| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun, Nov 18 2007, 11:25 am EST Post subject: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
 |
|
So the Star Ledger has a report on state-wide tax increases for 2007.
The State average increase was 5%.
The average for Middlesex County was 7%, the second highest in the State.
Cranbury's increae was 16.9%, the second highst in Middlesex County (Perth Amboy was #1, but their resulting average tax was still less than 60% of the Cranbury rate).
Overall, Cranbury now has the HIGHEST AVERAGE TAX BILLin Middlesox County by a wide margin, at $9,144. The next closest is $8,350 (Highland Park) and the County average is $6,188. The State average is $6,504. Plainsboro is $8,093, Monroe is $5,364 and South Brunswick is $7,281.
That said, Cranury's dramatic increase is partially a result of having deferred the increases in previous years. When you look at the 7-year percentage increase, it isn't as much out of the norm, though like all NJ it is still substantial. The 7 year increase for Cranbury is 60.8%. The State 7-year increase is 52.2%. Plainsboro is 78.6%, Monroe is 77.5% and South Brunswick is 69.1% (so we have the smallest 7-year increase of our immediate neighbors. The total tax bill is also deceptive because Cranbury has a higher average property value than these other communities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Nov 18 2007, 5:53 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
Thanks for the info.
I am more concerned about the future direction of Cranbury's property tax. I hope the TC can keep the tax down for a least a few years. Otherwise, I'll be selling my home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff M.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Nov 19 2007, 11:20 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
| I agree with the above. The question is where are we going is this year a sign of things to come as the TC keeps spending? Or is it a blip and we'll see sanity in our taxes. I hope it is a blip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Nov 26 2007, 5:34 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
| Why can't tax increases be phased in over several years. It's crazy to pay $5000. one year and then have it almost double the next. If the warehouse developers don't like it, they can always sell out and move away! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Nov 27 2007, 10:00 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Why can't tax increases be phased in over several years. It's crazy to pay $5000. one year and then have it almost double the next. If the warehouse developers don't like it, they can always sell out and move away! |
A lots things in NJ don't make sense at all.
Why are there so many townships, and each has its own mayor, police department, library, schools, etc.? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Nov 27 2007, 10:35 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Why can't tax increases be phased in over several years. It's crazy to pay $5000. one year and then have it almost double the next. If the warehouse developers don't like it, they can always sell out and move away! |
I don't know why people keep blaming the warehouses. They don't control the process or the law. It would require a state action to "phase in" fair market re-assessment impacts on taxes. But in practice there is a practical way around this -- the Township should reassess more often or they should have had a more aggressive structure of measured increases to the rate over time instead of deferring for years then having a hige pill to swallow all at once. What the stats above show is that Cranbury's taxes have gone up less than other cities over time in total but that this year's increase was way out of the norm. That exactly shows that the Township had been artificially holding them down prior to this year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Nov 27 2007, 10:42 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Why can't tax increases be phased in over several years. It's crazy to pay $5000. one year and then have it almost double the next. If the warehouse developers don't like it, they can always sell out and move away! |
A lots things in NJ don't make sense at all.
Why are there so many townships, and each has its own mayor, police department, library, schools, etc.? |
I agree with your first sentence.
But not necessarily with the second. I have seen no evidence that the larger Townships have any economic efficiency of scale over the smaller ones. Most people make this assumption based on the intuative logic that bigger must be less redundant and therefore efficient. But what available points of data there are suggest otherwise. Take schools for example. Cranbury taxpayers not only effectively cover all the costs of our own schools but also subsidize other state schools. Guess which ones are the most subsidized and have the worst cost basis? The largest districts. Yet even after the dramatic tax increase this year, Cranbury still has one of the lowest tax bases in the County. So we are doing more with less, effectively. Major business is coming to the same conclusion more and more. Look at all the recent cases of large public companies that did a bunch of mergers, talked up "synergy" and are now splitting up again. Why? Because it didn't work. The bigger structures have more wasted middle-management layers, etc.
I would take our model in Cranbury over just about any other. As a local taxpayer base, we chose to prioritize the schools and the police and basically outsource everything else, creating a win-win for us and the partner Townships whom we pay for services. Our school system is comfortably small and very efficient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
police state
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Nov 27 2007, 9:02 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
The Cranbury school model is good.
NJ probably has the highest police density in the US. Most of them are busy writing traffic tickets! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 28 2007, 9:56 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
| A while ago, someone mentioned the California property tax model: the assessed value of a property is adjusted to the purchase price when the property is sold. The new owner will pay the property tax based on the purchase price. I think this is an idea Cranbury should explore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Nov 28 2007, 10:39 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | A while ago, someone mentioned the California property tax model: the assessed value of a property is adjusted to the purchase price when the property is sold. The new owner will pay the property tax based on the purchase price. I think this is an idea Cranbury should explore. |
Cranbury doesn't have the authority to do this. It requires a State-wide action. We would need to start lobbying our State senators and legislatures. Also, one of the consequences for California overall has been less quality public schools since it makes the tax base of a City totally dependent on the local housing market, not just prices but how much new sale churn is occurring to bring in market tax rates versus the legacy rates of long time owners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Dec 13 2007, 8:53 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury Taxes in Perspective |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Why can't tax increases be phased in over several years. It's crazy to pay $5000. one year and then have it almost double the next. If the warehouse developers don't like it, they can always sell out and move away! |
I don't know why people keep blaming the warehouses. They don't control the process or the law. It would require a state action to "phase in" fair market re-assessment impacts on taxes. But in practice there is a practical way around this -- the Township should reassess more often or they should have had a more aggressive structure of measured increases to the rate over time instead of deferring for years then having a hige pill to swallow all at once. What the stats above show is that Cranbury's taxes have gone up less than other cities over time in total but that this year's increase was way out of the norm. That exactly shows that the Township had been artificially holding them down prior to this year. |
Um....................because, the developers are the ones who stuck their noses into the residences business, Einstein!
We were here before THEY were. They knew the tax rate when they built their white elephants. They didn't like their rates, so they lobbied the township to re-evaluate the residential tax rate. Wake up and smell the stench! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
