It's not a selective tax for the resident. That would be contrary to state tax
policy. Rather, an abatement program is an option for troubled cities or areas
to use financial tools to spur investment and development. The choice is that
of the City, not the resident, to implement the plan.
Nobody is suggesting that anyone can "choose" their way out of paying for
school taxes. That's the state's choice, under THEIR redevelopment law, and
the City's choice to implement that option, in pursuit of a goal that benefits
everyone, statewide. (Keep in mind that AP was, and still is, a net drain on
state resources, which is why the state would have an interest in spurring
redevelopment. We can discuss all day whether this is the optimal solution,
but that's a choice that the state and City have made.)
And by the way, the mechanisms of property tax are not uniform
nationally...it's generally a state issue that is decided differently by each
state.
To your point about $84,000 assessed valuations, keep in mind that those values
are generally about 1/3 of the estimated value, due to the fact that a
revaluation has not been done in so long. Once the revaluation is done, we
should all have a true idea of actual assessed value being equal to market
value. In the meantime that discount rate distorts the issue on its face.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "oakdorf" <oakdorf@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Neither one of us are "right".
>
> That being said -
>
> 1. the structure of the "property tax" in the US is not to be a "selective"
> method of picking and choosing what services are used - like the school
> system.
>
> I heard that argument before from people in deal, colts neck interlaken and
> ap. So you send your kid to private school, therefore you shouldn't pay local
> school taxes....
>
> OR - I have no kids, therefore I shouldn't pay school tax...
>
> Well, based on that logical thought, I should no longer pay school tax of
> about $7,000 year on my home and another $36,000 on my rentals, however a
> couple of tenants ahve kids....
>
> then using that logic, someone in AP with two kids should pay $48,000 year in
> taxes to cover the cost of their kids attending school.
>
> So you see what the problem with the logic is. That's why EVERY property is
> supposed to pay school tax if they have a school system.
>
> As for trash pickup - that was a smart move by condo boards not so long ago -
> that they are paying for all services in their taxes. Howev er, the flip side
> of that is many development (not sure about wesley) were given approvals to
> build high density and provide their own services - kind of like a "tax
> abatement" . That was the deal to get the approvals. That is usually done
> with the developer who builds, gets their cash, turns it over to the
> association who then sues.
>
> That post was a follow up to the comment and acceptance that a single family
> home in AP is assessed at $84,000 - it ain't right.
>
> Do some more homework, your "facts" aren't correct either. Have a good one.
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Doug M" <
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
asburypark-dig...@yahoogroups.com
asburypark-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asburypark-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
