| Author |
Message |
    
Tom
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:07 am: |     |
Irregardless of the merits of the case, I found the Times' article, which appears in the New Jersey section of tomorrow's paper, to be just plain bad journalism.
The facts are all there for one side of the story, but wouldn't it be nice if they actually spoke with someone who lived east of, say, Maplewood Ave.? Sure, they spoke with the mayor, but they'd do that anyway. The only voices and stories we get are from the people who are getting big increases. What about those whose taxes are going down, or staying roughly the same?
And the part about the Hammond Map guy who's lived in his "modest home" since 1968, now valued at $490,000? How much do you think he paid for it back then? |
Jem
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:18 am: | |
I agree with you, Tom. I'm appalled by the article. It appears that the reporter took the meeting's organizers up on their invitation to attend their meeting and then did absolutely minimal research in writing the article. The implication is that Vic somehow manipulated the process to get a break on his taxes. I hope that the Township Committee responds to the Times. |
Face
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:21 am: | |
Tom, does it matter what he paid for his house? A home is not just a financial investment. What I think matters is that home owners are abruptly facing whopping tax increases, that in many cases may: A.) Cause the newly assessed value to plummet, while the new tax remains unchanged B.) Force the homeowner to sell C.) Place undue hardship on families within our township.
I still have not heard of taxes being reduced by the staggering amounts of some of the increases. I had heard that the pie was the same size, and that only the slices were made different! Let's see the total revenues, before and after! |
Jmadison
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:58 am: | |
Tom: face it. east siders are going to be sacrificed. this is florida redux. look at the "press release" from the mayor below, and read between the lines. there's no way galante can finish looking at all the homes in all the neighborhoods by the 24th. the new reval won't be certified by the 24th, the old assessments will be in force for another year. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 7:08 pm: | |
I hope your last line is right. That would be the best news I've had in a while. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 8:44 pm: | |
Overtaxd: that means I'll continue to pay part of your share of the taxes for another year! Not the best news I've had! Those of us who have been overpaying for a decade or more need some relief. I see what Jmadison means.
Bacata |
Alceste
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:31 pm: | |
Out of curiosity, has anyone determined which side of town gets more service for its tax dollar? For example, which neighborhood has the most students in the schools? Which neighborhood places the most calls to the police and fire departments? Etc. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 6:59 am: | |
Nakaille, I don't recall seeing any tax breaks on my recent bills due to your generosity. Nice try, but at the levels I'm paying you're hardly subsidizing me. By the way, did you know your tax level when you purchased your house, or were you the victim of a one time large increase (capital improvements aside)? |
Tom
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 9:23 am: | |
I haven't noticed anybody on this thread rising to the defense of the Times article, so I guess we all think it's done badly. |
Face
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 10:09 am: | |
I haven't read the Times article yet. Quite frankly, I chose not to read the NY Times. I find that "all the news that fits their views, they print!" Frequently, the Times prints articles way in the back, when the story is in fact front page material. I find many of their views to be biased. Too often their headlines depict their own liberal view of events, so do their editorials.
I might make an exception in this case, since it sounds interesting that it is upseting those with a liberal or socialist agenda on this board. Yet I rather expect someone to post the article in lieu of the facts it contains. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 11:01 am: | |
I question that taxes on the East side are too high for a full 57% of residents who saw a reduction or stayed the same. If DeLuca has lived in his house for 6 years, and his taxes were reduced $1,700 with the new assessment, does that mean his taxes have gone back to what they were 6 years ago when he purchased his house? Why should the Township Committee ensure that some 57% of the homeowner's property taxes will not increase? Meanwhile almost 1 out of four residents are seeing increases of 40 to 90% - unconscionable. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 11:43 am: | |
Overtaxd: Proportionately, I continue to subsidize you and your family. Regardless of your flawed logic about what is labeled on your tax bills. I certainly knew my own tax level but I wrongly assumed that the burden was equally distributed throughout the town. Taxes are high all over, yes. But disproportionately so for my family and our immediate neighbors.
Face, this tax situation is the wonderful result of market forces, market values and the capitalist economic system. Nothing at all to do with socialism or liberalism. You can't have it both ways. Sometimes market pills are pretty bitter to swallow, aren't they? People with lower incomes have known that for a long, long time.
If the 57% figure includes homeowners whose taxes stayed the same then it is inaccurate to say that all of the taxes were too high. Those whose taxes stayed the same are being taxed accurately and appropriately. That percentage (mostly, apparently, folks residing in the "middle area" of Maplewood) should be subtracted from the 57% to get a realistic picture of the tax burden shift.
A point about home equity for those of us who plan to stick it out and work together to make Maplewood better. A home more highly valued gives access to much better lending rates (second mortages, for example) than a lower value home. It becomes easier, therefore, to make home improvements or send your kid to college if you have access to those kinds of loans. So there is higher immediate value even if you don't sell your house. That's the way it works in our credit economy. Funny money, isn't it? Until you feel the pinch personally.
Bacata |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:09 pm: | |
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. It's going to be much easier to send my kids to college now that I have the honor of paying an extra $7,000 per year in property taxes going forward. I wonder what your reaction is going to be when taxes need to be increased to support the additional student load as kids who used to go to private school are now put back into the public school system since their parents can't afford the private schools anymore. Or what your reaction is the first time one of us rich folks sells their house at 70% of the appraised value, and the rest of us then knock at the assessor's door demanding a revaluation. Once those go through, you're talking serious tax shortfalls that need to be made up. I'm sure you didn't consider that. And please save the B.S. about "subsidizing me" by what you pay. We both access the same services. You're subsidizing nothing. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:15 pm: | |
>>Meanwhile almost 1 out of four residents are seeing increases of 40 to 90% - unconscionable.
Fairtax01: Where did you get this number? According to Jerry Ryan's break down in the "Reval Statistics and Distribution" thread, 23.66% of residents are getting increases of 17.53% or greater.
So do you not believe him, do you have some other numbers, or are you just making this up? |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:32 pm: | |
As a 38 year resident of Maplewood, I'm amazed at the east west designations. I guess a lot of New Yorkers (native myself) have created this scenario. Historically, the sections in town bore school district titles, i.e. the Jefferson and Hilton (Seth Boyden) areas. As a resident of the gray middle area from Valley St. to Springfield and Springfield to Parker, we bore the label of Tuscan School area, never regarded as rich or poor. I have no idea where we fit in under this new label. Under the old tax, we were assessed at $115,000 and are paying almost $12G. I defy anyone to say that a $1,000 a month tax is fair or LOW! We have not been given a break under the new numbers. We will be paying $2500 more! If we have been among those who believe they have been overpaying for years, where is our big break? |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:48 pm: | |
To LSeltzer: I was taking my statistics from Mayor Deluca's statement in the NY Times article that said 57% will pay about the same in taxes or less, 19% will get a moderate increase and 24% higher. I didn't go back to the reval stats that Gerry Ryan supplied. I thought this was a discussion on the "Times" article. To answer your question: When he (Ryan) states that 23.66% of residents are increasing 17.53% or greater it's his vague use of "or greater" that's designed to downplay how huge the increases have been for (almost) 1 out of 4 homeowners. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:59 pm: | |
Now I'm a bad guy for using the phrase "or greater"?! How can that be considered vague or trying to downplay this situation? Especially since the same posting where I used it contains a detailed table showing lots of detailed information about factors of increase and decrease across town? And since in other postings I made available even more detailed information? |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 1:35 pm: | |
To Gerry Ryan: How's this for "vague and trying to downplay the situation"?: Assessment letters for homeowners who saw reductions were delivered before the election. Assessment letters that increased taxes went out after the election. When a homeowner (fearing the worst) called and faxed you and every member of the Township C. a full two weeks before the election he wasn't responded to until after the election and in Vic DeLuca's case, on election eve. Coincidence? At last Tuesday's Township C. meeting when taxpayers began to ask about the new tax rate, you and Vic DeLuca said "nobody knows the rate yet". Three hours later at the same meeting Vic Deluca said his taxes were going "down $2,000" and you said your taxes were going "up $6,000"(or was it $8,000? sorry I don't recall the exact figure) If "nobody" knew the rate at the beginnning of the meeting, how could you and Mr. DeLuca repeat exact figures?
You haven't been upfront and now you're backpeddling and suggesting that you were willing to discuss the stats all along. The "closed" meeting on Friday which turned out to be open for a good hour is another example of trying to exclude the people from being privy to all the facts. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 2:13 pm: | |
>>I was taking my statistics from Mayor Deluca's statement in the NY Times article that said 57% will pay about the same in taxes or less, 19% will get a moderate increase and 24% higher.
So you saw "higher" and concluded "25%"? This is a strange form of math.
In fact, 23.66% may (remember, this is an estimate) see increases of 17.53% or higher. 1.83% may see increases of 56.36% or higher. But I guess you needn't concern yourself with the actual numbers. In fact, your misconstruction of Vic's statement (I don't have the article, so I'm taking your quote at face value) demonstrates that he sees 17.53% as a high increase and you see it as moderate. Isn't that ironic.
And like I just said, these numbers are all estimates at this point for two big reasons: First, they are based on an estimated tax rate which cannot be finalized until the local, county and school district budgets are finalized (although that number wouldn't affect anyone's relative burden). Second, as the press release says, they tax assessor can and will re-examine the assessments if they did not properly take market conditions into account. If there were problems in the assessments (and I think everyone agrees that there were), this is the right way to deal with them. Throughout the entire process, the town has made it clear that the tax assessor had the power to adjust assessments if warranted. I think the way the town has handled the matter demonstrates their good will, and your mathematically nonsensical cheap shots don't help anything. Speaking of which...
>>When he (Ryan) states that 23.66% of residents are increasing 17.53% or greater it's his vague use of "or greater" that's designed to downplay how huge the increases have been for (almost) 1 out of 4 homeowners.
There's nothing vague about it. If you would only look at the actual numbers Jerry provided you would see what the situation is. But, as I have already said, the facts of the situation seem unimportant to you.
LJS |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 2:33 pm: | |
Well, "Fairtax", you can spin this any way you want to, I suppose. You can draw whatever conclusions you like about the order things happened. I'm sure you wouldn't believe that there's no sinister conspiracy, so I am not going to waste my time trying to convince you that there isn't one.
My assessment is 591,900. According to the 2.66% formula, my taxes would have been $15,745. My assessment was 86,600, my taxes were 8842 (10.21%). My assessment increased by 6.835, one of the highest factors of increase in town, perhaps THE highest. My taxes would be 178% of what they are... a change of $6903.
Nobody knows the rate for 2001 yet, as has been said here, and in letters, and on any of a number of other occasions including the January 2 TC meeting. The "2.66%" number, which is what EVERYONE is talking about, is what the taxes WOULD HAVE BEEN in 2000 IF the new valuation HAD BEEN in place. That number's been out for months, and was out before the election as well. It valuation change was expressed as "roughly a factor of four" very early on, before the information became more refined.
I am NOT backpedalling and saying that I was "willing to discuss the stats all along". Where did I supposedly say that? All information was made available as soon as the Township Committee got it. All the information I posted was marked "Current as of January 10." Those were the first detailed statistics that we got.
It is amazingly unfortunate that the scope of the meeting changed at the time that it did, without the ability for broader notice. I found out that part of the meeting was going to be open when I arrived at the meeting. It certainly looks bad. Don't you think that we would have made it known that the meeting was going to be open sooner, if we knew in time? If your answer to that is "no", or if you are trying to suggest that we knew we were going to open it and kept that from you.... well, that's not true, but again unfortunately I don't suspect you'll believe any non-sinister interpretation of this. |
|