Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_ityjum5 wrote

[deleted]

21

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_itydwnz wrote

OMG, there is a dumpster fire over on Nextdoor that reminds me of the heyday of JCList. People who have no idea what the reval was all about and have no idea what's going on with the schools.

There are downtowners who made a million dollars in the last 10 years on their row house complaining they can't pay a 2% property tax! The disinterest in what goes on in this city until it reaches into their purse is just fucking amazing.

16

mbstor23 OP t1_iu0e2ff wrote

Flood insurance rates going up too. DTJC is fuck

2

mrwuchow t1_itzl53i wrote

Who do we need to vote out? The school board must think we’re all millionaires. We’re getting taxed like we’re an upper middle class suburb without a school system that shows up even in the Top50 of the state.

14

kokoromelody t1_iu0fi34 wrote

In a nutshell: If you are against the school budget increase (and future ones), do not vote for anyone on the "Education Matters" platform. Noemi Velaquez is the only one who is running for re-election this year, but she voted Yes to the school budget increase. Her running mates are new candidates, but from what I can find they don't voice concerns about the existing or future budget increases.

Source: https://hudsonreporter.com/2022/10/07/new-education-matters-slate-runs-for-jersey-city-school-board/

Alexander Hamilton is the only candidate who voted No the increase last year and is running for re-election; he's part of the "Change for Children" platform. The other candidates are new, but have voiced concerns about the budget increase.

https://hudsonreporter.com/2022/10/12/new-change-for-children-slate-seeks-jersey-city-school-board/

12

The_Nomadic_Nerd t1_iu0vepd wrote

For this election:

Vote OUT Noemi Velaquez

Vote FOR Hamilton, Ervin, and Reyes

It's 3 open seats we vote for and the last budget passed 5-4, so putting these 3 people (Hamilton, Ervin, and Reyes - pass their names on!) can help stop the BOE increases.

9

mbstor23 OP t1_iu07uhk wrote

All of them. The Alexander Hamilton guy looks reasonable though.

8

AryehCW t1_itz4pta wrote

The city is going to become a ghost town. Tumbleweeds through the empty streets.

7

kokoromelody t1_iu0m3o5 wrote

No joke. Homeowners are feeling the immediate effects but this will be passed through to renters in the future. It's a lose/lose for any JC resident, homeowner, and/or landlord.

5

mbstor23 OP t1_iu0xrvr wrote

Agreed! People just don’t see it until it hits their pocket books.

3

OkAbbreviations4982 t1_itysfvl wrote

There seems to be a sustained effort to blame the JC school system for the 4th quarter increase.

4

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_itzrof1 wrote

Because it’s true?

6

OkAbbreviations4982 t1_iu0hebg wrote

Ok genius, explain to me how the municipal budget increase was caused by schools.

0

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iu0ie46 wrote

The 2021 municipal budget was reduced by a one time infusion of federal covid-relief funds to cover the 1,000 increase in the BOE property tax levy last year. The Covid relief funds are no longer available for 2022 to cover the BOE property tax levy and the municipal tax levy was restored to the 2020 levels give or take a few percentage points. The only way that Fulop was able to blunt the impact of the BOE tax levy last year was to lower the municipal tax levy using Covid funds. Fulop has no direct control over the BOE budget.

Just want to add that at least Fulop used excess funds to lower the municipal tax levy when the city received extra funds. The BOE increased the budget to fund the “repair” of structures even though they got 89 million + in additional unexpected funds from the state. There is also no talk of front loading repairs so the BOE budget can be lowered next year

8

OkAbbreviations4982 t1_iu2rim8 wrote

Here's one for r/selfawarewolves. Fulop used Covid funds to keep taxes artificially low during an election year and now we're paying for it a year later. How's this for front loading? https://www.jerseycitynj.gov/news/pressreleases2020/mayor_s__250_m_funding_plan_fix_school_budget_gap

1

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iu384zp wrote

Yes, Fulop knows he’s accountable to the voters/taxpayers unlike the BOE. I’m going to guess this article was released before Covid really hit? Councilman Yun died early April 2020. God rest his soul. The article ends with “The next steps need to come from the elected Board of Education to execute on their side,” Mayor Fulop concluded.” I’m going to guess the BOE never executed on their side?

1

OkAbbreviations4982 t1_iu3w7mc wrote

Everything good with the payroll tax then? You seem pretty ill informed for an account solely dedicated to blaming schools for high taxes.

1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_iu0j9jd wrote

I'm not any happier about the taxes than anyone else, but I just want to inject some reality in to the "taxed out of our home!" hyperbole. If you owned for the last 5 years you saw a 30-50% increase in your value, you're sitting on a pile of equity, you're not poor. Lets say the rate goes up to 2%, do you really think that over the next 10 years your appreciate will average less than 2% annually?

So many people want the financial benefits of owning property but aren't willing to pay the overhead. If you are cash poor, there's a number of ways the banks can help you pay your taxes.

As I said during the reval, the city would be smart to set up a "tax deferral lien" bond system in lieu of the much maligned reverse mortgage. The way it would work is if you can't pay your taxes, the city puts a lien on your property to be resolved upon eventually transfer (similar to reverse mortgage), and sells the bundled liens as bonds. You essentially get a loan at interest, the city gets it's money, the bondholders make profit. Everybody wins, including the property owner who still gets their appreciation while not paying taxes.

2

mbstor23 OP t1_iu0k0l0 wrote

This effects renters too. Rents will have to go up because operating costs have gone up. It’s now all about the DTJC gentrifiers.

4

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_iu0lsnj wrote

But by how much? Lets say there's a 3 family worth $1m and taxes go up 0.3%. That's an extra $3k, or $83 per month per unit. More, but not devastating by itself to most renters.

1

mbstor23 OP t1_iu0lzl9 wrote

That sounds about right, TBH. Point being is there will be rent hikes. Renters should not assume that property tax hikes are only a property owner’s problem.

5

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_iu0njeu wrote

Of course, but if they're rent-controlled then they might be well protected since the city uses CPI and don't take taxes into account as far as I know for allowable rent increases.

−1

mbstor23 OP t1_iu0y8zs wrote

Very few are actually lucky enough to be in a rent-controlled apartment. They should count their blessings that they’re well shielded from this massacre. For everyone else renting at market rate or a homeowner, you’re all getting fucked.

Rent controlled apartments are a very small part of the overall market.

5

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iu0q0v9 wrote

Landlords can apply for a hardship increase in order to increase the rent past 4%. There are a few rules around that though.

2

FunCandy8149 t1_iu71l5p wrote

I also would like to include Pompidou exuberant cost that will also start next year for the forceable future

2

VanWorst t1_ity3skj wrote

> “Why should we not offer all of our children through the entire school district state-of-the-art buildings and state-of-the-art everything? Why should they not all have the same equal access to optimal things? I think everyone in the city would agree with me if the schools look good, it is good for the entire city.” — Noemi Velazquez

1

mbstor23 OP t1_ity427d wrote

Funny thing is, next year’s hike has nothing to do with improving school quality and everything to do with replacing state aid that was lost since Jersey City has been oversubsidized for years.

Inflation will also be interesting as the cost of everything is going up.

16

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ityaefo wrote

State has been warning this was coming for at least 10 years now (I think it’s actually quite a bit longer).

JC had a long time to prepare, but felt things like a blank check for a museum was a higher priority.

12

VanWorst t1_itz4lhz wrote

Except the budget is increasing on top of the state cuts

6

mbstor23 OP t1_iu0e8h2 wrote

Throwing more lovey at it =/ better school quality

3

Miringanes t1_itzl80y wrote

It’s not even the school budget that’s going to be the issue. It’s going to be the expiring PILOTs. Right now the municipality is getting the vast majority of payments from buildings that have a PILOT program. Once those expire, that payment (which may in some cases be more than the actual tax levy) will get distributed between the municipality, the county, and the district per the established percentages.

Basically what that means is there’s gonna be a municipality shortfall and in order to make that up there’s going to have to be cuts or tax increases.

1

mbstor23 OP t1_iu07z55 wrote

Yes and no. Stevie just needs to cut the budget slightly. We’ll see if he does.

3

Miringanes t1_iu0bjei wrote

You can’t cut a budget without having service cuts or at least it’s incredibly difficult to do that.

0

mbstor23 OP t1_iu0dxp2 wrote

Duh. Service cuts! Who the fuck can afford to pay more in taxes??

2

bodhipooh t1_iu0fznf wrote

This is SUCH AN IMPORTANT point. All those people railing against abatements and holding them up as the culprit and root cause of the ever increasing taxes don't seem to understand that the city is getting a SWEET deal with those abatements. As they start to expire, we will find ourselves in a fiscal hole and taxes will have to increase dramatically to make up the shortfall.

3

Mindless-Budget9019 t1_iu0jlkj wrote

If the PILOTs expire then they would pay regular property tax split between City, county and BOE. Total Regular property tax amounts are normally higher than what would be paid under the PILOT program. If the municipal property tax levy increases because of the pilots expiring then the BOE and county budget should decrease.

2

PostPostMinimalist t1_itxzil0 wrote

Citation needed?

0

mbstor23 OP t1_ity18em wrote

Have you not been paying attention?

https://www.nj.com/hudson/2022/03/685-million-slashed-from-jersey-city-state-school-aid-while-bayonne-sees-12-million-boost.html?outputType=amp

6

JNmbrs t1_iu1eh9r wrote

I’m struggling to understand how this link supports the various posts you’ve made in this thread. The article says that the state pulled back subsidies/aid to JC schools as JC property values increased over the last decade. Is there something the JC BOE could have done about this?

1

mbstor23 OP t1_iu1euwj wrote

Plan ahead. The gravy train from the state was going to end one day.

1

JNmbrs t1_iu1fbhg wrote

Let’s play this through: let’s say they anticipated the drop in 2022/2023 state aid perfectly a decade ago. How would that have changed anything? The budget is what it is, what could they have done in 2021 or before to soften the blow? Maybe they could have started gradually raising the school levy to spread the burden across multiple years, but that wouldn’t change the fundamental problem—just the years in which it was paid for.

1

mbstor23 OP t1_iu2njvi wrote

Fundamental problem is that it costs $30,000 per student. JCBOE needs a forensic audit and maybe even sell off some of their property holdings.

1

blikbleek t1_itz90kl wrote

JC is a pile of shit.

0