| Author |
Message |
    
Loyo65
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 9:25 am: |     |
Why has no one suggested lowering the tax rate from 2.66? Is this rate set in stone? If we have a lower rate, the taxes per property will be much more reasonable. Is the purpose just to cover the town's budget? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:14 am: | |
Loyo65: Yes, the purpose is to cover the town budget. Based on the values determined in the reval, 2.66% is what is needed to obtain the amount they need. Lower the rate, the money goes away. If you want to talk about lowering taxes and cutting the budget accordingly (within limits of what it is legal for the town to do), that could be reasonable, but the issue at hand is the reval. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:29 am: | |
The amount they need? The pie remains the same is the mantra of this revaluation. What do you mean 2.66 is the amount they need? |
Debby
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:08 am: | |
Nil-
How many times do you have to hear the same explanation? Here it is again, in caps, so you don't miss anything:
IF YOU ADD UP ALL OF THE NEW PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS, AND THEN DIVIDE BY THE CURRENT YEAR'S TOTAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (i.e., the pie remains the same) THE NEW REQUIRED TAX RATE TO GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX WILL BE 2.66. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:18 am: | |
Debby- If commercial and vacant properties are not factored in yet, not to mention the appeals, then the new taxes are not set in stone. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 12:09 pm: | |
Today a realtor in Millburn who recently had given us a listing price for our house informed me that if the taxes go the way it appears, she no longer believes we could get that price. She was quite firm about this. If you compare Maplewood to Millburn (not Short Hills) buyers will want more for their money, i.e. a school system with a sterling rep. Millburn has the same train service. People can project their finances with a 30 year mortgage and can afford to spend more for a house. A house similar to mine in Millburn would carry a tax rate of $7500, half of my proposed new tax. Is the reason for the reval solely one of altruism? Are we going through this angst only so that our easterly neighbors will see relief? Incidentally my house sits in the no-man's land between east and west. Who volunteered our participation in this social program? My realtor also informed me that Millburn has put the breaks on its reval pending the resolution of our mess. |
Dave23
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 12:19 pm: | |
I'm curious to see if the township committee will address the issue of huge tax increases putting downward pressure on our property values.
It's a no-brainer that if my taxes go up 50% (as they are set to do) that the real value of my property will decline.
Perhaps I missed it, but I've not seen Jerry or Vic address this very real issue on this board. Nor have I seen them address the issue of elderly people on fixed incomes being able to afford this. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 12:41 pm: | |
Mtierney: I think the social program is what we have now, where people on the east side are subsidizing people on the west sitde. |
Tom
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 12:47 pm: | |
Jmadison quoted state law on this matter at http://66.33.27.70/discus/messages/1/1991.html?FridayJanuary1220010959pm#POST19601 |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 1:17 pm: | |
As I've read, the process used was flawed. The true question is how do we spread the tax load out fairly across the entire town, realizing that we
are one town sharing the same resources, and entitled to the same amenities.
Is it fair that a 3brm 1.5 bth house on one side of town pay 3 times the taxes that a similar size property/house pay, anywhere in town?
We should find ways to make the Tax system benefit the town. Base it on the average price over a 10 year period, since that is how often the reval is supposed to be done.
How about a Base number for the first...X Thousand of vaule, where X is the Average value of a home in the town. You could then Add or subtract based upon number of beds/baths and property size.
Let's even make the system encourage people to enhance, and improve their homes, by offering a rebate for improments.....If you've added a 20000 kitchen, we'll reduce your tax burden by 20000 of value for a 5 year period, at which point you'll start paying for the improvement....
But let's face it, we won't make these types of suggestions because they are too hard. We can't change the system because it's in place, and that's how it is... |
Dpc
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 2:29 pm: | |
The one thing that people seem to forget is that the assesment basically assumes that the taxes are unchanged. Someone is not going to pay the same for a house if the taxes go from $8000 to $12,000. People are far less sensitive to the cost of something than they are of their monthly payment (people generally lease nicer vehicles than they would purchase because the monthly payments are lower).
A house that sees a 4,000 increase in property tax will/should see a market value decrease of at lease $50k (assuming a mortgage rate of 8.125% and 2.50% annual property tax increases).
A house that sees a $1,500 decrease (our new mayor) should see an increase of approx. $20k.
What you will basically see is that houses on the side with the lower vals will start to increase because people think they are getting a good deal on their taxes and the opposite will happen in areas that have seen an increase. We will then face the same problems (possibly going the other way) during the next assesment. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 2:51 pm: | |
I, for one, think we should definitely require certified to go back further in time for their comps. Average it over 3 years, 4 years, 5 years...as Dave suggests.
Just make sure you make it go back and get all the comps from before the redistricting of the schools and the formation of the demonstration school so that everyone can find out first hand exactly how much the perception of the schools affects property values.
Please. |
Jmadison
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 4:22 pm: | |
MTierney: absolutely not a social experiment, but required by law! .NJSA 54:4-23 directs the assessor to determine as of Oct 1 of each year, the full and fair value of each parcel of real property...on the basis of what, in the assessor's judgment, each such parcel would sell for at a bona fide sale by private contract on Oct. 1." That is the assessment that gets submitted by Jan 10 of the tax year. Thus, the ramifications of a tax increase on the market value simply can not be taken into consideration. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 4:58 pm: | |
Dave 23,
I think I read on one of the posts from either Jerry or Vic that they asked Certified if they took that fact in to consideration and the answer was... They were not allowed to take that fact in to consideration. The revals were based on the value of the property now, not after the assessment.
Dpc, while I agree that the houses on the east side may go a little and the houses on the west side will go down a little I don't agree that the houses will ever compare in the market. I don't mean in value I mean in demand. There isn't a real demand for houses on the east side now and I don't see one comming any time soon.
And as far as the residents who won't be able to afford the increase, what about the residents who won't be able to stay without the decrease? No one has yet to mention that issue. Don't they matter"? Aren't they part of this "ONE MAPLEWOOD"? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:07 pm: | |
Eb...of course those people matter. But again, they knew what the property taxes were when they bought their properties. It was reasonable to expect them to go up at a rate of 5 to 8% a year subsequent to the year of purchase (I don't have the data on this, but I think that's been an average increase for the past several years). If they can't stay WITHOUT this decrease I question the wisdom of making the purchase in the first place. Sounds like they bit off far more than they could chew. And I don't think that compares to someone who purchases a home knowing the property tax levels, expecting increases of 5 to 8% annually, and now being asked to take a 50-80% increase. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:15 pm: | |
Buddy: in response to your question about how long there has been a disproportionate tax burden on the Hilton section of town I can tell you unequivocally that housing prices were seriously depressed in this area when we began looking at houses in Maplewood 9 summers ago (the height of the selling season.)
Due to a very limited budget we requested to be shown anything and everything under 140K. We expected about 10 or or maybe even 15 possibilities. We got close to 50 houses to look at. All but 2 were in the Hilton section (the actual borders were south of Springfield Ave and east of Boyden Ave.) The 2 that fell outside of the range were immediately adjacent to Springfield Ave in the Vauxhall area. One had a serious and apparently irremedial basement flooding problem (there was water when we looked and it hadn't rained recently) and the other abutted a gas station. So we know why they couldn't get the same prices as their neighbors.
The house we ended up buying had been on and off the market for over a year. We looked at it when they lowered the price (again) to under 130K. It was not in bad shape but it was 1 1/2 blocks from Irvington and within walking distance of Ivy Hill. We have had a house on our block on the market for over 2 YEARS. It has been vacant for nearly 3 years. Another house down the street was vacant for about a year but recently sold. That does, in fact, affect the prices in the rest of the neighborhood. People's panic about not getting their price in a matter of weeks or even 2 months is laughable for many of us.
Racial steering was not an issue for us. Our realtor invited us to look through the multiple listing book ourselves (we did) and he did not hesitate to make appointments at any home we were vaguely interested in. I am white and most people assume that my Asian-American partner is white also. (A different form of discrimination but that's another thread.)
Now, how many 3 bedroom colonials are there in Maplewood? Almost too many to count. Why were the only ones under 140K in the Hilton area? Depressed housing prices with disproportionate tax burdens.
Bacata |
Napes
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 6:01 pm: | |
Nakaille, I can't say that the tax burden was or wasn't disproportionate on the Hilton 3-bedrooms, but I'm sure a big reason so many were priced under $140K is the proximity to Newark and Irvington (for better or worse, a lot of people buying a home in the 'burbs just don't want to be that close to two troubled cities...that may be more perception than reality but that's how real estate values work) and the fact that the lots are small, the houses are less "showy," and that the distance to the village and train station is so great. Come on, that's basic Real Estate 101. The bigger your lot, the higher the price. The more charming your house is, the higher your price. Walking distance to train, higher price. Blah blah blah. I don't think it has so much to do with taxes as with the outward appearance and location of the area. |
Pcg
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:56 pm: | |
Here's a suggestion. Leave everyone's taxes exactly as they are. Multiply their assessment by 4 and divide the rate by 4. Re assess all new sales at the rate times the sale price, with the tax amount no lower than the current amount.
Change the rate every year as needed to meet budgetary needs.
New comers to town will know exactly what their taxes are, and current owners will not need to worry. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:00 pm: | |
Napes, There may be reasons other than the tax burden for the failure of properties in the Hilton area to appreciate, but the fact is that since the last revaluation, they have been getting the same tax increases of 5-8% per year as the people in more desirable areas whose houses have been appreciating dramatically. The result is that they are paying a far higher percentage of the current value of their homes in taxes than are people in, say, the Jefferson area. The revaluation is designed to correct this inequity. It should also have the result of making those Hilton properties somewhat more attractive due to lower taxes. This is not a bad thing for the town.
The whole east side-west side, bad side-good side perception of Maplewood has been exascerbated by a tax structure that made the east side look worse, and the west side better, than they should have been. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 7:31 am: | |
Pcg: apart from being illegal under state law, your suggestion would create the same situation we're in, although to a lesser extent. If someone stays in an area through a change in real-estate values, their taxes won't change. So if prices in my area go down, and the value of my house goes down, my taxes stay high. So your suggestion would create incentives for people to flee neighborhoods if prices start to go down. |
Tom
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 8:06 pm: | |
Luckily we've just been through an economic boom. Otherwise we might have seen flight from the lower-priced sections of town, instead of just stagnation. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page