| Author |
Message |
    
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3859
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 8:19 am: | 
|
JF, I agree with a lot of what you bring up in your "stat" post, many are really extended to afford their rents or mortgages. However, I have a real problem with households in the $70,000 to $80,000 catagory as "low income" which is what 80% of the mean household incomes here are. This is still about 50% higher than the state mean income. Also, Maplewood with its new extremes makes means, averages and just about everything else meaningless.
I shudder at what is going to happen if the taxes are redistributed along the lines of the work that Lseltzer did. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:55 pm: |
|
bobk, that's the accepted defintion from HUD, of "low income" (I'm just back from a workshop on local demographic analysis and learned this and a bunch of other neat stuff.)
And, yes, it's relative--to the definition of "local area." (It would look a bit different compared to the Essex County median, the NY metro median, or the State median.) The reason it is used is because measures based on "poverty level" of other national formulas don't begin to account for local cost of living variations--and cost of living, especially housing, and also daycare, is very high in the NY Metro area.
50% of local median is "very low income" and 20% is "extremely low income" and we have some of those too.
The definition gives us some sense of how many folks are really financially stretched, a little or a lot--though certainly most of those people are not living in anything like poverty.
BTW: 80% of median household income is
$63,709 in M'wood and 68,888 in SO
for family income (which excludes gay or other unmarried householders, including students) it is:
$74,179 in M'wood and $86,112 in SO
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3866
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Jf, I used the figures from Clarita which ar on MSN.com and are current estimates. For MW the mean household income is $90,007 and the same figure for SO is $103,418. Using the census data, which is actually reflective of 1999 levels is so last century. 
One way or another I don't disagree that an awful lot of Maplewoodians and South Orangites are over extended, although I don't think this is just a local problem. I also don't feel that regardless of the actual income figure used here in MW were houses run from $200,000 to $1,500,000 that 80% is a true indicator of low income. If you break numbers down by census tract the median household income by tract ranges from around $55,000 to $133,000 according to the 2000 census.
I shudder to think of what will happen as taxes continue to climb and/or taxes are reapportioned as LSeltzer's data would seem to indicate they should be.
Although at this point I think it would be more profitable to discuss ways to ease the tax burden, even if it is a little like jousting at wind mills.
DQ
|
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Whatever, bobk.
You don't believe in averages or medians or just about everything else, including accepted definitions of terms. You just "shudder to think".
I am trying to make sense of what we can know and base our speculations and imaginings on some sound information. No, it doesn't answer the questions, but neither does your shuddering.
Yes, my numbers are as of 2000. What year is the Claritas data? Does it give the number of households for each income range as well as the medians? It would be a simple matter then to recalculate the percentages based on newer data. And that might tell us something about the post-reval picture. |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 305
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Tax reform in NJ will come only after they run out of warm bodies to tax. This will happen in 6 to 7 yrs. when the ever increasing amount of empty nest babybommers realize that it is economicly stupid to continue to live in NJ or NY. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 449
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Amen, Jet. It will take a total collapse before things change. I have no party in mind in NJ that has the will or scruples to fix it. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 2:34 pm: |
|
The thing is, total collapse doesn't happen much. Life goes on and things change--for better or for worse, depending upon your perspective--and politicians know this.
I certainly agree that we need a better way to fund education--and if I think about 7% property tax increases year after year till my kids graduate HS, I am not happy about it.
But I am happier than I would have been in the city (based on friends' miserable experiences trying to make public schools work and the cost of private schooling there). And I am happier than I'd have been in Cambridge (which I loved) where the cost of living was also high and where we never could have owned a home. And, I am probably happier here than I would be in lots of states with lower cost of living, and the household income is here, and the primary wage earner would live almost nowhere but here. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3868
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 2:50 pm: |
|
I believe the census bureau also does estimates and I think I saw them during a trip to the data mine, although I didn't keep a copy or a bookmark. My recollection is that the estimates which were for 2002 were about 16% above the census numbers which seems to track with MSN.
"Low income" from the definition you learned a relative thing. Someone making north of $100,000 is low income in Short Hills.
Why the hostility? I agree with your basic premise that many households here are under housing cost stress. If the current trend in tax rates continues to rise we are all going to be in deep excrement.
|
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 306
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 3:01 pm: |
|
jfburch, you are right, I love living in Mwood , would find it tough to leave. There is also a total collapse going on in NJ right now , it's called the NJ Transportation Trust Fund it will be insolvent in 12mo.. It provides funding for roads & trains , has mountains of debt, it's broke, because of gross mismangement. Not to worry the extra 15cents a gallon you will soon be paying is going to fix that. Get read to start hearing about how we have some of the lowest gas taxes in the nation to soft peddle this to us. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 8:56 pm: |
|
No hostility bob, just annoyance at your inclination to argue about standard measures and definitions--especially a) if you agree with my point and b) since I wasn't making much of the "low income" category, so there isn't much at stake in this context.
Yes, it's relative. By definition and on purpose. I suppose someone with just 100K a year would be low income for Short Hills and find it hard to keep up with the Joneses there. I think we all know that's not the same as low income in Irvington or the Bronx.
What do you forsee if the current trend in tax rates continues? Can you make your doom and gloom explicit?
I forsee changes--some of them undesirable for folks who want to stay in town, or their current house and can't afford to. And maybe undesirable for the town if ratables come in a form or location that takes something away from the community. I am not sure I see catastrophe for the town--at least until we reach the catastrophe point for similarly tax stressed towns in NJ and the metro area.
|
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 517
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Jfburch- you wrote, "But I am happier than I would have been in the city (based on friends' miserable experiences trying to make public schools work and the cost of private schooling there). Do NYC schools spend less or more than we do? If you stayed in the city, would you send your child to private school? Why? |
mtierney
Citizen
Username: Mtierney
Post Number: 431
Registered: 3-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 5:20 pm: |
|
This thread reminds me of how disappointed I was with the TC when it failed to join Millburn, Montclair and Roseland in their attempt to leave Essex County.
Sure, it probably is not doable, but the act of rebellion was what was so important IMHO. Until communities like ours make enough noise about property taxes collectively, we will all be ignored.
What we got from the TC instead were Iraq proclamations, environmental positions, etc. etc.
Never have I heard a politician state he/she had a plan to put an end to this burden. All we get are the reasons nothing can be done! |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 179
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 8:39 pm: |
|
You guys need to get out more, out of state, that is. There are other neat, diverse places to live beyond the small selection of N NJ towns cited. I pretty much think that matters won't get better in Joisey until folks say "Enough, already..." and start moving out. Ordinary middle class folks who are paying a lot of the taxes, and suffering. Plenty of college towns in the east and mid-west afford a racially and economically diverse climate. True, one can't as readily run into The City. But you know what? When you're not paying every cent just to stay afloat you can afford weekend trips to the city.
I'm coming to grips with having to live in NNJ for work reasons but, really, there's other places...with good libraries, intelligent people, tolerance, etc.
|
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 10:02 pm: |
|
Lumpy, I'm not sure of the nyc per pupil cost, IIR it's a bit lower than ours. And I wouldn't be able to afford to send my kids to private school (w/out huge amouts of scholarship)--which is where lots of people end up when they move out. And I know several who have tried and really struggled in nyc's "choice" system to get their kid into a functioning school that doesn't require an hour on the subway each way. Whether one can make it work depends on where one lives in they city and how lucky one is. It's just not the same kind of stressful problem here and that's a huge quality of life factor.
cyncial girl--it's certainly true that there are lots of other places to live--and I've spent many happy years far from here--but it doesn't matter how many disillusioned folks move away as long as the demand--for whatever reasons--in this area remains strong, as it appears to be doing. And taxes in many places in Westchester, CT, and LI are as bad, or nearly so as in NNJ. |
thevillagepub
Citizen
Username: Thevillagepub
Post Number: 134
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 11:10 pm: |
|
I like Maplewood, but if things continue as they are, most Maplewood families will be forced to move on to cheaper towns farther out. The median family income level will increase, but the same issues will continue. The "it's all relevant" argument will continue, while Maplewood loses the roots it prides itself on and becomes a community of transients. If only our elected officials would represent the "will of the people".
TheVillagePub |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2432
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 11:17 pm: |
|
Cynical Girl is correct, that there are any number of small college towns which "afford a racially and economically diverse climate."
But, the pizza s*cks. IMHO, from personal experience.
Okay, maybe we're trying to "have it all". Can't blame us for that, can you? And, in the end, reforming the funding for education in this state will benefit everyone. For example, folks out in the more rural areas could stop trying to lure Wal-Marts and condo developments to add to rateables. If we don't make a change, everyone can look forward to serious sprawl across NJ. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 180
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 6:09 am: |
|
I'm not a fan of really big commutes, but you'd be surprised how many people live in Delaware and parts of PA near Philly, and commute into NYC. The round trip time can be equal to that for living out in Long Island (for example) or NW NJ. I used to live in DE, and I'd see all these people Metroliner to NYC. Even with the cost of the monthly metro (or especially conventional) they made out like bandits in terms of cost of living.
Some days I wish I'd done that route, but boss at the time wanted a fair amount of OT. Cost of living in N Delaware, and burbs of Philly is often 1/3 less than up here. House prices are half of Maplewood when you factor in taxes.
I'm not kidding about the effect of a middle class exodus. Younger people with whom I work are looking out near Morristown, willing as they are to do a longer commute in exchange for more land, safety, lower taxes, etc. After they've done the requisite years as cool hip night person living in Hoboken, NYC, Brooklyn, they often seem willing to make their home further away... |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3874
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 8:56 am: |
|
Hi Jf,
Please excuse my delay in getting back to this thread. I really wanted to think about it, instead of giving a canned reply.
First, I don’t see how overall expenditures are going to increase at a rate below 5% per year, mostly because of the schools. I also don’t think that we are going to be able to pick up significant rateables to affect the tax rate significantly. I know that is kind of pessimistic, but I don’t think very many people would disagree.
Second, for the 25 years or so we have lived here housing prices have been a feast or famine situation. There are periods when housing prices shoot up like a rocket and other periods where they stagnate or even decrease. Lseltzer posted some tables on this a couple of months ago. When interest rates are reasonable and Aquarius is otherwise aligned with Mars prices in Maplewood increase at the same rate as towns such as Millburn and Summit. Unfortunately, while during most of the 1990s Millburn saw some appreciation in housing prices, those in Maplewood stagnated or decreased. The same is true with South Orange where many homeowners were successful in appealing their assessments that had done at the height of the previous boom market. As a result their property tax situation is a crazy quilt.
Part of the issue is that Maplewood has always been viewed by many as a place for people who can’t afford the higher prices in Millburn, Summit, Chatham, etc. in a strong market. I don’t think this was ever totally true, and now a days our Town is getting a lot of buzz and people are moving here by choice. Because of this the previous boom-bust cycle may not be as great as it has been in the past, but still will be a factor in the future.
A decrease in housing prices could be catastrophic for many here since it is my sense that a lot of people are putting very little down to buy (5% or less) and then going either the refinance or credit line route to obtain money for home improvements as the value of their investment increases. Most lines of credit are on an adjustable rate basis and when rates go up, this is going to cause stress. I also suspect that quite a few people are taking out adjustable rate mortgages, which can also cause the same problem.
There is also the possibility that we are going to have to use the software from CVI and redistribute the tax burden. Again, the esteemed Lseltzer did a study on 2003 sales vs assessments. If these trends continue there will have to be an increase in taxes in lower valued neighborhoods and a decrease on higher valued areas. I suspect some of the folks living on the hill are in the stressed range. However, I also suspect more stressed folks live in lower valued neighborhoods.
You put all these together and there is a real possibility of a significant number of foreclosures, people walking away and mailing the keys to the bank, etc., which did happen in the early 1990s although not on a wholesale scale. That, with the school system having major funding and test score issues, makes it pretty hard for me to paint a rosy picture for Maplewood over the next five or ten years.
|
NinersMan
Citizen
Username: Ninersman
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Cynicalgirl: Morristown, interestingly, has many of the same problems as Maplewood: a large, poor, lower class, mostly Hispanic.Thus a section of society likely needing more in the way of add'l services, aid, from local govt. And the town has a decent crime level - I know the 2nd in command police. So there goes the safety issue. Also, the high school used to be one of the best in the state, similar to Maplewood. Now look where they rank. An omen for Maplewood?? |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 182
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 6:57 pm: |
|
I hear you, NinersMan. These younger homesteaders at work could be chasing something elusive.
Check out this week's Time mag for an article on jobs, and people moving to parts of Florida, etc. and suddenly finding an enhanced quality of life (housing and safety). Family who used to live in Mahwah or some such place going from living in a dingy apartment to something a whole lot better. That's what I'm getting at -- that sometimes people used to living NYC or CA don't understand that life doesn't have to be this hard...
Got me thinking... |
Joan
Citizen
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 2173
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Lumpyhead:
I don't know how familiar you are with the NYC school system. The sad truth is that many of the schools there are viewed as unsafe and as having poor academics. This may not be true in all cases but is true enough of the time for families to consider sending their children to private school if it is at all possible.
This attitude removes the children whose parents are most concerned about their children getting a good and safe education and who can afford a private school alternative from the school population which unfortunately results in dragging the schools down even further. From an economic standpoint however it means that the public school system does not have to serve as high a percentage of the school aged population as Maplewood's school system does. Also, NYC schools are funded differently. More funding comes from income taxes than from real property txes and the NYC schools receive way more in State funding than we do.
The two systems really are not comparable for the purpose of this discussion. |
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 9:18 pm: |
|
bobk, you've hit on some of the variability of the situation, but as usual focus on just a couple of the possible outcomes, and even those are hedged.
I think if we really were a year or few from a complete train wreck, it would be easier to make a change. I think we need one, but the "sky is falling, we have to" argument just doesn't seem compelling--even if the rest of the state, and the various parties that benefit from the status quo cared about our little problems.
|
jfburch
Citizen
Username: Jfburch
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:18 pm: |
|
Nohero, I agree that the whole problem of sprawl is definitely linked to the property tax situation--and that's at least an argument that addresses a broader constituency in several different ways.
villagepub, I don't know about "most". Again, as of 2000, something like 15 to 20% was paying less than 15% of income for housing--renters and owners. 38% were well off enough to afford even the highest taxes. A goodly (though increasing) percentage have been housing stressed since 1990, and the percentage is higher in SO, and nearly even throughout the town--and that's exactly what most of Westchester or Nassau counties look like. There is much more local variability in housing costs and rates of housing stress in Essex county (not even looking at Newark) than in other close in metro NY suburban areas--and that does fuel the "grass is greener" perceptions locally, but it doesn't mean demand in this area is going to disappear anymore than it has in Westchester.
Sure, some people will head west. Others might (and are) going to West Orange or other nearby but cheaper towns. The cheaper neighborhoods will probably become more solidly "middle" class (by local measures). The whole town may look more like SO in terms of costs and rates of stress. Some of the most stressed are older, and they will eventually leave one way or the other. Young families that stay will reach their peak earnings years, making them better off even as, or after taxes increase. Some lucky folks will pay off their mortgages, especially if they refinanced to 15 years with the low rates, and etc. There may be more families living with a grandparent householder, or adult children staying home/coming back to contribute to the household income.
Something's gotta give sometime--here as in places like Westchester and Nassau, but it's really hard to know if it will be soon or not, and what shape it will take. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 230
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 11:09 am: |
|
The time horizon for Trenton action seems to lengthening. See story from the Star-Ledger at http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-5/106939830987630.xml?starledger?n nj |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3908
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 8:32 am: |
|
Kinda discouraging, hah? |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:42 am: |
|
Not to me, bobk. I like what the governor said. It's bad news, but it seems honest.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3913
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 4:39 am: |
|
Tom, without significant increases, or at least a restoration of state aid for education to a level pre-Whitman, we are going to be faced with major tax increases for the foreseeable future. The BOE has projections on the table that are around 7% per year for the next three years. Sadly, the alternative of freezing education spending is not attractive either,especially with enrollment once again on the rise.
However, different strokes for different folks. |
lamojo
Citizen
Username: Lamojo
Post Number: 56
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:17 am: |
|
Anybody see the editorial in the NJ section of the Sunday NYT? It was all about how we have so many municipalities, counties, etc. that contribute to the outrageous taxes, and it suggests consolidation on all levels would cut taxes in half. Of course, then there'd be a bunch of people out of work....
I can't find the link for the article online, unfortunately. |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1168
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:57 am: |
|
There's supposed to be a discussion of this on the Brian Lehrer show today at 10am. That's in a few minutes from now. I wish I could listen.
bobk, I must have expressed myself badly. It is indeed terrible news. I was merely happy with the frank tone McGreevey used, not the news he brought. I think you and I agree.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 234
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 10:00 am: |
|
This follow-up column to Gov. McGreavy's comments last week documents the similarity in property tax solutions coming out of Trenton for the last decade: http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/106974365248 161.xml
Net - we can expect no state-wide solution in the foreseeable future, leaving local innovation as a last hope.
JTL |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page