Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Property tax structure may be illegal

From Crains:

The mayor cannot possibly relate to the struggles of Bay Ridge homeowners. As a result of current assessment policy, his house is assessed at just 1.2% of its city-­estimated market value. However, in Bay Ridge, the median assessment is 4.3% percent. For homeowners in Queens (just under 5%), the Bronx (5.2%), and Staten Island (5.3%), it is even ­higher.

The mayor pays about $3,600 in annual property taxes for a house that the city estimates is worth $1.4 million.

In Bay Ridge, the median tax burden for homeowners is about $6,200, even though the city estimates that the median home in the neighborhood is worth only $785,000. If Bay Ridge homeowners paid the same effective tax rate as the mayor, their median tax burden would be less than $1,900. (The discrepancies can stem from a variety of factors, but it’s not clear which ones explain the mayor’s low rate.)

Although city officials argue that these inequities can be fixed only if Albany changes the law, the solution is simple and can be implemented immediately. The mayor should ensure that all assessments for homeowners in the city are uniform. That means lowering their ratio to that of the mayor’s house: 1.2%.

The decision is not only within the city’s control, it is legally required. The Real Property Tax law provides that all assessments must be uniform within each tax class—uniformity is the sine qua non of the property-tax system.

For a mayor whose political mantra includes a commitment to eradicating inequality, not addressing the blatant inequities in the property-tax system from which he benefits, and for which the solutions are solely within his control, is iniquitous. There are solutions. The mayor just needs the will to implement them.


Anonymous said...

No. This is stupid and wrong. Equality means all houses are subject to the AV rules saying it can't increase more than 6% a year or 20% in 5 years. Most homeowners would kill for a 5% raise on 60% of the tax bill they would owe if the same house was 20 years newer. Trying to cap the assessments at 1.2% (or about 0.2% of the total home value for a Class 1 property) is going to do nothing but get rid of the AV caps that have kept the property tax bills that artificially low in the first place (even in Bay Ridge). Commercial properties and developers would LOVE that because it would shift more burden to the homeowners.

I sympathize with the frustration of the residents in Bay Ridge but there needs to be a better reflection and examination on what's really going to get done. When people talk about fair tax it looks great on paper until it's discovered the rate goes up for the middle class and down for the developers and corporations. It's the same thing as a fair tax on spending. This shit does not work.

The mayor's taxes are gonna go up 5% just like everyone else because that's the AV cap. Unifying the assessment isn't going to reduce it, it's gonna increase it. The Bay Ridge assessment will go up to what new builds pay now - 6%, or 1.2% of the total value, or $9,500 a year instead of the $6,300 they pay now. Meanwhile all the extra money means they can extend the term lengths on 421a and J51. That is how this works. These AV caps are there to protect the owners so they know it's going up 5% a year. If you ditch those caps then as soon as the hipsters move in and the house value is $1.1m the city won't do anything except bill you at the 6% assessment like everyone else, and if you can't afford the $13,200 for your 2019 taxes they'll just lien your house.

This is a stupid and dangerous argument. Even in Bay Ridge, we have a better deal than anywhere else in the tristate.

JQ LLC said...

De Faustio, so far, may be the luckiest guy in Brooklyn. This in addition to renting his house at the fabricated overvalued market rate.


The council speaker also took advantage of similar legislation involving her property.


Defiant Hypocrisy by supposed caring liberal thinkers. This is why Trump is president and alternative facts has become lexicon. For the time being.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and by the way, if you like old houses and old neighborhoods, see how it goes if you switch to a uniform assessment. There is a huge property tax incentive to keep old houses standing. Get rid of that and the old houses go with it and more garbage goes up in its place. The mayor's taxes aren't low because he lives in Park Slope, they're low because he lives in an old house. If you want a uniform assessment, then he's paying $16k a year whether the house is old and representative of the neighborhood or your run of the mill shit box. Reducing everyone to a 1.2% assessment is the same thing - there is no incentive to keep what's there, and in A LOT of areas they'll get torn down either the minute before they sell or the minute after.

This is one thing Albany has right. Don't fuck it up.

Queens Crapper said...

My 2-family house was built in 1905 and my property tax rate is 6%. So explain that one.

Anonymous said...

Keep a close eye on Albany's fixes.
They love to fuck us down staters in the ass.
Their improvement are often screw jobs.

Anonymous said...

This system resembles more of an extortion racket.

(sarc) said...

Perhaps the City and its elected officials should learn to live within their means.

They continually raise taxes upon what they perceive "We the People" to be the Golden Goose.

This just more of the continued theft of the fruits of our labor only to be squandered...

Anonymous said...

"That means lowering their ratio to that of the mayor’s house: 1.2%."

That'll never happen...

Anonymous said...

my property taxes have doubled in the last 10 years. water rates have doubled. government budgets have doubled. wtfffff

Anonymous said...

Crappy -
Your assessment percentage is 6%. That's standard for every Class 1 building in the city. The tax rate for Class 1 is 20%. You pay 20% of the 6% assessment as tax, or up to 1.2%. The property tax on a Class 1 building in NYC NEVER can exceed 1.2% of market value, which even in the worst case, is a bargain compared to everywhere else in the area.

But - for the cap... there is a cap on how much that assessed value can change per year (even if the NOPV lists that the assessment as 6%). So let's take DeBlasio's house. The city has his market rate at $1.688m for 2016. The assessment is listed at 6% on his NOPV. But instead of $101,280, his assessed value is only $17,914, because the assessed value cannot increase more than 6% or 20% in 5 years. $17.914 is an actual assessment of 1.2% of the market value.

Then Class 1 pays 20% of the assessed value as tax, which is how you get to $3,600 a year ($17914 * 19.99% = $3600). All in all, the property tax bill is 0.2% of the value of the home ($3600/$1688000 = 0.2%)

If you want to know what your actual assessment is, take your total annual property tax bill, multiply by 5, and divide by the market value. Then compare to 1.2% for DeFaustio, or 6% for a brand new house. Mine is 2.3% by the numbers and I'm in Astoria, but they also are wayyyyy low on my market value so it's closer to 1.5%.

Anonymous said...

I am in maspeth own a 2 family home that was built in the 50's and my rate is 6%.

(sarc) said...

“Our politicians tell us we are free, even though most governments take over 50% of what we earn. They claim we get services that we need for our hard-earned money, even though we could buy the same services at half the price from the private sector. Today, we ridicule the slave-owners' claim that they "gave back" to their slaves by housing, clothing, feeding them, and bestowing upon them the "benefits" of civilization instead of leaving them in their native state. We see this as a self-serving justification for exploitation. In the future, we will view being forcibly taxed to pay for things we don't want, such as bombs for the Middle East, subsidies for tobacco, other people's abortions, regulations that put small businesses out of business, prisons for people trying to feel good, keeping life-saving medications out of the hands of dying people, etc., as taking away our freedom. When even a small portion of our lives is spent enslaved, that part tends to dominate the rest of our time. If we don't put our servitude first as we structure the remainder of our lives, our masters will make sure we regret it. How much freedom do we need to survive and how much do we need to thrive?”
― Mary J. Ruwart

Anonymous said...

move to Alabama, property taxes are the lowest

Anonymous said...

I live in South East Queens bought my house in 2012 for $405,000 built in 1940. I pay $4,300 a year. And that is more than the Mayors Million dollar house. Explain that Mr. Mayor.

Anonymous said...


Is called financial slavery!
They never really abolished it, just extended it to all.

JQ LLC said...

Mary J Ruwart?


Libertarian Presidential Front-Runner Defends Child Porn:

Mary Ruwart, research scientist, perrenial Libertarian Senatorial candidate and front runner for this year’s Libertarian Presidential ticket is being taken to task for comments she made in her book, Short Answers to Tough Questions.

When discussing self choice in relation to child porn, she had this to say: “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

It's hard to argue with the points she made about government spending on mistakes and choices people make, but come on. And cutting regulations goes against the equal justice system of checks and balances. Besides, the ones that will thrive from deregulation are not going to be real small businesses, but the big banks.

And Don's/ The heritage foundation's plan to allocate more money for the Pentagon assures that wasteful spending on wars and occupations is going to continue.

Anonymous said...

>>And Don's/ The heritage foundation's plan to allocate more money for the Pentagon assures that wasteful spending on wars and occupations is going to continue.<<

Yeah right. Obongo did how many wars? F-35s, how much they spent on that turkey?

>>cutting regulations goes against the equal justice system of checks and balances<<

Bullshit. They used regulations to outsource entire industries.
Some checks and balances I'd say.

Anonymous said...

Why not just use a five year moving average of the real value?

Unknown said...

Mayor de Blasio pontificates for affordable housing but rented his Brooklyn house for $5,000 a month. Hardly affordable. Not only that, he froze rent stabilized apartments rents for the last two years despite real estate taxes jumping up 35% since his election.

The man is shameless. Donate $10,000 to his campaign fund and he'll give you millions of dollars in tax credits for whatever shady deal you are peddling. He is letting children die in foster care while he works to ban the carriage horses in Central Park. NYC taxpayers have already paid out $11,000,000 in legal fees to defend him in the federal and state investigations into his corruption. He has no problem getting around town by helicopter while he ties up Midtown traffic protesting our constitutionally elected new president. He has padded the NYC payroll with hundreds of friends and cronies at a cost of tens of millions of dollars by giving them such crucial jobs as Deputy Mayor of Diversity Enhancement Services or Facilities Efficiency Maximization Coordinator. He spends half the day travelling back and forth to his Brooklyn gym by chauffeured car which he won't use the subway because it's "too much trouble". He has openly sided with the professional victims playing the race card against our police who bravely protect our city at risk of great personal danger to themselves.

He boasts about his "landslide victory" in being elected mayor. What he doesn't say is that he got 75% of the votes in an election with only a 25% voter turnout that was the lowest in NYC history. Why so low? Because neither candidate was qualified to be mayor. To solidify his voter base, he has given the unions sweetheart deals that will explode in costs as the years go by. You know what they say about socialists. They are always generous, when giving away your money.

The man is an ass and beats Dinkins out for being New York's worst mayor. The damage he has done will far outlast his miserable term of office. He can't be voted out of office soon enough.