Jersey City remains addicted to the quick fixes abatement payments contribute to the city general treasury, and reforming this process remains unaddressed by Councilman Fulop's proposal.

2. As for the school budget, it's a financial accident waiting to happen. With a budget that far exceeds Jersey City's, there's no transparent system of fiscal accountability in place, which demonstrates that our tax dollars are being efficiently and effectively used. If we truly care about providing our children with quality education into the future, greater fiscal accountability in the management and operation of our school system will be needed, and soon.

A 5% slice of abatement payments won't reduce our property taxes, and it will in no way offset the reductions resulting from the pending changes in the State's school funding formula.  Jersey City taxpayers have long been sheltered from the true cost of running the school system as a result of the many years of state control. The time is fast approaching when we will not be able to afford sheltering tax abated properties from participating in the year-to-year cost of running our school system.
 
New developments should pay fully, their fair share of school taxes just like the rest of us -- not just 5%. Now that would be real abatement reform, which would benefit our schools directly. If we don't consider real reform soon, the residential taxpayer will bear the brunt of the school system's fiscal inefficiencies when the State gladly hands back the mess to us.

What ever happened to rationalizing or eliminating the distortions the abatement process has created?

Let's get back to real abatement reform.

All the best.

Geoff

[shelleyskinner]

Many of you know that Councilman Fulop has two resolutions going before the City Council regarding school funding this coming Wednesday. These resolutions are crucial to the future funding of our schools.  The first stipulates that 5% of PILOT payments are "held harmless" and given to the Jersey Public Schools, which currently receives none of the tax revenue from abated properties. With local share anticipated to increase mightly due to the new funding formula, this is a critical first step in addressing the budget short fall facing our school district. The second resolution requires that the Mayor appoint 2 Board of Education members to his tax abatement committee. Many other states require more of a formal partnerships between the school boards and municipalities to ensure school funding is factored in when tax abatements are being considered. The Board of Education would therefore have a say in the tax policy that directly impacts their budget and our non-abated taxes. Given that public education is arguably the most important government service and is now coming back under City control, having Board of Education representation during these decisions is vital. So if you can, please come out to the Council Meeting Wednesday January 23, 2008 at 6 p.m. (in P.S. #4 on Bright Street)to show your support. We need to show that there is strong support for these resolutions. To get on the speakers list call (201) 547-5150.

Shelley Skinner

[LadyDi]

Devil's advocate here (in fact, I oppose the tax abatement's burden on folks like myself):

It was the abatements that allowed Jersey City to catapult from what it was (some of us remember JC in the 80s--a bankrupt hole) to the chic and hip thing it is now.

Jersey City's main problem has been corruption, so the argument goes: clean up the corruption, and you take care of the finances.

However, Jersey City, like the entire state, has huge infrastructure costs, and ones that are growing.  What would a solution beyond abatements be?  Would residents ever bear the kinds of taxes Short Hills has?

[bdlaw]

Mia Scanga did a show on it. A lot of home owners freak out when they find out about this because they assumed they would be able to pass it on and often misinform the seller. It means that buyers will be more likely to buy a condo of the same value in a newly built building where they can get an abated property.

Tax abatements really only benefit the City and the developers... at least for a period of time.

We need to get Mia on this site.

MIA!!!!

That
Sucks.

I have no interest in buying a shoebox in a high-rise.

Back to lurking and learning on this one...

[thebes]

Mia Scanga did a show on it. A lot of home owners freak out when they find out about this because they assumed they would be able to pass it on and often misinform the seller. It means that buyers will be more likely to buy a condo of the same value in a newly built building where they can get an abated property.

Tax abatements really only benefit the City and the developers... at least for a period of time.

We need to get Mia on this site.

MIA!!!!

[NON]

You shouldn't feel bad for having abatement. You probably had a lot of money factored into how much you paid for the place. Plus, you can't pass that abatement on should you decide to sell and that may mean you get a lot less for your place.

This is not about pointing the finger at anyone else. The developers and the politicians ave created a vicious cycle.

Me telling you that you should feel bad about having a tax abated property is like you telling me I should not take advantage of the child income tax credit.

But I would like to know more about the real implications of abatements so that when a council person tells me they are good for us, I know what questions to ask.

is the above-bolded statement true? i thought abatements survived with title-changes, through the running of their abatement period (whether it be 5 years or 20 years). Can somebody clarify?

TIA.

Robin.

[thebes]

You shouldn't feel bad for having abatement. You probably had a lot of money factored into how much you paid for the place. Plus, you can't pass that abatement on should you decide to sell and that may mean you get a lot less for your place.

This is not about pointing the finger at anyone else. The developers and the politicians ave created a vicious cycle.

Me telling you that you should feel bad about having a tax abated property is like you telling me I should not take advantage of the child income tax credit.

But I would like to know more about the real implications of abatements so that when a council person tells me they are good for us, I know what questions to ask.

I don't know.  I pay 4,000 per year for an 800 square foot place.  I get crime, shitty schools, and potholed streets.

My parents pay 900 per year for a 2500 square foot house, plus 2 acres of land.  They get good roads, no crime, the best schools in TN.

So, when people say I should feel bad for my abatement, (in 18 months I will pay around 6-8K) I say, "I pay too damn much already." 

[justiceiro]

I don't know.  I pay 4,000 per year for an 800 square foot place.  I get crime, shitty schools, and potholed streets.

My parents pay 900 per year for a 2500 square foot house, plus 2 acres of land.  They get good roads, no crime, the best schools in TN.

So, when people say I should feel bad for my abatement, (in 18 months I will pay around 6-8K) I say, "I pay too damn much already." 

[thebes]

This is a very confusing subject... but maybe someone can explain a bit of it? PLEASE!!!!

Abatements are sold to us as a great thing and over simplified. However, I do know their tax rate stays the same as the taxes in the year that the abatement was granted, while unabated properties see increases.

TIA

• Tweet