dfsgavgny,
Everything that you said was probably very close to "Right on". What
you didn't say, is that the current homeowners, and Condo owners on Cookman,
etc., will be carrying and unfair burden of the Taxes for 10 Years.
You did say that the Schools get $0 from the Luxury Condos, right?
Correct. Now, the schools certainly WILL have increased costs, but the burden
of that will be 100% upon the "Old" Homeowners for 5 Years, and 50%
more for the last five.
In addition, as you populate the condos, say 500-1,000 People per year, the
Abbott Funds will not too long down the road be Lowered ........especially since
the State is in over $12 Billion in debt, mostly due to carried over debt from
Whitman, who left us $17 Billion in debt, including her Bond Issue that we got Nothing
for.
So, for five years, the School Debt will Increase as usual (Or more), and the
Abbott funds will probably start to decrease by year 3-4 or so, or sooner. In
addition, Mr. Reidy is squandering ALL of the "Temporary relief" from
the Sewerage Plant re-Bonding, which was supposed to cover 100% of the
"Deficit" for Five full years, but it hasn't for ONE yet!
Believe me or not, by 5 Years from now, at our current rate of posting debt,
the City will be in between $10-25 Million Dollars debt, that can ONLY be fixed
with Tax Increases ...... Because Fishman's getting a Free Ride on what YOU are
going to make up for! The Sub developers are paying HIM Big Time per
Unit. ONLY Fishman's skating all the way on this deal!
5 Years and many People may be paying $15,000 in taxes, or more, UNLESS Corzine
and the Legislature actually DO write and enact a Tax Revamping of Real Estate
Taxes. In
Combined with what's going to happen in the Economy in General, and you
Homeowners will be in BIG Trouble! And our City Hall's spending and growth is
OUT of Control right now, mostly DOING Redevelopment Stuff, which Asbury
Partners should be paying for!
Steve
--- In [email protected], "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], Allan Peterson nnjallans1@
> wrote:
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong
> > If I was to buy a condo for 500,000 I would be pay tax on a
> value of 500,000 without the abatement. With the abatement I would
> be paying tax on a value of 250,000 for that same condo. My home in
> asbury is worth $450,000 but I am paying tax based on a value of
> 100.000. Who has the better deal? Until the town is appraised I
> think the current owners make out better. Especially since the tax
> per $100 is so high in Asbury.
> >
> > Am I missing something? Seems to me that this was a needed step
> inorder to sell the units Otherwise they would be taxed too high.
> >
>
> You are partly correct. The equalization rate in AP is around 50%
> (I'm off a little but humor me). That is based upon OLD values at
> least, since it is actually much lower. It is unlawful to reassess
> on resale (but it is done anyway). For instance in my case I was
> reassessed because they finally caught up with the permits/work done
> by the former owners. It took 2 years. The assessor simply changed
> the depreciation deduction from her estimate. She showed me that she
> was well within the AP equalization rate (the truth of the matter is
> that my house is still worth several hundreds of thousands more and
> if it were assessed at 50% my taxes would double - which they may in
> a couple of years.
>
> Now as to the abated condos. Because they are under a PILOT, I guess
> there is no prohibition for using sales price, which they are doing.
> I don;t know if it would meet the definition of reassessing upon
> resale, but the city looked at what they would be getting under
> different scenarios. The formula uses the sales prices of the
> condos, not an assessment. The city claims under the abatement they
> don't lose anything from its share of what conventional taxes would
> be. What the abatement does is cut the county out (it only gets 5%)
> and the schools (they get 0).
>
> If you pay $500K for a house in AP, it probably has an assessment of
> around $150K and maybe pays $7,000 in taxes. The City's analysis
> shows that an abated $500K condo closing in 2004 would have
> conventioanl taxes of around $13K and the city's share would be
> around $7,200. The PILOT is structured so the city gets around
> $7,600, more than conventional taxes. The analysis also shows that
> if that same condo (same price) closes in later years, the
> conventional taxes would be lower (falling ratios) and the city
> still collects $7,600. A lot of ifs in my opinion.
>
> So for the moment, it may be equal, but when revaluation comes
> around exisitng homeowners are going to get wacked. Because of the
> permits, my taxes went up from around $6,800 2 years ago to over
> $9K. If revalued at where I think the market really is (depending
> upon the ratio) they would be much higher.
>
> The reality is that in lower income areas the taxes are higher.
> Crazy ain't it? On LBI, the average tax is around $5,600. I think it
> is much higher here on homes.
>
> My firm worked many years ago consulting with NYC on real estate
> taxes. The reality is that a municipality figures how much money it
> needs. Then it estimates how much revenue it has from other sources.
> The remainder is how much they must raise from real estate taxes.
> They can reach that amount through any combination of ratios and tax
> rates. You can raise/lower/hold steady one or the other independent
> from the other according to what you must raise in revenue. The
> problem as I pointed out long ago, is that when you have really one
> source of revenue (real estate taxes - and primarily residential
> real estate taxes) you have a never ending cycle of raising real
> estate taxes.
>
> The solution? New sources of revenue (good luck with primary focus
> on condos) or cut spending. No rocket science to it - just dollars
> and cents, which is why most of us get on the city over the budget.
> Anyone do a survey to see how many AP residents are employees of the
> city? Makes you wonder if the city government runs to keep people
> employed. I wonder how many jobs could be sacrificed? Imagine if we
> could find new sources of revenue - say sales taxes? You are never
> going to get that with a canyon of condos and no significant
> commercial real estate base. Revaluation may kill the AP market if
> they don't lower the ratio or tax rate or both. The city budget is
> ballooning. You can have revaluation and change the rate and/or
> ratio to raise the same amount of taxes as today. Have any new
> ratables been delivered from this project's new construction four
> years after the plan? No. IN fact, Partners protests any assessment
> increases on its property which it bought from us.
>
__._,_.___
| Asbury park home | Asbury park nj | Asbury park hotel |
| Asbury park foreclosure | Asbury park real estate |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "AsburyPark" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
__,_._,___
