Why New Jersey?
The New Jersey Advantage

. Located at the heart of the Boston-Washington megalopolis and with easy access to New York and Philadelphia, New Jersey is strategically located in an enormous concentration of consumers, laborers, and capital. Twelve states and over 60 million consumers lie within 250 miles of our borders, meaning that 28% of the nation's net purchasing power, nearly $800 billion, is within overnight delivery range of New Jersey. . New Jersey has more miles of railway and highway, relative to its size, than any other state in the country. Our well-developed infrastructure also boasts more than 12 commercial airports, including Newark International Airport, one of the most modern and fastest growing airports in the world. Newark Airport and the nearby LaGuardia and JFK airports collectively handle more air cargo than any other airport system in the world. The Port of New York/New Jersey is the third largest port in North America and the largest on the east coast; it has immediate access to four interstate highways and the highest volume of double-stack rail service on the eastern seaboard. On the other side of the state, the Delaware River is the fourth busiest port on the east coast and the second largest petroleum center in the country. . New Jersey is known as the "invention state." New Jersey has been home to some of the world's most famous inventors - starting with Thomas Edison, the wizard of Menlo Park, whose work received more than 1000 patents. New Jersey's companies and research institutions have produced at least 30 Nobel Prize winners, and the State currently houses over 140,000 researchers and scientists. About 1 out of every 10 private sector workers in New Jersey are employed by high tech firms. 11% of the nation's research dollars are expended in New Jersey, 95% of which comes from private sources; it is expected that $5.9 billion will be spent on research and development in our state this year. . New Jersey is also known as the "Medicine Chest of the Nation." The state has the nation's largest concentration of businesses that produce prescription pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter medications, generic prescription drugs, vitamins, diagnostics drugs, and medical devices. Of the seventeen pharmaceutical companies located in New Jersey, 10 of them have established their world headquarters here. New Jersey produces at least 43% of the pharmaceuticals sold in the United States, and over one-third of the most significant new drugs approved last year by the FDA were developed by New Jersey firms. . New Jersey is also a national leader in chemicals, instrumentation and related products, petroleum, plastics, and electrical equipment, as well as a number of new industries such as biotechnology, fiber optics, genetic engineering, and laser technology. . New Jersey is the fifth leading state in foreign direct investment and the ninth leading state in exports, with more than $22 billion worth of New Jersey goods exported overseas - a 12 percent increase over 1996. . There are more than 1200 non - US firms in New Jersey. 209,300 New Jerseyans, or 6.7% of the state's total private work force, are employed by these firms, the fourth largest number of any state in the country (more than any other state in the region). New Jersey ranks 8th in the nation in terms of total numbers of foreign workers. . New jersey gained more than 87,500 jobs in 1997. That same year, gross state products grew by more than 7 to $293 billion, while personal income of New Jerseyans increased by 5.5%. . Businesses can further reduce their tax liability in several ways. Certain investments made by companies for manufacturing equipment with a recovery life of four years or more are eligible for a credit against the New jersey Corporation Business Tax Liability for certain increased research expenditures in the state. The base period amounts and qualified expenditures are determined by t he guidelines for the federal research credit. Companies that make certain investments in new or expanded business facilities that are directly related to the creation of new jobs may be eligible for credits against their New Jersey Corporation Business Tax Liability. Other significant job credits are available for firms expanding, retaining, or relocating new jobs in New Jersey. . New Jersey offers an innovative, cooperative state government that offers plenty of programs to help your business grow and thrive. Please explore this web site to learn more about the programs.

Newark Coke - bottling plant delayed

The Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New York yesterday said construction of a $100 million bottling plant and distribution facility in Newark would not be completed until 2002 - at least two years later than promised by Mayor Sharpe James during his re election campaign. Robert Lanz, a spokesman for Coca Cola, said heavy construction would not begin until next year in the Ironbound section between Routes 1 & 9 and the New Jersey Turnpike for facilities that may even eventually employ more than 1,100 people. Part of the reason for the delay which is being pushed back six months is that Coca Cola increased the square footage of the warehouse and bottling plant, Lanz said. The floor plan changes which still need approval from the Newark Central Planning Board, won't increase the number of workers, however. "We'll be well under way a year from now and within 18 months of that, we will have the market service center and production facility complete," Lanz said. "It didn't happen quite as fast as we wanted, but a few month is no big deal with us." The plant was a centerpiece of James's successful campaign for a fourth term. He announced two weeks before the May general election Coca Cola would create 400 high paying jobs for local residents over the next two years as truck drivers, stock handlers and clerical workers. Newark's 11 percent unemployment is double the state average and second only to Camden among New Jersey's largest cities. Lanz quickly released a statement at the time that said the jobs likely would be created in five years. He said this week that Coca Cola was still on schedule to have the facilities in operation in four years in the heat of the next municipal election. The company purchased the abandoned Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Co. factory site in May. "I told you Coca Cola is coming to town with jobs that pay between $66,000 and $88,000 a year." James said yesterday. "It's going to happen." Deputy Mayor Alfred Faiella said Coca Cola would begin seeking Central Planning Board approval and construction permits in late spring and, later the Newark City Council would be asked to approve legislation extending property tax breaks and discount water. "We've been on the telephone twice a week with their Florida people," Faiella said. "It's been moving along." To lure Coke, the city and state have said they offered a package of local property tax breaks, income tax credits and job training fund. City officials estimate that the facilities, once operational, would generate as much as $2.5 million a year in city payroll taxes, water and sewer fees and service fees in lieu of property taxes. A major selling point for Newark was water. The city, formally home to a half dozen breweries and milk bottling plants, operates a watershed in northern New Jersey capable of producing 80 million gallons of fresh drinking water daily. The bottling plant is projected to use as much as 1.5 million gallons of water daily and be the source of the lion's share for new jobs, Faiella said. The Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New York is a division of Coca-Cola Enterprises, the world's largest soft drink bottling company. The Coca Cola Co., based in Atlanta, sells soft drink syrup to bottling plants around the world, which then manufacture and distribute the beverage. Lanz said heavy equipment would begin clearing the 41 acre site this summer to prepare for construction to begin next year on the warehouse facility. On July 19th the Planning Board approved the preliminary site plan.

Court creates guidelines for valuing contaminated property

Landowners, appraisers, tax assessors, counsel and courts alike have for some time been grappling with issue as to how environmental contamination, and its remediation, affects the value of real property for tax assessment purposes. Few cases have offered particular guidance on the subject, and hence tax counsel, appraisers and property owners involved in appeals of tax assessments on contaminated real property should be aware of recent court decisions on this issue. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Minnesota recently decided the case of Westling et al. Vs County of Mille Lacs (Sup.Ct., March 4 1994). The Westling case involved an assessment of $974,00(as of 1991 assessment date) on two contiguous parcels of property (totaling about 20 acres) upon which was operated a company whose business was the remanufacture of auto parts. The property was found to be contaminated with tetrachloroethylene, which is a degreasing agent used by the company in its business. The Minnesota Pollution control Agency (the MPCA) also believed that the soil was contaminated with heavy metals. The MPCA placed the property on the state Superfund list in 1990. As of August 1992, the company had spent $250,000 to investigate and monitor the environmental problems at the site. An engineering firm estimated that remediation of the site would take about 10 years and it estimated that the remediation would cost about $60,000 per year for 10 years. At the trial before the Tax Court, the owner presented testimony that a stigma attaches to polluted properties which makes them difficult to sell. An expert testified that no party interested in purchasing the property could obtain financing because of the contamination present on the property. An appraiser testified before the Tax Court on behalf of the county that using the three standard appraisal methodologies(cost, sales comparison and income capitalization, but relying predominantly on the income approach) and incorporating information regarding the costs of remediating the property, the property was worth $880,000 as of the assessment date. The county's expert valued the property as though it was uncontaminated, and then deducted the present value of the cost of cleanup. He also deducted an allowance for the effect of the stigma on the property's value. After the trial, the Tax Court found that because the property was placed on the superfund list, and because both the extent of contamination and cost of curing it were unknown, the property was unmarketable. The Tax Court reduced the value of the property to $100. The Supreme Court found that the Tax Court's decision failed to hold the taxpayers to their burden of proof since in reaching its decision the Tax Court is bound to regard the assessor's valuation as prima facie valid, and requires the taxpayer to shoulder the burden of proving that value excessive. In this regard the Supreme Court noted that the Tax Court ignored the fact that the owner purchased on the parcels knowing that the land was contaminated, and that it was able to obtain a loan for the purchase despite the contamination. The Supreme Court also noted that the Tax Court ignored the fact that the property is being used for a substantial commercial enterprise which generates significant annual income, that the owner had not attempted to sell the property, and that the owner is responsible for the property contamination. Most significantly, however, the Supreme Court held that traditional appraisal techniques, appropriately modified to account for the effects of environmental contamination, are adequate for determining a property's market value. Hence, the Tax court's disregard of the county expert's testimony was inappropriate. The case was remanded to the Tax Court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement. In another case, In re Appeal of E.P. Oil Co.Inc. (Com. Ct., Nov.3, 1993), which was before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, involved a value for assessment purposes of $2.4 million for the 1992 tax year on property operated as a truck stop in Jefferson County, Pa. The ground water and soil on the subject property was contaminated with benzene, toluene, ethly benzene and polynu-clear aeromatics. An expert concluded that it would take about five years to remediate the contamination and would cost an estimated $653,000. At the trial court hearing, the taxpayer's appraiser testified that the contamination was a form of economic depreciation that had a negative impact on the property's fair market value. The appraiser concluded that the cost approach to value was the most appropriate method in valuing contaminated real property. He reasoned that, under that approach, the fair market value is calculated by subtracting the cost to cure the contamination from the amount of the value the property would have had if it were not contaminated. Using this approach, the taxpayer's appraiser arrived at a value of the property in an uncontaminated state of $1,586,833. From that figure, he subtracted the $653,730 cost of remediation. Hence, the taxpayer's expert's ultimate calculation of the value of the property was $933,630. The county assessor testified that he did not consider the contamination in arriving at the value of $2.4 million. The trial court determined that the introduction of the assessment records by the county constituted a prima facie case that the original assessment reflected market value. The trial court concluded that the taxpayer failed to produce sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity which attaches to the original assessment. Needless to say, the trial court upheld the original assessment. The Commonwealth Court concluded that the taxpayer introduced sufficient evidence to over come the prima facie validity of the original assessment. The case was remanded for consideration by the trial court as to whether the original assessment was excessive, it must determine the market value of the property in its contaminated condition. Finally, in a ruling that tangentially affects valuation in real property tax matter. The Internal Revenue Service, in Revenue Ruling 94-338, Internal Revenue Bulletin 1994-25 (June 20, 1994), determined that costs incurred to remediate and treat underground water that a taxpayer contaminated with hazardous waste from its business are deductible by the taxpayer as ordinary and necessary business expenses under Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code. However, costs properly allocable to constructing ground water treatment facilities are capital expenditures under Section 263 of the Internal Revenue Code. In so holding, the IRS concluded that the test for determining whether the remediation expenditures are deducted or capitalized is whether the value of the property remains the same, or whether expenditure increases the value of the property, respectively. In permitting a dollar income tax deduction for remediation expenditures, the IRS stated that the taxpayer's soil remediation and ongoing ground water treatment expenditures do not result in improvements that increase the value of the property because the taxpayer has merely restored it soil and ground water to the approximate condition before they were contaminated by the taxpayer. By not permitting capitalization of remediation expenses, the IRS unwittingly adds support to analogous concept that in valuing real property remediation expenses should be deducted from the putative value on a dollar for dollar basis. As noted above, the Minnesota and Pennsylvania courts seem to agree, or at the very least recognize, this proposition, However, other courts, such as the New Jersey Supreme Court ( see Inmar Associates v. Borough of Carlstadt, 112 N.J. 593(1988)), seem to favor "capitalizing" remediation expenses over time for purposes of reducing assessments of contaminated property in real property assessment appeals. Time will only tell which approach will eventually become rule.

Paris Real Estate, Inc., Announces a Multi-Million Dollar Acquisition in Newark

On Friday May 14, 1999, at 11:00 am., at 536 Broad St. Newark, the newly chartered Simon Bolivar Charter School, held a "Site Dedication" ceremony. Rita Aizman of Paris Real Estate was instrumental in bringing together real estate investor David Dubrow of Dubrow Management and the Simon Bolivar Charter School for the purchase of 50,000 sf office building, formally owned by Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company. The building will be fit up for their September opening The Simon Bolivar Charter School is a multicultural, multilingual high school, which will serve a rapidly expanding immigrant population in Newark." Said Cruz, "most of our students speak languages other than English, and we will encourage multi-culturalism by making sure that they also take another non-English language class." As a Charter School, Simon Bolivar is classified as an "independent public school." Cruz added that it has a "great relationship with the Newark Board of Education." Left to right: Felix Cruz, Co-founder and Manager of Development, Rita Aizman, Paris Real Estate, Inc. Vincent Myers, Mrchitect, David Dubrow, Dubrow Management, Jane Newton, Assistant Mgr. of Development, Ted Ciesla, Contractor

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO VIEW IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION

[Previous]	Special Home Listings
[Next]	How to contact us
[Up]	Home Page
[Home]	Home Page
[Mail]	Send EMail to PARIS REAL ESTATE INC.
[Contents]	PARIS REAL ESTATE INC. Contents