| Author |
Message |
    
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:18 pm: |     |
For those who want to use their real names, that is your decision. This board is anonymous; that's the way it is set up. If you really want to know who you are talking to, call one of your friends. |
Nicky
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 8:59 am: | |
Thomas:
I too heard the westside was valued at 1 million dollars an acre (same as Old Summit). Does anyone know what they valued the eastside per acre? |
Citizen
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 11:25 am: | |
Let's not forget Certified is only the symptom to what may be a more serious ailment.
We should look beyond the issue of east vs west and whose is going up and whose is going down (I personally rather doubt the two will cancel out and the tax cookie jar will contain the same revenue income as before). There are longer term questions needing to be addressed, including: are we facing budget gaps that are not being publicly revealed; are there issues of mismanagement, both inherited and created by the current leadership, that have led to a need to increase tax revenues; what will the real property tax rate eventually be, and what will that rate be based on in terms of fiscal needs both current and long term; is the town's debt rating slipping, and if so what will that mean for a new bond offering and our future ability to raise badly needed educational and infrustructure improvement funding?
Lots of serious questions, very few answers. The Town has the chance to set the record straight, let's see if they seize this rare opportunity. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 11:58 am: | |
If you have serious questions about the economy and the debt service in NJ check out the article on the second to last page of the NJ section of the Times. It's all laid out there for you how we and our children will continue to pay for Whitman's fuzzy funding for many years to come. She goes off to DC smelling like a rose while we step in her dog dirt. School funding being only one of the areas that she screwed around with. De Luca, et al have nothing to do with the total property tax rates. Good luck getting your money's worth out of that deal. The local and county municipalities are paying for Whitman's follies. That's you and me folks. All over town. As far as local educational costs go, how many of you would take a job that paid 30,000 that required the level of effort and aggravation that teaching does on a daily basis? Raise your hands, now. We need volunteers here. What, you're not independently wealthy? You think teachers should be able to afford to live in the same town if they want to?
The standard of teaching will fall further in Maplewood-South Orange if we continue to pay our teachers at the current rate. Take a lesson from New York City here. Columbia H.S. suffers, in part, from a high turnover of teachers. So we get lots of new, bright folks who leave after 2 or 3 years for better pay in other districts or in the business world. Hard to build a solid educational base on that paradigm.
Bacata |
Nicky
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 1:04 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan:
Can you please answer my question. thanks. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 1:18 pm: | |
Nicky: I don't know the answer to your question. I don't know if it is true that "the westside was valued at $1M per acre"; in fact, I don't know what any "side" is valued at. |
Nicky
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 1:29 pm: | |
Thanks again Mr. Ryan. |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 2:34 pm: | |
Nakaille: the teacher's union negotiated the salary structure it has, where the senior teachers earn about sixty to seventy thousand, for a ten month job, with liberal vacations within, and the low entry salaries.
Blame the union, not the victim-first timer teachers.
DWM |
Citizen
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 2:37 pm: | |
Bacata...
Whether you would care to admit it or not, we seem to be in violent agreement on most points. I do believe, however, that Mr. DeLuca and team have the power to approve/reject the property tax rate Mr. Gallante proposes. One would assume that decision process would be based, among other things, on the Town's upcoming budget, which is a conversation I have yet to see covered anywhere. Some would like to believe the reval is separate from a budget discussion; however, it is my belief the two are not mutually exclusive. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 4:40 pm: | |
Citizen: The assessor does not propose a property tax rate, he takes the information from Certified, determines if it is or is not correct and makes adjustments accordingly, and finalizes it as the assessment for the Township.
Your belief that the reval and the budget discussion are not mutually exclusive is not correct. The 2001 budgets are not finalized until April or May (for the school), June or July for the town, and July or August for the county. Everyone must be told their assessment for 2001 (based on the value on Oct 1, 2000) in the January/February time frame in order to allow time for the tax appeal process. |
Citizen
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 7:52 pm: | |
Thank you for responding Mr. Ryan...
May I ask how the rate is established and why Mr. Galante has been mentioning a 2.66 rate to individuals in private discussions?
I understand that the budgets are not finalized -- I appreciate your information, but does that mean the Committee does not know where there may be trouble spots/shortfalls ahead? Are you also saying that the Committee will not take into consideration the potential revenue windfall of the reval when finalizing the budgets during the year? |
Eliz
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 8:04 pm: | |
Citizen - Mr Ryan has explained the 2.66 rate ad nauseum - please reread some of these threads. |
Citizen
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 8:41 pm: | |
Dear Eliz...
If you are answering for Mr. Ryan, perhaps you could help me locate a message in which he has explained how the rate is/will be identified. Looking through the threads in this category did not yield that explanation. If you could provide the category header in which the explanation is contained, I would be most grateful.
Thank you for your help. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 9:16 pm: | |
Citizen, Look at "Reval Statistics and Distribution", a thread that Jerry started on 1/11. His first posting has an explanation of where the 2.66 figure came from. It is what you would get if the new townwide valuation had been applied to the current year's budget.
For more, try doing a keyword search on "2.66". |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 9:26 pm: | |
Citizen: For future reference, to find stuff on this board, select "Keyword Search" on the left, type what you are looking for and then hit "perform Search". This generated 32 hits on "2.66".
Here is the short answer:
The entire town went up by a factor of 3.84. The OLD tax rate was 10.21% of assessed valuation. IF the new assessment had been in place in 2000, THEN the tax rate would have been 10.21%/3.84, or 2.66%.
2001 budgets are not finalized, so we do not know what changes are proposed for 2001.
There is NO revenue windfall from reval. The total amount raised by taxes does NOT change after a reval. |
Citizen
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 10:14 pm: | |
Thank you for the guidance. I appreciate it. |
Davidbuckley
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 11:15 pm: | |
I believe that we are seeing candor and concern from former Mayor and present TC member Gerard (btw, is it Gerry or Jerry?) Ryan. None of the TC members have been credibly accused of having anything other than the town's best interests at heart.
This entire process is moving forward, anyone who wants to will have the right to appeal and above all let us all commit to be reasonable, open minded, courteous and civil at the town meeting on Tuesday.
PS to Nilmeister: You state the obvious when you say: "This board is anonymous; that's the way it is set up." The board is of course set up so all can choose anonymity OR openness. You choose the former, I choose the latter. I only express my opinion when I suggest that ones words have more weight when one stands openly behind them by using ones' REAL NAME.
Be well, all.
David Buckley |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 8:10 am: | |
Thank you, David, I appreciate your kind words.
I also agree with your point on anonymity.
Jerry (with a J) Ryan |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:56 am: | |
Is it Jerrold?
DWM |
Kathy
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 3:18 pm: | |
DWM, What?? His name, under which he posts, is Gerard Ryan. "Jerry" is traditionally spelled with a 'J' even when the full name starts with a 'G'. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 4:13 pm: | |
Kathy, DWM likes to have the last word. |
Papa
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:05 pm: | |
gerry BULL DROPPINGS you and I both know that that is not true. The tax will not work out the same.....The town will end up with more MONEY.... |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:14 pm: | |
Papa: there's no point in talking with you, obviously. What I have said is true. Sorry you either can't understand or won't believe it. |
Dave
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:16 pm: | |
P-
You are wrong. The reval is a zero sum gain for the town. That's been explained time and again.
Dave |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page