| Author |
Message |
    
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 8:59 pm: |     |
Maplewood's Tangled Taxes
Reassessments, Many Raising Rates More Than 50 Percent, Stir a Revolt
by George James
NY Times 1/14/10 (Not the complete article.
bold and comments in parenthesis are mine)
Maplewood has the well-scrubbed look of an ideal suburban village: a trim downtown with a small train depot hard by a tidy village green; substantial brick and clapboard homes with broad lawns ; new cars and S.U.V.'s of German and Japanese vintage in the driveways and along the tree lined streets.
But inside many of those freshly painted houses, people are seething like never before.
In a mini-tax revolt that some say could escalate to an effort to recall the entire five-member township committee, groups are forming on such streets as Euclid Avenue, Walton Road, and Wyoming Avenue over new property taxes assessments with increases ranging from 25 percent to 85 percent.
Making matters worse, homeowners in other parts of town, including the newly installed mayor, could see their property taxes go down.
As one homeowner put it, "I've lived here 19 years and I've never (seen) anything like this."
In response to the wave of complaints, township officials sought and were granted a two-week extension from Essex County for submitting the reevaluations by a Jan. 10 deadline. In addition, the Maplewood tax assessors will have until mid-February to make any adjustments.
"We feel we did the right thing." Said Vic Deluca, a member of the Township Committee, who was sworn in as mayor on Jan. 1. " We ordered reassessment to bring fairness and balance to the property tax situation."
But, he added, "Itâs also fair to say we did not expect the level of increases (or outrage) we are hearing about."
If the proposed valuations do eventually go into effect, especially hard hit will be young families who have stretched their financial resources to buy a house and older residents on fixed incomes. (So much for the American dream and compassion for our senior citizens).
"I feel terrible about it," said Sam Whinery, a 79-year old former operations manager for the Hammond Map Co. ·
Mr. Whinery, who has lived in Maplewood since 1924 and in his current house since 1968, said his taxes would increase 50 percent, to $12,977 from $8,393. "As a senior with a fixed income," he said sadly, "my ability to hold on isn't there. ( Ahh C'Mon Sam ! Quit your whining and bite the bullet soldier ! We've got us a better Newark to finance !)
John Roundtree, a 61 year-old printing company consultant who has lived in Maplewood for 36 years, said he was "shocked" last month when he received a new assessment· According to Certified Valuations, the value of Mr. Roundtreeâs home had soared to $498,000 from $88,000, creating an expected tax increase of $5,000, for a total of 13,000 ö or a 61 percent increase.
Under state law, municipalities are required to reassess residential and commercial properties at current market value every 10 years. But Committeewoman Ellen Davenport said the last revaluation in Maplewood took place in 1981, and consequently the property was at about 36 percent of true value.
Initially, letters went out assuring homeowners that the revaluation would spread the tax burden more equitably to try to allay fears of a major tax increase. (Ha !!!)
But then, said Mayor DeLuca, most of Maplewoodâs properties went up fourfold. ( Really ? Fourfold since when ? 1981 ? Does Mr. DeLuca mean assessed value or market value ? ) Of the town's 6,843 residential properties, 57 percent will pay about the same in taxes or a little less, 19 percent will get a moderate increase and 24 percent a higher increase, he said.
As for Mayor DeLuca, the president of a foundation that awards grants to environmental groups, who lives in the southeast part of town near Irvington and Newark, the value of his house rose to $130,000 from $53,000, and his taxes went down $1,700, from about $5,500 a year.
"As a homeowner who is going to get relief," Mr. Deluca said, "I certainly don't want to see that relief given to me at the expense of destroying the town" |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 9:29 pm: | |
Not the complete article, and bold and comments in parenthesis are yours?
Who can't handle the truth? |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 9:54 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan .
As an avid, recurrent, reader, and contributor to this message board, you know full well that we are forbidden to post articles in their entirety so as not to violate copyright laws. These are not my rules. (I've been chastised by the webmaster for this before.)
Therefore, I must pick and choose what I believe are the most pertinent and salient paragraphs.
You , of course, are more than welcome to post the
few sections of this article I did leave out, adding your own comments and bolds.
I am not the problem. |
Tom
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 10:13 pm: | |
No, the writer of the story is the problem. There's nothing in the story that offers the perspective of someone who's taxes are going down, only those whose are going radically up. so even if U did post the entire thing it would still be one-sided. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 10:17 pm: | |
Shouldn't Vic DeLuca recuse himself (not participate) from this tax "relief" since his reduction results in a personal benefit? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 11:36 pm: | |
Everyone on the town committee is a Maplewood resident, so the reval affects all their personal finances. Perhaps the entire committee should recuse themselves?
More logic from Fairtax01 |
Ihateice
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 3:09 am: | |
Fairtax01....that's the most stupid thing I've ever heard. He is a citizen just like any other Maplewoodian....why shouldn't he benefit. Would you ask him to recuse himself if his taxes were being raised????????? |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 8:47 am: | |
Often when a public official makes a decision that directly benefits him or her financially he/she "recuses" himself so as to avoid any suggestion of impropriety. It's a fairly common practice. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 8:53 am: | |
Often when a public official makes a decision that directly benefits him/her financially, he/she "recuses" himself so as to avoid any suggestion of impropriety. It's a fairly common practice.LSeltzer, It doesn't make sense with the opposite argument - there aren't the same questions. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 9:01 am: | |
"Fairtax", you have already "suggested impropriety". Just because you say it doesn't make it so!
The revaluation is town-wide, fact based, and has an effect on ALL property owners. It's not an award of contract to an individual or a company that someone has an individual financial interest in, which is the actual "fairly common practice" that you allude to.
And let me ask you, what if I had voted NO two years ago when we started this reval process? Would that have been improper because I was trying to avoid an increase in MY valuation ?
And in any case, what decision do you believe is coming up that anyone might be called upon to recuse themselves over?
Vic's a big boy and can defend himself if he needs to. It's clear to me that he doesn't need to.
jerry |
Melidere
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 9:29 am: | |
I dunno, jerry. (smiles) Grasmere did it for years. (vote no, i mean, because it would mean an increase in his taxes) |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 9:33 am: | |
To Gerry Ryan:"The revaluation is town-wide, fact-based and has an effect on ALL property owners. Speaking of which, why didn't they base the revals on 3 years of comparable sales instead of 2000 sales for the portion of town that saw the substantial increase and 1999 sales for the portion that saw reductions? Why isn't the Township Committee insisting that Certified Valuation consider 3 years' worth of sales data as per the contract? Why wasn't the entire town assessed using the same three years? The results are skewed because the methodology was flawed.
By the way, is Vic DeLuca paying less in property taxes under the new reval than when he bought the house 6 years ago? Property taxes increase a small amount every year, wherever you live in town. How can some homeowners in a short period of time be overpaying? 6 years is not a long time. If the taxes were OK when he signed the purchase agreement, etc., how are they unfair just a few years later? I think the whole reval should be re-conducted and we would still see reductions and increases but not with the severe highs and lows. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:03 am: | |
Melidere: :-) I find it interesting and somewhat ironic that the same realtor being quoted in the papers was on the Township Committee the last time the town was SUPPOSED to do a reval, and did not. And by the way he doesn't live in town now. It's easy to stand on the side and criticize; when he was in a position to do the job, and do it properly, he didn't do so.
"Fair"tax:
I've been dying to ask this: can you please define the "fair" in your nom de net?
In answer to your questions
- Certified told us they used 3 years but that they weighted 2000 sales a lot more
- We did insist and are having the assessor address this (see the press release)
- The town was assessed using the same 3 years
The "results" are "skewed" (your words) because parts of town appreciated faster than others. I can't understand how folks can be denying that. Two houses with nearly the same tax should have nearly the same value, and the market shows that they just don't.
This process isn't about when people bought their houses (unless their recent sale can be used as a data point to confirm or refute an assessment). It's about making assessments reflect fair market value. If you believe that yours does not then you need to show Certified and/or the Assessor facts to back up your assertion. If you don't like the number that comes back then you have to appeal that number to the assessor or, ultimately, to the county tax board.
Why do you think reconducting the entire reval will make a significant change? Can you define for me "severe highs" or "severe lows" with facts that show that the entire process is so flawed that it must be scrapped? |
Nicky
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:04 am: | |
Fairtax:
How did you get that information. When I asked the assessor's office, they referred me to certified. When I met with certified, they couldn't give me any information on the formula they used.
It's hard to find out the truth with all these rumors flying around. I would appreciate if the township provide some information on the process. It would especially help reduce the negative attacks hurled on both "sides". |
Eliz
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:34 am: | |
Fairtax - your argument that Vic Deluca recuse himself has no merit. Wasn't Mr Ryan the mayor during this whole process? Aren't his taxes going up by one of the highest percentages? It's only because you don't like the outcome that you are crying for him to step down.
As Lseltzer says - your logic is flawed. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:41 am: | |
Dear G. Ryan, I accept that parts of Maplewood appreciated faster than others. I don't believe these assessments reflect fair market value.
Many folks who bought recently are discovering that the property alone is valued at more than they paid for the whole house. FACT.
I bought in mid-1999, my house/property was assessed at 50% more than the 1999 purchase price. FACT.
Certified told me (twice) that my 1999 purchase price is "irrelevent". FACT.
Come on! My house doubled in value with NO improvements? My Realtor says no, my bank assessment says no (they say the house is worth $180,000 less than Certified). Certified says my bank assessment is "biased".
Perhaps the true assessment is a little more towards the middle. Conversely, what about homeowners seeing their taxes go to below what they originally agreed to pay on the house? That's extreme as well. |
Hobsonschoice
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:43 am: | |
If the town gets a new movie company to tie up downtown for a couple of weeks will the new mayor "recuse" his family from being in the film or will he be smart enought to ensure there is film in the camera? |
Eliz
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:23 am: | |
Fairtax "Conversely, what about homeowners seeing their taxes go to below what they originally agreed to pay on the house? That's extreme as well. "
What does that mean? Are you saying that no matter the value of their homes people should have to pay at minimum what their taxes were when they bought the home??? What kind of methodology is that? |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:42 am: | |
Anyone who feels the new assesment is unfair can file an appeal. It is not a hard process. The reval being done is required by law and the appeal process is the available remedy. Why not use that method fairtax? |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 12:43 pm: | |
Tracks: I was hoping it wouldn't come to an appeals process. Let's assume I appeal, and my taxes are reduced. My reduction will be spread among all of the rest of the town and everyone will absorb my personal reduction. Not to mention the town's legal expenses. The town can't raise my taxes for at least 3 years if I win my appeal.
I believe completely that some houses are now paying more than their fair share at the 1981 assessment--over 19 years that's likely. However, I don't agree that 57% of the town was overpaying. I think a realistic appraisal for each and every home would reflect a broader middle ground. Some taxes will still go up, some will go down. There are just too many people who have bank appraisals or have recently purchased that have seen their taxes raise by 50-80%. These people are probably going to appeal and that's not going to be "fair" in the long term for Maplewood taxpayers. |
|