Archive through January 14, 2001

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Author Message   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 10:01 pm:        The Township Committee asked Certified Valuation to provide a more detailed analysis of the revaluation. I took the information, put it into a spreadsheet, and calculated some additional information, which is presented in the post below (had to split it to get past size limits on the board). Please note that these numbers are current as of January 10 and do not reflect any adjustments made after that date. The columns in the table are: boundary of the area in question number of properties in the area average factor that assessments increased in the area (remember the town as a whole went up by 3.84) estimate of 2000 taxes after the reval, expressed as a percentage of the 2000 taxes before the reval the average assessment in the area average tax per property in the area before reval average tax per property in the area after reval average change per property total change in taxes for the entire area Negative numbers are decreases in taxes, and are shown (in parenthesis). The list is sorted in descending order on the "Avg change" column.   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 10:07 pm:        boundary num factor pct Avg assmnt Avg old tax Avg new tax Avg change Total chg Claremont Ave, below Wyoming, Ridgewood, Maple Terr 358 5.54 144.27% $559,900 $10,318.73 $14,893.34 $4,574.61 $1,637,708.71 Below Ridgewood, Woodland, Maplewood Ave, Walton 215 5.72 148.96% $511,200 $9,124.74 $13,597.92 $4,473.18 $961,733.43 Hemlock, Claremont Dr 43 5.06 131.77% $502,500 $10,139.38 $13,366.50 $3,227.12 $138,766.27 Washington Park 41 5.15 134.11% $455,300 $9,026.43 $12,110.98 $3,084.55 $126,466.43 Wyoming, Upper Wyoming 261 4.72 122.92% $556,800 $12,044.34 $14,810.88 $2,766.54 $722,067.21 Winthrop, Baker, Lenox 75 5.14 133.85% $382,300 $7,593.94 $10,169.18 $2,575.24 $193,143.32 Prospect St 58 4.57 119.01% $480,660 $10,738.60 $12,785.56 $2,046.96 $118,723.65 North Crescent 46 4.52 117.71% $474,300 $10,713.72 $12,616.38 $1,902.66 $87,522.20 Burnet, Salter 136 4.85 126.30% $340,400 $7,165.95 $9,054.64 $1,888.69 $256,862.33 Kendall, below Wyoming, Collinwood, Cedar 363 4.62 120.31% $359,000 $7,933.74 $9,549.40 $1,615.66 $586,482.91 Jennifer Lane 8 4.43 115.36% $438,500 $10,106.29 $11,664.10 $1,557.81 $12,462.51 The Top 92 4.45 115.89% $404,800 $9,287.66 $10,767.68 $1,480.02 $136,161.98 Carleton Ct 33 4.32 112.50% $312,200 $7,378.62 $8,304.52 $925.90 $30,554.84 Courter, Oakland, Plymouth 384 4.3 111.98% $315,000 $7,479.42 $8,379.00 $899.58 $345,439.26 Elmwood, Kensington, Midland Blvd 637 4.24 110.42% $303,400 $7,305.93 $8,070.44 $764.51 $486,993.35 Oakland, Park, Oakview (W of Prospect) 77 4.09 106.51% $340,000 $8,487.53 $9,044.00 $556.47 $42,848.15 Park Ave, Harvard, Tuscan 569 4.08 106.25% $291,600 $7,297.15 $7,756.56 $459.41 $261,405.96 Dunnell Rd 20 4.11 107.03% $249,600 $6,200.53 $6,639.36 $438.83 $8,776.69 Condominiums - Ridgewood Rd 8 4 104.17% $302,300 $7,716.21 $8,041.18 $324.97 $2,599.78 Buckingham, End of Maplewood Ave 82 3.96 103.13% $277,500 $7,154.73 $7,381.50 $226.77 $18,594.74 Raymond Terr 15 3.79 98.70% $187,300 $5,045.73 $4,982.18 $(63.55) $(953.30) East Cedar 22 3.73 97.14% $234,200 $6,410.68 $6,229.72 $(180.96) $(3,981.02) Rosedale, Cypress 11 3.72 96.88% $232,600 $6,383.99 $6,187.16 $(196.83) $(2,165.18) Condominiums - Highland Pl 13 3.59 93.49% $229,800 $6,535.54 $6,112.68 $(422.86) $(5,497.15) Condominiums - Burnett Ave 18 3 78.13% $86,900 $2,957.50 $2,311.54 $(645.96) $(11,627.22) Condominiums - Ostwood Terr 8 3.27 85.16% $149,500 $4,667.87 $3,976.70 $(691.17) $(5,529.40) So Pierson, Broadview 115 3.41 88.80% $218,300 $6,536.20 $5,806.78 $(729.42) $(83,882.90) Condominiums - Boyden Ave 10 2.72 70.83% $73,800 $2,770.21 $1,963.08 $(807.13) $(8,071.33) Burr, Berkshire, Burroughs 119 3.43 89.32% $259,800 $7,733.41 $6,910.68 $(822.73) $(97,904.30) Condominiums - Valley St 86 2.71 70.57% $79,200 $2,983.88 $2,106.72 $(877.16) $(75,435.93) Rynda Rd 137 3.19 83.07% $186,300 $5,962.77 $4,955.58 $(1,007.19) $(137,984.76) Condominiums - Irvington Ave 22 2.86 74.48% $113,200 $4,041.16 $3,011.12 $(1,030.04) $(22,660.90) Condominiums - Meadowbrook 148 2.4 62.50% $66,100 $2,812.00 $1,758.26 $(1,053.74) $(155,954.14) Condominiums - Irvington Ave 18 2.49 64.84% $86,000 $3,526.35 $2,287.60 $(1,238.75) $(22,297.42) Elberta, Midland Blvd, Ball Terr 422 3.17 82.55% $225,200 $7,253.29 $5,990.32 $(1,262.97) $(532,972.10) Jacoby, Van Ness, Newark Way 585 2.85 74.22% $156,100 $5,592.21 $4,152.26 $(1,439.95) $(842,373.11) Hilton Section 668 2.75 71.61% $142,900 $5,305.49 $3,801.14 $(1,504.35) $(1,004,903.98) Orchard, Meadowbrook, Hillcrest 476 2.86 74.48% $167,700 $5,986.77 $4,460.82 $(1,525.95) $(726,353.50) Condominiums - Hausmann Ct 16 2.4 62.50% $95,800 $4,075.49 $2,548.28 $(1,527.21) $(24,435.39) South 4th, Essex, Hudson 261 2.78 72.40% $167,600 $6,155.38 $4,458.16 $(1,697.22) $(442,974.76) Lee Ct, Troy Ct 115 2.81 73.18% $207,900 $7,553.95 $5,530.14 $(2,023.81) $(232,737.76) Boyden Parkway 58 2.68 69.79% $192,800 $7,345.10 $5,128.48 $(2,216.62) $(128,564.22)   Kap Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 10:49 pm:        Thank you, Gerry. This is very good info.   Pnp Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 11:24 pm:        Gerry - Thanks for the numbers. Do you know if there's a budget figure yet? What was it last year?   Joso Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 4:30 pm:        Boy those folks on Boyden Parkway were sure getting screwed under the current system.   Nilmiester Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 5:51 pm:        Yes, the current system is outdated. Things have changed since 1981. But the real question is WHY a house exactly the same, one on Boyden Parkway and one on Claremont Drive are so different in the first place? Is this because of the decline of Irvington and if you live near the border it makes your house worth less?   Kathy Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 7:24 pm:        The decline of Irvington is part of it. As more people of color moved into the eastern parts of Maplewood, many realtors stopped showing houses there to whites. Since housing prices are a matter of supply and demand, and since whites are a much larger percentage of the overall population than blacks, decreased demand in the east led to stagnating prices. The primary goal of the much-maligned CCR is to ensure that there is demand by members of all groups for housing in all parts of town.   Thomas Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 11:51 pm:        sure Kathy blame everything on realtors   Thomas Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 11:54 pm:        sure Kathy blame everything on realtors   Kap Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 12:17 am:        Thomas, And exactly where should the blame be placed, in your opinion?   Buddy Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 12:39 am:        Are Maplewood realtors to blame for the fact that as Kathy states " the decline of Irvington is part of it"??? Hardly. Why must everything result in blame? Face it, it is absurd to believe that all parts of a town -any town - should have uniform price appreciation. It doesn't happen in Maplewood, South Orange, NYC or anywhere else. Is the CCR working with Irvington officials to upgrade that town so that bordering Maplewood residents will reap the result of higher property valuations? Sorry, but stop blaming the brokers and start facing reality. .   Mlj Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 5:15 am:        I agree that it is unrealistic to expect uniform price appreciation here or anywhere else. The proximity to the train station is a big issue in location, especially since Midtown Direct. Also, the homes above Ridgewood, bordering Millburn and South Orange have maintained and increased their value more than the homes closer to Irvington. This does not shock me. And it is a matter of economics as to who is able afford them. And this includes anyone who can afford them, regardless of race or sexual orientation, as we are so proud of saying.   Tom Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:00 am:        Yes, realtors are to blame. Racial steering was and is a fact of life in this town. And as long as the pool of buyers on the east side is kept at 1/9th that of the west side, prices will stay low. Supply and demand rules. And yes, the CCR does work with Irvington officials -- something which they've been ripped for on this very board.   Buddy Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:51 am:        Yeah Tom, I'm sure that if we paraded nine times the number of buyers into the "east side" near Irvington that your real estate prices would escalate into the 500-900k range. Particulalrly in the border areas. Then you could pay 15k a year in taxes for your house. Your logic is so fatally flawed that it is laughable.   Face Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 1:21 pm:        Blame, is always the best routine. Blame the realtors! Blame the racists! Besides everything boils down to the race card! It makes it all so simple.   Thomas Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 2:30 pm:        You must be kinding! People move where they want to move for what ever reason. Areas go down in value for a number of reasons. You can't blame Realtors, Their job is to take people where they want to go. Its easier to sell a bigger house in a lessor area than visa-versa. You can't drag someone kicking and sceaming somewhere they don't want to be. Its a poor excuse to blame realtors. If its anyones fault its your own. If you lived there while values and quality of life was coming down than ask yourself what have you done to change things. Form a neighborhood group, get together with your neighbors and plane what you want your area to be like. Talk to banks get speical fiancing for home repairs. You'd be surprized what you can do with a little effort or you can just sit back and blame the Realtors.   Tom Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 4:16 pm:        A realtor's job is to sell as much property as they can, as fast as they can. Price isn't nearly as important as you might think. If you squeeze another $5,000 out of your buyer, the realtor gets 6% of that, or $300. How much time is that worth to them?   Golden Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 5:24 pm:        Gerry, The chart you provided is helpful and appreciated. Wonder if you could clarify something - the area Kendall below Wyoming, Collingwood, Cedar - shows an increase in taxes. East Cedar shows a decrease in taxes. Since Cedar and East Cedar basically the same street, just divided by Ridgewood Rd, what would account for the increases or decreases.   Gerardryan Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 5:46 pm:        Golden: I asked that specific question because I too was surprised. I was told that the East Cedar lots are smaller.   Alceste Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 12:07 am:        Let's face it, the parts of Maplewood on the far side of Springfield Ave. and Boyden Ave. are not as picturesque as the other parts of town. I'm not saying they're ugly or dirty (in fact, I'm impressed that they're generally as tidy as the rest of town), but the homes are humbler, the lots are smaller, and there are several multi-family properties. The ooh and ahh factor is not there. The fact they border Irvington or Vauxhall isn't exactly a plus, either.