Author Topic: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988  (Read 34283 times)

Offline skwirrlking

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #22 on: 04-28-2010, 03:36pm »
was doing some tax research :nerd: on this site.

any idea why the tax amounts seem off? are they semiannual numbers?


Offline worm

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #21 on: 04-28-2010, 10:18am »
The rest of the example says that then you could be based on the surrounding areas assessment.  This isn't going to raise the total brought in via taxes it is going to equalize them.  

Yes, but say I'm living in one of the nicer homes on the street.  Wouldn't I be doing my neighbors' and myself a favor by not letting in a tax assessor in?  He/She would then have to base my assessment  on the surrounding properties of similar size, which in my case are both properties that have had very little work done to them since the eighties.  My question is, what exactly are they going to be assessing?  Are they going to be just counting the number of bathrooms and bedrooms or are they also going to be looking at how nicely they've been renovated?  Would it be wise to hold off pulling any permits until after the reval?

Offline Soshin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1614
  • "coal eating wangophange"
    • View Profile
    • Buddha in the beerglass
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #20 on: 04-28-2010, 09:38am »
In 1988, my assessment went from $16,000 to $375,000 but my taxes went from $3,000 to $16,000.  The city was on a calendar year, not fiscal year so residents had to pay an additional 6 months in taxes in the first two quarters.  I was looking at $5,000, $5,000, $3,000 and $3,000.  Downtown residents left JC, people abandoned their properties.  Values dropped. In the meanwhile the city only cared about providing abatements for luxury and affordable housing.  No on cared about the homeowner, especially Downtown homeowners.


Wait, your home was worth $375,000 in 1988?  Do you live in this house?
"god hates you. you will all go to yuppie hell. in yuppie hell there is no starbucks or hole foods or sushi bar. in yuppie hell you will work 16 hours a day in a bodega. in yuppie hell your car will not start when the sweeper is coming down the street. in yuppie hell your doorman will terrorize you and have sex with your wife or husband...when you are at work....in the bodega. in yuppie hell you will go to the laundromat and lose your last quarter in a broken washing machine. in yuppie hell you will buy all your food and clothing at the 99 cent store. in yuppie hell there are no cell phones, you will use a pay phone. a filthy pay phone".      -   Cat_Man Dude

Offline garyg

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #19 on: 04-28-2010, 08:36am »
In 1988, my assessment went from $16,000 to $375,000 but my taxes went from $3,000 to $16,000.  The city was on a calendar year, not fiscal year so residents had to pay an additional 6 months in taxes in the first two quarters.  I was looking at $5,000, $5,000, $3,000 and $3,000.  Downtown residents left JC, people abandoned their properties.  Values dropped. In the meanwhile the city only cared about providing abatements for luxury and affordable housing.  No on cared about the homeowner, especially Downtown homeowners.

I stand corrected.  That increase is crazy.  I was thinking of buying a new place this year, but I think I might wait this out.

Online MÇA

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7264
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #18 on: 04-28-2010, 08:20am »
In 1988, my assessment went from $16,000 to $375,000 but my taxes went from $3,000 to $16,000.  The city was on a calendar year, not fiscal year so residents had to pay an additional 6 months in taxes in the first two quarters.  I was looking at $5,000, $5,000, $3,000 and $3,000.  Downtown residents left JC, people abandoned their properties.  Values dropped. In the meanwhile the city only cared about providing abatements for luxury and affordable housing.  No on cared about the homeowner, especially Downtown homeowners.


From this NYT article it sounds like it was a real clusterfuck.



Revaluations Anger Homeowners
By JEFFREY HOFF
Published: October 16, 1988
 
JERSEY CITY— AS Trenton, Camden and Newark face their first revaluations of property in more than 25 years, the troubled experience of Jersey City offers an example of the confusion that revaluations can cause when they are postponed during years of rapidly rising real-estate values, tax experts and officials say.

Numerous Jersey City homeowners were shocked last spring to find that their assessments rose tenfold, but more dismayed to learn that nearly identical houses down the block got only sevenfold increases.

The purpose of a revaluation is to insure that property owners pay their fair share of property taxes by bringing assessments up to 100 percent of market value. But thousands of Jersey City homeowners have joined a group that filed suit against the city charging that the revaluation was not conducted properly, resulting in exaggerated bills.

In dozens of protest meetings around the city this year, property owners argued that the revaluation completed for 1988 is unacceptable because field inspectors failed to enter the majority of homes, were poorly trained and assessed many properties far above or below market value.

Nearly 5,000 property owners appealed their valuations before the Hudson County Board of Taxation last month, and thousands have contributed to hire Saul Wolfe, a Livingston lawyer and president of the State Bar Association, to file suit against the city challenging the results.

It is not uncommon for city governments to appeal the revaluations, which are conducted by independent companies. But residents say it seems curious that the Jersey City administration would take the politically unpopular position of supporting the revaluation, especially since the Mayor plans to run again next year.

Disputes have arisen, however, between the City Assessor and the revaluation company, and the assessor says he has changed thousands of the assessments.

[...]

Jersey City is perhaps an extreme example of the problems a large city can confront when it delays revaluation. ''You have such a multifaceted community you couldn't imagine a more difficult assessment job,'' said Edward G. Rosenblum, the Secaucus lawyer who successfully challenged the Montclair revaluation.

Not only did encroaching gentrification in many Jersey City neighborhoods cause social and political divisions within the city, but also long-term homeowners were astounded to learn what comparable properties were selling for.

''People were paying astronomical amounts for houses, and if you were one of the old-timers, you would just shake your head,'' said Mary Ann Murphy, a lawyer for the city and a lifelong resident.

Ms. Murphy represents the city in the appeals process before the County Tax Board and is also defending the suit filed by Mr. Wolfe for the Coalition for Fair Taxation.

Ms. Murphy's aunt, Margaret Finn, has become a symbol of the shock that homeowners experience with the revaluation. Mrs. Finn suffered a heart attack while she appealed her valuation before the county board last month and died shortly afterward.

A lifelong resident of Jersey City and its first female high school principal, Mrs. Finn, who was 62 years old, had a house for which the assessment jumped from less than $12,000 in 1987 to $124,000 this year, Ms. Murphy said.

Such a jump is not uncommon in the city, where the tax rate was lowered from $182.11 per $1,000 of assessed value in 1987 to $30.52 in 1988. That means that taxes would increase for any property where the assessed value rose more than six times.

Peter Casamasino, the City Assessor, said he had not determined how many of the city's 39,000 properties had a sixfold increase.

Ms. Murphy says, as do many city assessors and county tax administrators in the state, that most people incorrectly appeal their tax bills and not the assessed value. An appeal cannot change the tax rate set by the city but only the assessment.

''People don't understand the law,'' Ms. Murphy said. ''They don't understand a lot of things about assessments. They only understand the bill. It's not so much that the assessments are wrong; it's that people have a hard time paying their taxes. But they have no idea about going out and trying to pay for another home.'' Disagreement on Inspections

Members of the Coalition for Fair Taxation disagree. They argue that the revaluation could not be correct because not enough homes were inspected.

Joseph Pizzoli, project manager for the company that did the revaluation, Real Property Appraisers, said the interiors of about 50 percent of city homes were inspected and an additional 10 percent were looked at after owners contested the assessments.

In its suit, however, the coalition argues that at least 850 people certified that their homes were not visited despite Real Property Appraisers' contention that its employees went into the homes. The suit also says that field inspectors had less than the 100 hours of training required by contract.

''If I haven't been inside the property, how can I appraise it?'' asked Mr. Wolfe, the coalition's attorney. '''If you have gone inside but don't have the correct data because of a lack of training, then you don't produce the right results.''

Mr. Wolfe said the inaccuracy of the revaluation was indicated by significant differences in the ratio of assessment value to full market value from neighborhood to neighborhood. Documents presented with the suit say that some neighorhoods were assessed at only 80 percent of market value.

Mr. Wolfe says he does not argue that this was intentional, but Rick James, a member of the coalition, said the administration ''wanted to demonstrate they were going to get the downtowners,'' referring to new home buyers in the area around City Hall.

The suit asks that the revaluation be nullified and that taxes be based on the old assessments until a new appraisal is conducted. The Mayor has yet to call for a new revaluation, although a number of City Council members want a new assessment. ''There were so many mistakes and errors I don't think you can allow this to stand indefinitely,'' Councilman William O'Dea said. 'We Are Aware There Were Errors'

Mayor Anthony M. Cucci said: ''We are aware there were errors, and some may be grave errors. But I can't see any reason, as long as we are anticipating everyone will get fair hearings, to put a moratorium on it or stop what we are doing.''

''I may be the loser politically because of it, but I think in conscience I am not the loser because it is being done properly,'' Mr. Cucci said of the appeal process, which was extended six weeks.

A number of bills have been proposed in the State Legislature to relieve the tax burden of revaluations. One measure, introduced by State Senator Thomas F. Cowan, Democrat of Jersey City, would allow the low-income elderly to defer tax payments until death, making estates responsible for paying.

Another bill, introduced by Senator Gerald R. Stockman, Democrat of Trenton, would allow for the increased tax burden caused by a revaluation to be phased in over three years, with the state compensating a municipality for revenues not paid by a citizen.

Meanwhile, Edward Connelly, a retired railroad worker who is legally blind, holds little hope of getting help. His two-family frame house on South Street in Jersey City was assessed at $12,000 in 1987 but is now at $155,000, leaving him with a $4,730 tax bill. It is people like Mr. Connelly whose property taxes exceed their income taxes who are particularly outraged.

''Walk down Central Avenue and talk to the senior citizens sitting on the benches,'' Mr. Connelly said. ''Ask them about the 'reval' and tears come to their eyes. They don't know what to do.''

Offline worm

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #17 on: 04-27-2010, 10:03pm »
From reading the frequently asked questions section provided by the original poster, it seems to insinuate that the taxes are assessed at the time the property was sold, is this correct?  Are the taxes always re-assessed at the point of sale?
If you read further it states that
"No. Properties are not automatically reassessed when they are bought and sold. That is called “spot assessment” and it is illegal.

I believe the example is referring to people who buy a condo in a renovated building. In those cases the city looks at those properties as new development.
Example: I have a friend who bought a completely renovated two bedroom condo in a prewar building that's paying close to 8000/yr (bought in 2008) and another friend who is living in an "unrenovated" two bedroom condo in a prewar bldg that is paying about 3800/yr in taxes (bought in 2008). Both live in the same neighborhood.



Does this mean that, in my case since I bought my home in 2005, that I will not be as affected by this as someone who has been in their home since 1990?  It's so fucking confusing and it hasn't even begun yet....

In your case it has nothing to do with when you purchased your property, but rather when the assessed value was given. This seems especially so for people who own houses rather than condos..

Offline bdlaw

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #16 on: 04-27-2010, 08:59pm »
FYI, here's a list of Jersey City mayors since the last revaluation was done 22 years ago:

Anthony Cucci (D)July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1989
Gerald McCann (D)July 1, 1989 to February 13, 1992
Marilyn Roman (D)February 14, 1992 to June 30, 1992
Joseph Rakowski (D)July 1, 1992 to November 10, 1992
Bret Schundler (R)November 11, 1992 to June 30, 2001
Glenn Cunningham (D)July 1, 2001 to May 25, 2004
L. Harvey Smith (D)May 26, 2004 to November 11, 2004
Jerramiah Healy (D)November 12, 2004 to present

That's a lot of DEEZ.
Bobblehead: Wow, BMWs, cameras, and anal probes. Are we in Berlin?

[10:33 AM] del ban Woodsy: You do that and I will wash your mouth out with summer's eve after I kick your ass jehu.

Darna: it's because my people spend much of their lives barefoot, so when they discover shoes, it's a party!

RB: i rubbed mine last night to be ready for tonight

Burroughs: Thank you for a country in which no one is free to mind his own business

Offline speaknj

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #15 on: 04-27-2010, 08:41pm »
In 1988, my assessment went from $16,000 to $375,000 but my taxes went from $3,000 to $16,000.  The city was on a calendar year, not fiscal year so residents had to pay an additional 6 months in taxes in the first two quarters.  I was looking at $5,000, $5,000, $3,000 and $3,000.  Downtown residents left JC, people abandoned their properties.  Values dropped. In the meanwhile the city only cared about providing abatements for luxury and affordable housing.  No on cared about the homeowner, especially Downtown homeowners.
Speak NJ is a public access cable program that airs in Jersey City and Bayonne.  Mondays, Jersey City 10:30 PM and Tuesdays 9:00 PM, Channel 51. In Bayonne, channel 19, Tuesdays @ 9:00 PM

Offline bdlaw

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #14 on: 04-27-2010, 05:03pm »
I'd look at your recent tax bill and check the value at which the city is assessing your property. We also bought in 2005, and the city still seems to be assessing at '88 values.


Has gone through the exercise of trying to estimate how much taxes could go up for those of us who own row houses still being assessed at "88 levels? Is there a rule of thumb?

If I look at a newly-constructed property valued in the ballpark of where I think my property will be revalued, does that set a ceiling on what my new taxes could be (assuming no abatement)?

"Ceiling"?

:rofl:

>:(
Bobblehead: Wow, BMWs, cameras, and anal probes. Are we in Berlin?

[10:33 AM] del ban Woodsy: You do that and I will wash your mouth out with summer's eve after I kick your ass jehu.

Darna: it's because my people spend much of their lives barefoot, so when they discover shoes, it's a party!

RB: i rubbed mine last night to be ready for tonight

Burroughs: Thank you for a country in which no one is free to mind his own business

Offline pinky

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #13 on: 04-27-2010, 04:38pm »
PAGING............. G_Elkind

You lived here in 1988 and possibly you can answer some of these questions.

Offline skwirrlking

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #12 on: 04-27-2010, 04:32pm »
I'd look at your recent tax bill and check the value at which the city is assessing your property. We also bought in 2005, and the city still seems to be assessing at '88 values.


Has gone through the exercise of trying to estimate how much taxes could go up for those of us who own row houses still being assessed at "88 levels? Is there a rule of thumb?

If I look at a newly-constructed property valued in the ballpark of where I think my property will be revalued, does that set a ceiling on what my new taxes could be (assuming no abatement)?

Offline Soshin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1614
  • "coal eating wangophange"
    • View Profile
    • Buddha in the beerglass
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #11 on: 04-27-2010, 03:54pm »
From reading the frequently asked questions section provided by the original poster, it seems to insinuate that the taxes are assessed at the time the property was sold, is this correct?  Are the taxes always re-assessed at the point of sale?

To quote:

"An example of this would be someone who bought and renovated a house a few years ago when the real estate bubble was at its peak. Now that the real estate market has collapsed, that homeowner may be paying taxes on a property which is no longer worth anywhere near its 2006 assessment. That property owner is probably paying more than her fair share."

Does this mean that, in my case since I bought my home in 2005, that I will not be as affected by this as someone who has been in their home since 1990?  It's so fucking confusing and it hasn't even begun yet....
"god hates you. you will all go to yuppie hell. in yuppie hell there is no starbucks or hole foods or sushi bar. in yuppie hell you will work 16 hours a day in a bodega. in yuppie hell your car will not start when the sweeper is coming down the street. in yuppie hell your doorman will terrorize you and have sex with your wife or husband...when you are at work....in the bodega. in yuppie hell you will go to the laundromat and lose your last quarter in a broken washing machine. in yuppie hell you will buy all your food and clothing at the 99 cent store. in yuppie hell there are no cell phones, you will use a pay phone. a filthy pay phone".      -   Cat_Man Dude

Offline garyg

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #10 on: 04-27-2010, 02:30pm »
The rest of the example says that then you could be based on the surrounding areas assessment.  This isn't going to raise the total brought in via taxes it is going to equalize them.  The taxes will be raised when the city council doesn't get it's act together and passes a budget that has a gaping hole of a deficit in it.  The 2010 budget should be passed anytime now...

I really do think that it will equalize the tax base.  The discrepancy in taxes between condo's and homes that sell for similar amounts but one was recently renovated and one was not are astounding.

Now I'm curious by what percentage my taxes are going to go up, I know I've been getting something of a free lunch in comparison to other people.

Lastly what exactly happened in 1992?  There were 4 Mayors that year?  Please tell me only one of them ended up in prison.

Offline worm

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #9 on: 04-27-2010, 01:16pm »
Alright, let me get this straight. On the website it says that I do not have to let an inspector into my home.  So basically, if I have had any work done since 1988,  which I'm sure many of us have,  than the smart thing to do would be to hang up some chicken bones and get a rabid dog.
Anything to keep the inspector from going inside, right?

Online MÇA

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7264
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #8 on: 04-27-2010, 01:09pm »
FYI, here's a list of Jersey City mayors since the last revaluation was done 22 years ago:

Anthony Cucci (D)July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1989
Gerald McCann (D)July 1, 1989 to February 13, 1992
Marilyn Roman (D)February 14, 1992 to June 30, 1992
Joseph Rakowski (D)July 1, 1992 to November 10, 1992
Bret Schundler (R)November 11, 1992 to June 30, 2001
Glenn Cunningham (D)July 1, 2001 to May 25, 2004
L. Harvey Smith (D)May 26, 2004 to November 11, 2004
Jerramiah Healy (D)November 12, 2004 to present

Offline Isilme

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #7 on: 04-27-2010, 12:53pm »
Who needs eminent domain?  Jersey City will now be the proud owner of all the houses that people can no longer afford to pay taxes on.    :'(

I can hear the bulldozers coming already.
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination
                            *****
         All we have to decide is what to do
           with the time that is given to us.

Offline bdlaw

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #6 on: 04-27-2010, 12:28pm »
*again.
Bobblehead: Wow, BMWs, cameras, and anal probes. Are we in Berlin?

[10:33 AM] del ban Woodsy: You do that and I will wash your mouth out with summer's eve after I kick your ass jehu.

Darna: it's because my people spend much of their lives barefoot, so when they discover shoes, it's a party!

RB: i rubbed mine last night to be ready for tonight

Burroughs: Thank you for a country in which no one is free to mind his own business

Offline Woodsy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 947
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #5 on: 04-27-2010, 12:28pm »
Let's raise taxes during a housing glut and 9.5% national unemployment!

:nana:

They already did that last year and again this year.  I guess they're shooting for a trifecta.   ::)

Offline bdlaw

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #4 on: 04-27-2010, 12:25pm »
Let's raise taxes during a housing glut and 9.5% national unemployment!

:nana:
Bobblehead: Wow, BMWs, cameras, and anal probes. Are we in Berlin?

[10:33 AM] del ban Woodsy: You do that and I will wash your mouth out with summer's eve after I kick your ass jehu.

Darna: it's because my people spend much of their lives barefoot, so when they discover shoes, it's a party!

RB: i rubbed mine last night to be ready for tonight

Burroughs: Thank you for a country in which no one is free to mind his own business

Online MÇA

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7264
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #3 on: 04-27-2010, 11:20am »
For more information on how the city assesses a home's value, equalization rates, and preparing a tax appeal, there's a nice discussion between nugnfutz and duke_of_earl in the Local Taxes thread.

Offline Kindelan

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
    • View Profile
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #2 on: 04-27-2010, 10:55am »
HOLY SHIT!

Offline jcgov

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
    • View Profile
    • jerseycitynj.gov
City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #1 on: 04-27-2010, 09:11am »
Reval Notices and Brochures To Go Out With Tax Bills & Tax Advice Notices
The City of Jersey City is about to begin the process of revaluing all properties within the City. Property owners will receive a letter from Mayor Healy and the brochure, “Understanding Property Revaluations: Frequently Asked Questions” in the mail along with their quarterly tax bill or tax advice notice. For more in-depth information on the Reval, property owners are encouraged to contact the City’s Reval Hotline at 201-547-4538 or visit the City Tax Assessor’s page,”Property Revaluation:An Overview and Frequently Asked Questions”.
City of Jersey City
Office of Communications
http://www.jerseycitynj.gov/

Jersey City, NJ Community Forums

City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
« Reply #1 on: 04-27-2010, 09:11am »