| Author |
Message |
    
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:41 pm: |     |
oh come on...if there was really hatred, no one would move here in the first place |
Harold
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:23 pm: | |
False sense of financial security/snobbyness. |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:25 pm: | |
Speaking of divide:
Let's say, for argument's sake, that the Township
Committee does nothing about the Certified reevaluations. (which I believe they will)
The taxes on the West Side will rise, in general, and the taxes on the East will decrease, in general.
Those with unmanageable tax increases may appeal and some might even have them reduced a bit, others won't. Some, no doubt, even after the appeal, will be forced to move.
In addition, no doubt, most sellers will find truly wealthy buyers who won't bat an eye at paying $600,000 for a house with $20,000 in yearly taxes. (That's what the TC is banking on and they're probably correct.)
But, for the immediate future, (not taking into consideration , of course, the incredible revitalization the eastside will see after the Springfield Ave. redevelopment ...ahem ) where does that leave the TOWN of Maplewood ?
Even more, economically (and perhaps racially) divided then it is now.
One side of town becomes even more exclusive than it is now, the other offers low housing costs with even lower taxes.
"At the end of the day", (an all to popular phrase that I DESPISE) it's the middle class that REALLY gets the
shaft !
You think Maplewood is polarized now ? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:39 pm: | |
u,
stick to education
your economic analysis is fundamentally flawed. |
Tip
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 7:14 pm: | |
Melidere,
Would you care to elaborate on the fundme flaws in U's comments? Actually, I don't think U is far off the mark. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 12:50 am: | |
U is desperate to think that what is good/bad for u is good/bad for the town, but that is not the case.
I talked to someone the other day that bought a house for $129,000 with a tax burden of $6000. That's absurd by anyone's standard. What happens with the reval is that the cap on prices on the eastside (an onerous tax burden) gets lifted and prices are allowed to rise. Prices on the west side which have been going to the moon begin to take a breather.
The comment that u makes which is the most flawed is that the town becomes more economically divided. That is what is happening now. The reval allows the balance to return.
As to the racial disparity, some minorities have money and some don't. In the 1990 census, the minority population of this town actually had a higher household income than the non-minority population. As we cap the prices on the east side with onerous taxes, we are discouraging the middle class from investing there.
The reval invites the middle class back.
What we are doing NOW is dividing this town more extremely between rich and poor. By saddling east side homes with onerous taxes...at the extreme...the owners just hand in the keys. It's happened before. It's happened in Newark. That's what abandoned neighborhoods are all about.
Then the west side gets to pay ALL the taxes. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:09 am: | |
The people on the west side that really can't afford this tax increase, but REALLY love this town, will find that beautiful homes, maybe even more beautiful than the ones they are currently living in, are available on the east side for a lot less money, and a lot less tax. Instead of the steady stream of people we've seen move from east to west over the last decade....we'll see movement from west to east.
That stream will depress prices in the west, put upward pressure on prices in the east..and due to the contract with certified...more frequent revals will reflect that in tax assessments.
If we continue the effort that began with the demonstration school to make all of our elementary schools equally desireable...then the 'cache' of 'jefferson' district vs. 'seth boyden' district will subside. Prices will begin to balance out.
West side taxes will drop, east side taxes will rise, and we'll have our town back. And the middle class will have some more assurance that their needs aren't to be subordinated to the needs of the wealthier folk to the west.
the whole reval works to bring and maintain a middle class in this town, which is precisely the opposite of u's contention. |
Mem
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:13 am: | |
What about all the mistakes with this reval? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:17 am: | |
As to the immediate hit to the people on the west side...i think we could conservatively agree that the owners of that $129,000 house (who were sympathetically retired and wonderful citizens) were overtaxed a minimum of at least $30,000 in the last 10 years. West siders looking at 6000 increases could pay that for 5 years before the situation was even.
That's not a long time...but it's long enough to do some serious work on springfield avenue and for prices on the east side to begin to reflect a more reasonable tax burden.
That's the charge and the challenge. Maybe we're up to it, maybe we're not. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:18 am: | |
The mistakes should be challenged and rectified. On a macro level, it's yet to be seen, but i suspect they don't change the ordinal nature of this reval. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:27 am: | |
If you are thinking that the increase is due to the 'bubble' and that going back a few years will help, i remind you that going back a few years will also mean going back before the redistricting, and before the boe created a situation where there is actually a waiting list to get into seth boyden.
Go back and use comparables from three years ago and my bet is that the rise in taxes on the west side will be more extreme.
But i'm more than willing to let that play itself out. |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 9:37 am: | |
"U is desperate to think that what is good/bad for u is good/bad for the town, but that is not the case."
wrong...
false...
can not possibly conclude that...
typical...
rash ... |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 9:49 am: | |
Legally, the fact that one area of Maplewood has been overtaxed for a period of time cannot be a justfication for overcorrecting the tax imbalance to the detriment of the previously undertaxed areas of town.
I know that my taxes are going to go up a lot. I just want to make sure that my property is fairly assessed. Certified Valuations has apparently made mistakes on a wholesale basis and I am concerned that continued misinformation is going to lead to a series of appeals and challenges which will marginally impact individual assessments but WILL cost the township a lot of money. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:56 am: | |
"Certified Valuations has apparently made mistakes on a wholesale basis."
This is starting to become one of those conventional wisdom things that's repeated like a mantra so often that everyone KNOWS that it's true...even if it's not.
At this point, we have the very noisy grumblings of a few hundred homeowners who are 100% sure that their assessments are incorrect and unfair, mostly because their taxes are going up a lot. This in a town with some 7000 residential properties.
We've heard the examples of really bad valuations which, I've no doubt, are quite true. BUT...this is purely anecdotal evidence, being wielded by other folks who'd rather that someone else shoulder the tax burden. Out of those 7000 or so properties, how many are really grossly out-of-line? Out of the 500 or so that the "Fair Tax" committee has signed up, how many are legitimately bad re-assessments and how many are simply people whose idea of "fair" means "I don't want to pay that much?" We just don't have any idea yet, and the ruckus is making it harder to find out.
My point here? Let's not take as a given that the re-valuation is seriously flawed just because some people with ulterior motives say that it is. As Melidere said a few posts above "The mistakes should be challenged and rectified. On a macro level, it's yet to be seen, but i suspect they don't change the ordinal nature of this reval." |
Tip
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:23 pm: | |
Melidere,
I didn't think my little question would send you on such a roll. Thanks for responding. (LOL) |
Ejt
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:41 pm: | |
Me thinks Tip is new to this board!;) |
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 4:30 pm: | |
LOL |
Tip
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 7:25 pm: | |
Nice to meet you EJT. |
Tip
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 7:26 pm: | |
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! right back atcha... |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 8:41 am: | |
Curmudgeon,
You make a good point that one should not assume that the revaluation is seriously flawed just because a number of people are making that claim. However, given the number of large adjustments being made, I wonder if the question of the revaluation is not whether it is seriously flawed but instead whether it is fatally flawed. I, for one, am willing to be convinced that the revaluation mess can be straightened out, but it would be enormously helpful if the TC and Certified could deliver a presentation (I favor Powerpoint, but any sort of charts and visual aids will do) explaining what was done, where things were off target, and what steps will be taken to clean up the mess. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:25 am: | |
E, I agree (with you again). I think much of the anger, fear and confusion will abate, and confidence and reason can result once there is a clear presentation by those responsible (Certified and TC), and a plan articulated as to how they will go forward. It will be very disappointing if on Tuesday, we get more of the same.
I think only then can residents accept tax increases, and support decreases where appropriate. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 3:18 pm: | |
For the third time on this message board this afternoon: What about those in the middle of Maplewood? No one speaks about the fact that we evidently have been overpaying for years too. We're at $12G going up to $14,500. Just where does east and west begin? |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 3:40 pm: | |
MT
Good point. I have talked with people in the Tuscan area and in the Clinton area (a/k/a Midland Park) as well as checking the assesment on our old house in the latter area. Everyone is either going up, some over $1,000 or staying the same, within 5% or so.
I kinda view this like the rain snow line during the Nor'easter last weekend. There has to be a place where the rain (higher taxes) changes over to snow (lower taxes). Yeah, I like snow. I haven't found it yet.
Is Hilton the only area with consistently lower assesments? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 5:37 pm: | |
>>Is Hilton the only area with consistently lower assesments?
No. Jerry posted a table of neighborhoods and average assessment data. See the "More Detailed Reval Statistics and Distribution" thread dated January 11. About half the neighborhoods are getting decreases on average. Of course some of them are larger than others, and I use the word "neighborhood" loosely; some of them are a particular block of condos for example. But my neighborhood, for example ("Burr, Berkshire, Burroughs") is getting about a 10% decrease. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 9:02 am: | |
take a look at orchard, meadowbrook (decrease of about 20+%) and boyden parkway (decrease of close to 30%).
While we're battling out whether 'views' command a premium, or 'busy streets' we might want to make a note of the fact that boyden has become substantially busier over the last 20 years.
Those houses were districted for seth boyden, (i think) with a rather perilous walk across springfield for the little ones...and then bandied about in a jefferson pairing and are now finally settled in a more sensible districting for clinton, now only crossing a perilous boyden parkway to get to school. When they complete elementary school we sling them all the way from the other side of boyden to soms.
(this is from memory and those little drawings of the redistricting...if i'm wrong, feel free to correct.)
but it appears to this observer that uncertainty and disruption seem to have taken their toll on what is really a very pretty little neighborhood. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 9:25 am: | |
And then take a look at the commercial properties. 80% of the commercial property in town is either staying the same or getting a decrease. Can we say Springfield avenue?
Over and over again on this board people have tried to point out some of the wonderful businesses on the avenue. We talk about bringing in ratables...but we're not supporting the ones we have.
I'm absolutely certain those property owners would rather see an increase in the value of their property than a reduction in their taxes. |
Tip
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:39 pm: | |
Melidere,
You really crack me up. I am new to the board as EJT said and you usually have a couple of posts in a row. You could probably stay on here for days just answering posts. lol |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page