| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 7:18 pm: |     |
Bacata
yes I have spoken with everyone I can, Certified, Tax Assessor and anyone else who would listen.
We have big problem some areas in the eastside were assessed with 1997 values. This is causing the rest of the town to suffer. I know you like your new low taxes but the assessed equal to the market value like so many homes in eastside. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 7:38 pm: | |
Curmudgeon
Forget the 1981 assessment it has nothing to do with anything. re-val is based strickly on market-value. Why can't get that though your head. My assessment when up 590% so what does that mean. Nothing!
Your so busy trying to protect your decrease tax you don't want to see anything else.
I have every right to be pissed at Mr.Deluca, when he saw his 130k assessment he had know it was off and there was a problem. He and the TC should have jumped on it right away. Take off the blinders B there's more at stake than you saving a few bucks. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:02 pm: | |
infact, the TC should have jumped all over this as soon as Jerry saw his 78% increase as well as Vic's extreme decrease. And, i guarantee these guys knew about the extreme swings back in November. Jerry admitted as much to a friend who was trying to figure what his financial situation was going to be back in December. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:10 pm: | |
You just don't get it. The '81 assessments have quite a lot to do with this, since the taxes you pay now are directly related to your 1981 assessment. They're also a baseline to use to judge how much the value of the houses went up. In Hilton the values went up by 2 to 3.5. In other parts of town, especially to the west, they've gone up 4 to 6 times. Why can't you get THAT through YOUR head.
As to my taxes going down - fat chance. My taxes are going up about $2500. Am I happy about it? Nope. Is it fair? Yep. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:12 pm: | |
Thomas,
How can you say the 1981 assessment has nothing to do with anything? It's the basis for people's current property taxes, the ones that people like Vic are currently overpaying. It's also a basis of the change in tax rate, and obviously the change in rate is what is making people mad. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:15 pm: | |
hay bac
where do you live Irvington. what house for 63k? |
Buddy
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:45 pm: | |
Tgb:
I think that his actual title is "President-select" until Saturday. Then he becomes moron-in-chief.
Besides, President Cheney is in charge. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:49 pm: | |
Curmudgeon & Lseltzer
the re-val is based strickly on market value today, not in 1981. 1981 is not considered in the re-val. Whats the point in you calculating weather the value went up 200% or 600%. Houses on the same block can have a 200% difference. The problem is they are getting the current values wrong. |
Jem
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 9:52 pm: | |
Thomas,
Listen carefully.
You, and I, and everyone who lives in Maplewood have been paying our property taxes
BASED ON THE VALUE OF OUR HOUSES IN 1981.
Did you know that?
No?
Well, now you do.
And......
(now keep listening)
Some of the houses in Maplewood have increased to twice their 1981 value, and some have increased to 3, 4, 5 or even more times their 1981 value, but the people who live in houses that increased in value by a factor of two are paying taxes very, very similar to some houses that increased in value by a factor of 3, 4, 5, or more.
(Are you still with me?)
The difference between the old assessment and the new value is the cause of the problem. People aren't tossing around numbers from the year 1981 just to annoy or confuse you. There may be some incorrect valuations, and they should be corrected, but you are missing an important piece of information when you reject the basis of the problem. |
Kap
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 9:56 pm: | |
Crudmudgeon/LSeltzer/jem, Why are you bothering to debate Thomas? You cite facts, he spews vitriol. I'm sure you all have better things to do; better (more informed)posts to respond to. He kind of reminds me of Fausto. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:07 pm: | |
Kap -
"Crudmudgeon"??? I hope that's not really what you think of my posts :-)
Just for the record, it's "Curmudgeon", thank you very much (ahem) |
Kap
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:09 pm: | |
sorry about that!!  |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:17 pm: | |
Jem
thank you for your condescending lesson but believe me I understand the tax structure better than you ever will.
We can not change what happened in 1981 we can change what is happening now.
go back read my notes. What I said was in effect was the 1981 assessment has no effect on the new assessment. It is not considered when assessing value today. Can you understand That?
I understand the current inequities and also see new ones being created. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:20 pm: | |
Thanks Kap
God bless you too |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:00 pm: | |
Dear Thomas, that 63K house is STILL available if you are truly interested. Not sure of the current price. Check out 105 Woodside Road, MAPLEWOOD. Your arrogance is seriously over the top.
Bacata |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:30 pm: | |
Sorry Bacata
No malice intended
105 woodside is a very bad example. This is a bank foreclouse (owned by Hud) in need of a enourmous amount of work. If this is the area you live in a better comparison might be 60 Peachtree
at $184,900. This area is feching good prices compared to 3 years ago. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 7:45 am: | |
But, still the house is selling for $63K. We can't assume that because we can only see the outside of houses that the insides are in the same quality. There's an old Italian tradition that says "keep your front stoop clean because that's what your neighbors see."
I'm sure that there are many in Maplewood who abide by it. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 8:43 am: | |
Thomas,
you put your finger on one important truth. That area is fetching good prices compared to 3 years ago. It's not a coincidence that since three years ago we've created the demonstration school. The people that think they will be better off if certified goes further back for their comparables might want to take that into consideration.
They also might want to reconsider the impact of investing in springfield avenue. The price we're paying now is the price of neglect. Rectifying the situation will mean rectifying that mistake. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:06 am: | |
yes the real estate market in general is fetching much better prices than 3 years ago. so why are they using 3 year old prices in some areas and 6 mo prices in others? |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:23 am: | |
Thomas - save that question for the TC and Certified at Tuesday night's meeting. It seems to be the crux of this reval situation. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:24 pm: | |
Thomas, et. al. Let's see, another bank foreclosure in my neighborhood. Why am I not surprised? Because local residents HAVE ALREADY been taxed out of their homes? That's one of the inequities we're trying to address with this reval, folks. As I've said before, I do think that some of Certifieds assessments seem to be pretty far off base on the high end. I don't know that I could get the 163K they assessed mine at but I'm sure not willing to try. (Do YOU think I should ask for a lower assessment, probably not!) BTW, lots of homes on this side of town are HUD or FHA financed. Some through VA benefits, etc. So?
I love Maplewood. It reminds me a lot of Madison, where I grew up, but I like Maplewood even better for its diversity and small town feeling. I am very pleased to be planning to stay for the duration. I think it's a great town to raise a family in. I remember that when we looked at homes I specifically required a home where I might be comfortable for the rest of my life.
People outside of Maplewood have always exclaimed about our my high taxes. I naively assumed those taxes where based on a fair property assessment and spread evenly throughout the town. I don't live on the paranoid or adversarial model when it comes to my home life. So, no, I never thought to question the amount, just figured everyone in Maplewood had high taxes and we'd made that choice as individuals in this community. Again, should I have gone to the assessor to say "I don't think my home is really worth 57K?"
We will get through this and despite the doomsday or chicken little proclamations, Maplewood will not be destroyed by this crisis and struggle. The sky is not falling. We have a problem (which we've actually had for a long time, just not noticed by many) and we're working on solving it. People have different ideas about how to do it. Recalling the TC or suing the municipality is throwing a tantrum, in my opinion. Tantrums don't do anything useful but create a lot of noise and get a lot of attention for a while. These kinds of tantrums, from grown-ups, could be very costly for everyone. Let's continue using our governmental and regulatory processes to solve the problem. See you Tuesday.
Bacata |
Mlj
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:56 pm: | |
I have lived here for years, currently in my second home. I have grown accustomed to my friends' eyes glazing over when they hear about Maplewood's taxes. Now MY eyes are starting to glaze over... |
Thomas
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 5:31 pm: | |
Bacata
I agree with you when you say your taxes were to high. 5800+ is to high, the worst part is you probably had little chance of appealing with the ratio the town used this year. The Ratio used is 36.47% (57,000/36.47%=156,292) so with the falsely high ratio the town made it difficult to appeal. Im glade your getting a reduction, sounds like your one of the folks overdue. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page