Mayor Bloomberg says NO to additional property tax hikes

it will hold... until the day after election day!

good point

also, Gov. Paterson's tax hikes for the rich are scheduled to expire right around November 2010. Hmm, isn't there soemthing important in November 2010? Some sort of event where people vote?

November 2010, 2 round of qualifying games for the 2014 Soccer World Cup. Maybe this is the importnant thing you think of!

I tell a lie, November 2010, 2 round qualification round games for Euro 2012!

Did he use the phrase "Read my lips"?

Know new taxes!

http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/downloads/pdf/sum1_09.pdf

check out (especially) page 31 (and 22 if you feel like it)

Problem is, they'll keep going up without adding new taxes. They graduate in increases, and there is a lot of increase still left to add...

30yrs, that's some good chart porn. I like the juxtaposition of the real estate tax increases on page 31 with the huge decreases in the property transaction taxes. Looks like they don't expect much movement, but if you're stuck in your apartment you're going to pay.

The transaction taxes are on 32.

Lets also not forget that income from rentals will go down... so buildings with retail below are going to get hit even more.

LOL @ alpine.

Bullshit he is taxing us to death with hidden property taxes. Does Bloomberg forget the 14% spike in water/sewer bills coming this June? The 14.5% last year and the 11.5 the year before? How about the over 40% increases over the last three years? Water rates will have risen a cumulative 77 percent since 2001. With tenants doubling and tripling up and immigrants living 10 to a room you will see a spike in foreclosures coming in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/nyregion/03mbrfs-water.html?_r=1&fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/nyregion/17water.html?fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/nyregion/03water.html

One thing not mentioned yet: they don't have to raise the tax rate. All they have to do is raise the assessed values. Then they can claim they didn't raise taxes. If that happens, the big winners will be the single family home owners.

If you have a gripe with Mayor Bloomberg, the polls on election day speaks loudly.

30yrs, yes, except for new construction, assessed values are often still below current fair market value, as if such a thing can currently be determined.

mutombo, the people already voted in favor of term limits.

If they raised the assessed values why will single homeowners be spared? We all get hit!

Its a closed system. Taxes have to come from somewhere -- income, sales, property, assessments. If gross income goes down, something has to give as defaulting on the obligations is not an option.

AR,

The residents of NYC did not vote in favor of changing the term limit Bloomberg went to the city council and threatened them to change the term limits because in his billionairess mind he can turn the economy around by creating an additional 400K jobs for the City of New York. LOL.

aboutready: Even new construction. Example: 133 West 22nd St, PHB
Sale price: $4,225,000
Actual Assessed Value = +$194,325
Market Value = +$431,833

30yrs,

LOL. Who miscalculated this? How was this miscalculated? There is some explaining to be done.

McHale: because the rules vary tremendously based on Property Class. One, two and three family dwellings are Class 1, while most Coops and Condos are Class 2.

In Class 1 a tax rate is applied to 8% of the "market value".
In class 2 a tax rate is applied to 45% of the "market value".

Increases in value for Class 1 are capped at 6% in any given year and ****20% over 5 years*****.
Increases in value for Class 2 are capped at 8% in any given year. (But only for some class 2 properties).

30yrs,

You got gorilla skillz.

My dad (may he rest in peace) was the top Tax Assessor in NYC for about 30 years. Why do I say "top"? Usually Assessors get geographical districts. For my dad, they created a special district made up of most of the most expensive office buildings in Manhattan, removed them from their geographical disticts, and placed them in his specially constructed district.

See, most people have no idea how RE taxes work in NYC. Did you know that unlike most other places, a property is NOT re-assessed on sale? So if a Condo gets sold for 20,000,000 it not only doesn't get re-assessed, the taxes are assessed exactly the same as if it had sold for 1,00,000. Why? Well, firstly NYC re-assesses every property every year anyway. They don't get re-assessed on sale. Secondly, for Coops and Condos they get assessed in a strange way: the assessor has to assess the entire building as if it were a rental building. Then, this whole building assessment is divided by the ratio of taxes which the unit has to pay out of the total. In Coops it's easy because no one pays individual taxes anyway: the building pays them and everything gets divided on a per share basis, just like all the other expenses.

But in Condos, it can get kind of strange. In the early days of Condos in NY, many Sponsors wrote their Offering Plans so that all units in a "line" paid the same amount in RE Taxes. This was accepted by the AG's office, so that's how it went. But RE Taxes in NY are supposed to be "ad valorem" (according to value). Some guy in a Condo (I think it was Olympic Towers, but I'm not sure), started a suit against the city because he was paying the same taxes on his lower floor unit as people on much higher floors, and who's units were obviously worth more. It was a hard argument to argue against. I think the resulkt was that there was a "private letter ruling" which stated that going forward from that point, all Condo Offering Plans had to list the RE Taxes in the same ratio as the "percentage of common interest" which also had to be the percentage of gross sell-out price. Of course, this was for what was listed in the schedule A in the Offering Plan, not what the Sponsor actually sold the unit for, because that would just be too complicated.

30yrs,

Thnx again.

mutombo, I know. I was talking about the time they DID vote in favor of term limits, not Mayor Mike's subsequent actions. I thought you'd know that I'd be aware of that!!! I suspect we're on the same page here.

30yrs, thanks. I saw something yesterday in the news on the assessment issue. I'll try to find it.

AR,

For My Info when did the citizens vote in favor of term limits? I will be prepared for Jeopardy LOL. Mayor Mike, I'm at a loss of words when it comes to him. We understood but misunderstood each other thats all. You are good in my book :o).

sorry mutombo, I don't recall exactly when we voted on the referendum for term limits. i'll ask the hubby, it's one of those issues that gets his legal heart riled up. but we did, and Mayor Mike used the city council to override a public vote, which was technically legal but had all sorts of legal issues regarding voting rights and efficacy. I don't even LIKE term limits, but the people did vote, and the decision to rescind them should have been sent back to the people.

We're good.

Okay, I'll go on record as being in favor of Mayor Mike. I think he's done a very good job and is the best person for NYC to have as Mayor for another 4 years. Not perfect, but a very good job.

Do you think that Andrew Cuomo or Mark Green would do better? Probably not, but if Bloomberg doesn;t run, it is likely that one of those guys would win. I'll stick with Mayor Mike.

waverly, i don't dislike mayor mike per se, although i have my issues, primarily on the education front. i'm just saying that using the city council to overcome something that was decided by public vote, while upheld by the courts, doesn't sit right with me. oh, and i'm not happy about the new stadiums either.

Yeah, there are a lot of quirks with NYC politics (stadiums, unions, board of ed, etc) which makes it a tough city to get anything done in, but I think Bloomberg has done pretty well. He came in after 9-11 and Giuliani and had a HUGE budgetary problem. He has had some give and take to get things done, which always leads to a watered-down result that won;t pleas everyone. He is certainly more "civil" than Rudy (and I liked Rudy as Mayor). At the end of the day, I'm okay with a 3rd term. If people don't want him to have a 3rd term than they shouldn;t vote for him. That way, the people WILL decide.

AR,

Vaguely, I remember the referendum for term limits, actually, you reminded me moments ago of it.

Waverly,

I agree with your last sentence 100%. The polls on election day speak LOUD & CLEAR. Is that bipartisan?

30yr, will they ever be assessed at a lower value? I believe values are on a 5 years sliding scale or something. My building's assessed value keeps going up while property values are plummeting. Is there a chance that as indiv values go down, and rentals go down, coop assessments will go down? It doesn't make much sense to me that the sum of the parts is still jumping 15% a year when the parts are dropping 20-30%. I assume that if the assessed values go down, they will just increase taxes to make up for it.

AR,

Steinbrenner, for yrs have said the Yankees would leave NYC if they don't get a new stadium courtesy NYC tax dollars Rudolph said no to the stadium but Bloom said yes.

I still despise Rudy.

I think Dinkins said not to but don't hold me to that.

bob420: the first thing you have to realize is that "market value" is never anywhere close to what a transaction would get done at (see the example I listed with Sale price: $4,225,000 but Market Value = +$431,833. So there's always tons of room for increasing "market value" and never reaching market value. Also, i dfon't think you can say you keep seeing assessed value going up while the market has been plummeting because how long has the market been plummeting for? So perhaps you saw one time when the assessed value went up even though values went down?

OK, I didn't want to have to go into this because it only makes things weirder:
You have a "market value", you have an "assessed value" and you have a "target assessed value". if you look earlier in the thread I noted that various prperty classes have caps on increases, right? Well, the cap on the increases is only on the 'actual assessed value" (what you pay taxes on). but in reality, your property "should" have been assessed much higher, but couldn't because of the cap. So what can happen in an up turn is that the actual assessed value gets very far away from the "target assessed value" because of the caps (the reason I said single family home owners will be the big winners over Coop and Condo owners is due to the disparity in those caps). So anyway, your target is so far above your actual, that when the "real" value and "market" value both go down, you still may have a lowered target assessed value that is significantly about the actual assessed value due to these caps. All the hapens is that the actual value gets closer to the target value.

I hope at least someone was able to follow that.

30yrs,

You make it so thats anyone can understand RE. I Thank you again. Its great having you on SE and don't go. LOL.