| Author | Message | ||
     Joso |
Am I the only one who feels that this message board is dominated by residents (and currently particularly incensed residents) of Maplewood. Where are you South Orange? | ||
| Librarylady |
Luckily we had our reval done years ago. Wait till it's done again, boy will you see messages then. | ||
| Lseltzer |
When we were shopping for houses in 1995 we looked at one in Newstead. I don't remember the property taxes, but they were insane. We were told that Newstead got hit hard in the reval and that residents were successfully challenging their assessments. I wouldn't be surprised if the facts were similar to what we're seeing now, but the real estate market for the area as a whole had not bounced back yet. | ||
| Joso |
Actually I was not refering to TAXES at all. Just the observation that most discussions are dominated by Maplewood concerns. Is it because South Orange is such a more contented place? | ||
| Kmk |
Isn't the board called "Maplewoodonline.com"? It is probably that South Orange residents are simply not aware of this online resource. I know it connects somehow to a South Orange homepage but it's not too elaborate if I remember correctly. | ||
| Dave |
Not elaborate at all. My bad. One day though.... | ||
| Lseltzer |
Actually, the discussion forum is hosted on southorangevillage.com. If you connect to it on Maplewoodonline you see maplewoodonline.com in the address line, but the page is actually connecting to southorangevillage.com. In HTML programming terms, it's using "frames." Go to http://www.southorangevillage.com/ and you can see the messageboard also, although the UI from that site is awful. | ||
| Deadwhitemale |
This is more fun! 'til the next reevaluation. Hey, hasn't anyone noticed the problem is local taxation paying for education, and for Essex County's bureaucracy. These should be funded by State wide taxation, and what do our elected State officials have to say about that. How about the local elected township officials. DWM | ||
| Mammabear |
Boy am I glad I sold my house in Maplewood! Atleast I know where I stand tax-wise at my new place in SO!!! | ||
| Villagenative |
In South Orange, they're redeveloping instead of revaluating. Only problem is they're destroying one of the oldest neighborhoods in the area to construct apartments. Not much tax-base there, eh? | ||
| Tracks |
What neighborhood is being destroyed in S. Orange. You can't mean Church street which was the biggest eye sore in town for years, when there was a used car/rental place, and a bunch of homes that were falling down. And don't apartments generate tax dollars. I cannot imagine that those old dilapidated homes and an empty lot generated any taxes for the village | ||
| Nakaille |
My understanding is that those new, luxury apts are being given an enormous tax break for at least 5 years that will actually impact negatively on the school portion of the tax burden. Please, someone from South Orange, clarify. Thank you. Bacata | ||
| Villagenative |
It's as clear as pea soup, Bacata. There is a tax break, but it's unclear to what extent. Just want to point out that, while you're all being taxed out of your homes, we're facing condemnation. And to clarify, Tracks, most of these houses were built during the turn of the century and will never fall down without bulldozing help. The impact on the school system will be significant and the taxes are not forthcoming. At least your government officials participate on this board instead of hiding their heads in sand. Kinda pathetic. | ||
| Kathy |
Bacata, It is my understanding that the new apartments have been granted a total tax abatement for however many years, in exchange for a direct payment to the Village of SO that is perhaps slightly more than the municipal part of the property tax would have amounted to. But the county and the schools get nothing. When I asked Village President Calabrese about this, he assured me that since these were luxury rental units, there would not be any children living there, and so there would be no impact on the schools. I am afraid that he is, and we are, in for a rude awakening. | ||
| Nakaille |
He thinks folks with money don't have kids???? Wow, rude awakening is right! What a sweet deal! Who really profits from this, do you think? Bacata | ||
| Librarylady |
My question is did the school board and the county have to approve this abatement? IS the Village going to reinburse these entities for their lost revenues? Is this gonna cost the village even more than we realize? | ||
| Oxford |
Nakaille, the chip on your shoulder is the size of Giants Stadium. You sound like a communist or something. What's your problem with "folks with money?" Why did you choose to live in this town anyway? If you hate the rich and even the merely upper middle class, move to Newark or something. Maybe then you'll also stop grumbling about how expensive it is to live here and how you can barely afford to stay. | ||
| Eliz |
Oxford - speaking of a chip.... look in the mirror! With the incredibly high taxes do you agree with towns giving exemptions on taxes to luxury apartment buildings????? p.s. do you really need to be so nasty? | ||
| Tracks |
So if the new apartments on third street do not have to pay money to the shcools, is this a way of leveling the playing field for S. Orange after paying more than their fair share for years? Maplewood has been paying less than 60% of the bill while more than 60% of the students have come from Maplewood for years. How many houses have been condemned on Chruch street. I thought the houses were sold to a developer. Also, you do not answer the the question as to what neighborhood is being destroyed? Five years ago, Church street was the biggest eyesore in S. Orange. | ||
| Oxford |
Sorry, Eliz, I'm nasty because I got up in the morning and found out that my town did a reassessment at the peak of the real estate market...then they refused to take responsibility for their idiotic inability to enforce a contract they signed on the town's behalf....then they expected us to all solve it on our own with some poor part-time tax assessor who'll probably run screaming out of Town Hall any minute now....and amid all of this a bunch of communist whiners who could have fought their tax bills ALL ALONG but DIDN'T (gee, how come this was never an issue over among the east siders before?) are telling me I have no right to complain about a huge increase in MY tax bill, that if I'm so rich I can just eat it up without complaining. I don't like being judged any more than they do. Why do people assume that if you live in a $565,000 house you have no problems and don't deserve to complain? Maybe that's why I'm nasty. And for the record I don't like exemptions on luxury apt bldgs that will only draw more traffic, population, etc to this area. The last thing we need are more people trying to cram themselves onto the Midtown Direct in the morning. | ||
| Overtaxdalready |
Oxford...you can add that it's assumed that just because someone put a "fair market value" of $565,000 on your house...which most likely generates an UNREALIZED profit to you (assuming you bought a couple of years back), that this increase in FMV means you're "rich" and therefore have the ability to pay an absurd tax hike. | ||
| Nakaille |
Oh, no, the dreaded "C" word! What do you think this is, 1956? What if I were a communist? Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him? Never mind, we'll take Ashcroft, hmmm? The fact is I do live here, have done so for almost 9 years, paid my taxes and mortgage on time, and haven't yet used the school system. Get off your high horse, Oxford. My point was that people with more financial resources are just as likely to have children as people with lesser resources. Ask the gentleman recently posting about needing a larger home for his larger family and buying a home in the 5 or 600K range. And I do have wealthy friends. Their good luck for choosing careers in computers or inheriting family money. My bad luck for choosing my career and coming from "white trash." So? I work in Newark every day. With people who have a heck of a lot less than I do. That helps me maintain perspective on this wealth and prosperity question. As I've said, anyone who can afford to legally live in Maplewood (or South Orange) is doing just fine by monetary standards, myself included. The invitation still stands, however, for anyone to move to the "east side" of town who is uncomfortable with their tax burden. There are homes available and you don't have to get into a bidding war. You don't really have to move to Newark or Millburn, as it turns out. (That includes Nursie.) Eliz is right, look in the mirror. Bacata | ||
| Oxford |
Nakaille, I don't support Ashcroft, if that's what you imply. I certainly didn't vote for Bush. I HAVE looked in the mirror, and what I see is a person who resents judgments of the sort I refer to in my last thread. If you met me or sat next to me on the train - or god forbid at Tuesday's meeting - you and I would be polite to each other, I'm sure. We might even have a lot in common. I apologize for calling you a communist. I guess that shows how out of control this whole thing is getting. | ||
| Nakaille |
Apology accepted. BTW, I don't take offense to being called a communist. Most people who followed or still follow that philosophy did it out of an honest belief that it would better living conditions for the vast majority of people. They may have been mistaken and some of the leaders of the movement may have done some bizarre and reprehensible things in the name of communism (Stalin and Mao come to mind here) but that has happened in the name of nearly every significant social and religious movement since we started to move away from feudalism. Capitalism has its problems, too. (Glad I don't live in California THIS week! And I do fear the NJ is next on that score since we've moved into the same deregulatory pattern.) Anyway, yes, let's try to stay civil. I'm as guilty as anyone here of losing my temper and venting instead of trying to have real dialogue. My apologies to those whom I may have offended. Bacata | ||
| Eliz |
"Communist whiners"??????? oooh this is getting good! | ||
| Jfb |
Nakaille, FYI the California problem is because the DID NOT deregulate. They capped consumer prices, as energy costs rose the utilities could not charge what it was costing them. They lost thier shirt. Now, no utility will build there. Simple. The California beaurocrats blew it. Control it, or deregulate it. | ||
| Bshears |
...."may have been mistaken" and "may have done some bizarre and reprehensible things". You should be ashamed of yourself and go back to school and take some courses in HISTORY. |
