| Author |
Message |
    
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 2:55 pm: |     |
Dear Gerry Ryan: To say I think it's "sinister" is taking it a bit far. I think it's dishonest. A recent example: I called the Municipal Building on Wednesday and was told the Friday Township Committee meeting was closed. When I asked about the Sunshine Law, I was again told that the meeting was closed and the public could be present for roll call etc., and then it would be absolutely closed. I called again on Thursday and received the same information. I decided to come down anyhow on Friday and see for myself. On Friday morning at approx. 8:50 AM Michelle Meade told a group of citizens standing in the front hall that the meeting was closed. Ten minutes later (after some folks left) it was open. It's a stretch to believe that no one on the Township Committee or those included in the meeting knew that a good portion of it would be open until 8:55 that morning. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 4:27 pm: | |
Well as I said to you in my last posting, "Fairtax", I found out that morning. You can call me dishonest if you like, but you would be incorrect. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 6:17 pm: | |
If all the revals aren't done then no one can know what the taxes are. The total property taxes HAVE to add up to the previous year, otherwise it would be a tax increase. The pie remains the same, correct? |
Kathy
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 7:06 pm: | |
"Fairtax", What is fair is that each property owner pay the same percentage (2.66, or whatever it may be) of the value of his/her property in taxes. But because of the uneven way that property values have increased since the last valuation, people on the east side of town are paying a much bigger percentage of the current value of their homes than are people on the west side. Yes, taxes on the west side are high already (they are high everywhere in the two towns, relative to most other places) but looking only within the borders of Maplewood, many people on the west side have not been paying their "fair share" for many years. And apparently some of them still don't want to pay it. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 7:45 pm: | |
"Kathy" - I'm in complete agreement with you that each property owner should pay the same % of the value of his/her property. I'm not anti-property taxes and I fully expect that my taxes will rise annually in proportion to the revenue needed. I object to the methodology of Certified Valuations' assessment process: The "east" was assessed according to 1999 comparables, the "west" was assessed according to 2000 comparables - a big difference. All of Maplewood was supposed to be assessed looking at property values from 3 years; 1998,99 & 2000 - which would have given a long-term snapshot of what the real estate market does here. The assessment for the west was conducted during the hottest market where real estate bidding wars were commonplace and therefore market values in some neighborhoods were wildly inflated. I think that if a reassessment was done during a "cooler" market we might see that there aren't the extreme fluctuations between east and west. Yes, some people may be overpaying and some may be underpaying, but it's unlikely that it's more than half the town underpaying. I think the Township Committee has an obligation to see that the program was properly conducted and results in fair and proper assessments. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 8:00 pm: | |
Who says that is what was done? I live in what is likely your definitition of the east side - what others call the middle. Since we bought in 2000 I can tell you pretty definitely that there were bidding wars on all the homes we were interested in over here and any home that wasn't a dump sold well over asking. We lost out on a few homes before paying 18k over asking for our house. Our reval is slightly less than what we paid - but relatively accurate for today's market. It certainly isn't what it would have sold for in 98 or even 99. |
Barleyrooty
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 8:50 pm: | |
I would like to add some facts.
1. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes for the town - which I love and wish to continue to support.
2. What I do mind is paying way over my fair share.
3. My valuation was 56% above what I paid for the house in early 1999 - with no capital improvements. It seems to me highly unlikely that the property market has risen that much, even in a hot market. Since the valuation (according to a prior posting) was supposed to be over a 3 year period in which our purchase falls about in the middle, the purported methodology again seems unlikely.
4. 100% of the 45 properties on my block have been valued up over 37%, with half over the 51% gain mentioned previously. Are we most of the 1% ?? I doubt it. |
Tom
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 10:20 pm: | |
Fairtax, this is the first I've heard of the '98-'99-'00 window. If so, was it in Certified's contract that they were to do that; and if Certified didn't follow that procedure are they liable?
Can anyone else confirm/deny? |
Kevin_Friel
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 1:37 am: | |
I believe this is the relevant part of the contract transcribed and therefore unofficial. Perhaps the Town Committee could post the contract for official and convenient viewing by the public.
Kevin
Contract for Revaluation
Section d. (paragraphs 1&2)
Comparison or Market Data Approach - Where meaningful comparable sales data are available, the Comparison or Market Data Approach shall be utilized.
The firm shall collect and analyze local sales that have occurred during the previous three (3) years in its application of the Comparison or Market Data Approach. Sales analysis shall include the following market factors: address and neighborhood zoning, quality class, living area, year built, lot size, bathrooms, garage, heat and air conditioning, fireplace, exterior condition, interior condition, traffic flow, landscaping, sales price and adjusted sales price. |
Bak
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 12:07 pm: | |
This three year formula-why can't we see the math? Purchased home in 98 for X, now valued at 2X? How did CV formula take into account the 98 purchase price??
Am I extreme for asking? |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 12:13 pm: | |
To Fairtax: I think Gerry Ryan has been more than open and honest with his responses on this board. He has certainly responded and made himself available more than any other local politician and that includes the ones that are really paid (our assemblyperson, congressperson, state senator,etc).
If Certified did a lousy job on the valuation of a person's home, then one should go through the appeal process instead of assuming that the township had some type of evil intention with the outcome of having V. DeLuca having lower taxes. The reval was/is required by state law. The process might suck, but put the blame where it should be placed - Trenton. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 12:49 pm: | |
Tracks:
The reval was voluntary - very unusual for a town to do. Not saying it wasn't time for one however. Saying that the property was overvalued - parts of Maplewood it's 1.2 million. Summit's "mansion" section is only 1 mil. Got this info from Sherman at Certified Valuation. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 7:14 pm: | |
To: Jerry Ryan
Why don't you stop the B.S. and tell us what you honestly think happened here. Are you happy with the outcome of this assessment? |
Jake
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 9:04 pm: | |
The disingenuious nonsense spewed by our esteemed ex-mayor rings hollow, & is patently absurd. Your cries of innocence, falls on deaf ears! I second the motion to stop the B.S. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 9:54 pm: | |
Two guys posting anonymously call ME disingenuous? That's pretty gutsy, guys. So is saying I'm feeding you BS. Sorry, but it isn't BS just because YOU don't like it. And just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean that I am not being honest with you, or that the answer is nonsense or "patently absurd".
And by the way, where am I crying "innocence", Jake? What the heck are you talking about?
Thomas, my answer to you is this. With the exception of a relatively small number of errors that I am confident will be corrected -- errors that are of a relatively small magnitude, by the way -- the revaluation looks to me to have done a fairly good job of assessing people's housing values.
It's also pointed out that several areas of town have grown in value faster than others.
And several people are now faced with large increases in their property tax based on this assessment. This is a terrible situation for a lot of people, myself included. It shows how unfair a property tax is. |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 9:58 pm: | |
Hey Jerry, I want to help! Find any money in Trenton yet to help defray the escalating school budget? That is the cause behind this fiasco!
What do the Township's current reserves look like right this minute? The new moneies raised by this new tax reval, is much of it going to refund the depleated reserve fund? Where did the $500k, the fee paid to Certified come from? Will that be paid over the next five years? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:13 pm: | |
Reserve numbers are not known until the books are closed for 2000 and unexpended balances are cancelled to surplus. Those numbers should be known this week, I think.
Which has nothing to do with this thread.
For what seems like the hundredth time, there is NO NEW MONEY raised by the reval.
And for what is I think the 4th time, the number for Certified was more like about $350K, funded over five years our of the town's budget. |
Kap
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:35 pm: | |
Jerry, You've tried and tried and tried to explain the FACTS about what is going on with this reval. I, for one, applaud your openness, accessibility and patience. Were I in your shoes, at this point, I'd just stop responding to those on this board who apparently have no other purpose than to distort those facts in an effort to forward their own agendas behind their cloaks of anonymity. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 9:52 am: | |
Jur050 - I've never been to Trenton - please fill me in - is it like Oz? Do I follow the yellow brick road - will there be a pot of gold waiting there? Are there vaults of cash with the doors unlocked?
That's what it sounds like from your posts |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:18 am: | |
Perhaps Jur050 is confusing Trenton with Atlantic City. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:41 am: | |
No he is confusing it with Newark. Since the state had to step in to manage the school system in 1995, they can't account for $25 million dollars according to the Star Ledger (Sat. Jan. 13, front page). Enrollment has declined in 1997 and 1998 resulting in a $112 million dollar loss in state funding. Gee, it would be nice if we could get a small piece of that funding. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 12:46 pm: | |
Jur050.... how many times have you called the local assembly person (Fred Caraballo) to find out where our share of the money in trenton is?
Jake: I take it your assesed value went up and now you have a fair assesment of your home. If you really think it is unfair, you will win your appeal (assuming you file one).
Fairtax: The reval was only voluntary in the sense that the township could have waited another year to do. But the law does say it is supposed to be done every ten years and it is usually put off for many years because it is so politically unpopular and no one wants to be subject to the verbal abuse that people throw at the TC. By your own admission, it needed to be done. And I imagine if your taxes were going down, you would be singing a different tune. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page