The real comparison: empty lot vs. PILOT vs. full conventional tax

Under NJ law, PILOTs are only granted when the project would not happen without one. The relevant comparison is the PILOT scenario vs. the status quo (no development) — not vs. a hypothetical fully-taxed building that wouldn't get built.

$15.0B
$300M
$350M
$196M
$2.0M
$100M
$4.0M

A. No development

The real counterfactual

Tax base
School rate
City rate
County rate
Combined

B. Built with PILOT

What actually happens

Tax base
School rate
City rate
County rate
Combined

C. Built, full tax

Hypothetical (wouldn't happen)

Tax base
School rate
City rate
County rate
Combined

Impact on a $500,000 home

A. No development

B. With PILOT

C. Full tax (hypothetical)

B vs. A (PILOT vs. no development)
B vs. C (PILOT vs. hypothetical full tax)

The bottom line

All three levies are identical across all scenarios: schools collect , the city collects , and the county collects . The levies are set by each governing body — not by how any single property is taxed.

Compared to no development (the real counterfactual), the PILOT makes homeowners better off by because the PILOT revenue reduces the city's and county's need to raise revenue through the shared tax base, lowering the combined rate even after accounting for the school rate adjustment.

Scenario C is grayed out because it wouldn't happen. Under NJ law, PILOTs are only granted when the project is not financially viable without one.

Under a PILOT, 95% of revenue goes to the city and 5% to the county. The county levy default of $196M reflects JC's ~43% share of Hudson County's total levy. The county's PILOT shortfall is spread across all Hudson County municipalities, not just JC.