| Author |
Message |
    
Vicdeluca
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:57 am: |     |
There has been a change in the Township Committee meeting for next week. Due a school board meeting on Monday night, the Maplewood Township Committee's meeting will be on Tuesday, January 23rd at 8pm. It will be held in the auditorium in Columbia High School on Parker Ave, which has seating capacity for 1100 people. The meeting will be televised over Channel 35. The meeting will start with a presentation as to where we are in the process as of that date and then we will open the meeting to speakers. Anyone wishing to speak may sign up at the door that evening. There will not be a speaker sign up sheet prior to that night.
The Township has also sent a letter to the Essex County Tax Board asking for an extension of the reporting deadline beyond January 24th. We are seeking a sufficient time period to allow for the Maplewood Tax Assessor to complete his review of the information supplied by Certified Valuations. We are awaiting a response from the Tax Board. |
Truthseeker
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 1:04 pm: | |
Will the Maplewood Tax Assessor's review be based upon a three year sales average as implied by several Township Committee members at the Monday meetng, or will he use only the the 2000 sales data as did Certified? If the former, will he calculate new comparables for all properties, or only those for which there has been voiced concern? If only the 2000 data is to be used, how does this reconcile to the Committee's comments? |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 1:10 pm: | |
Vic,
Have you considered having some off-line discussions with representatives of the Fairtax Committee to see if you can work out a common approach to working through this tax problem. I think this is important because it seems like the current revaluation might not withstand a court challenge due to what appears to be inconsistencies in the approach followed by Certified. On the other hand, such a court result would not help Maplewood or change the reality that taxes are going to go up sharply on a number of properties in town whether as a result of this revaluation or a subsequent revaluation. It seems to me that a dialogue with the Fairtax Committee might help prevent court action. Also, there is a lot of talent in Maplewood worth utilizing. |
Kmk
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 1:15 pm: | |
Thanks Vic for the update. Should "we" invite a representative from Certified to attend the meeting? I don't envy him(her), but it would smooth a few feathers among citizens. |
Rckymtn
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:52 pm: | |
I have difficulty understanding what type of court action is being contemplated -- at this point it certainly will not prevent the process from going forward, since nobody has suffered any tangible injury yet -- only the possibility of injury, and even then this possibility of injury can be remedied now by the process already in place: (1) meet with Certified; (2) meet with Galante; (3) appeal to Essex County. When that process has expired, and that first tax bill comes due, then there may be an injury to be redressed.
And what is the alleged violation of law? State law, federal law, constitutional? I mean, you can't go to court and simply say "something happened to me that was unfair" and expect to succeed.
And who will be sued? Not Certified, since its contract is with the Town, not with the residents. Not the Township Committee, which is relying on its legal counsel and acting at the direction of state officials and in compliance with the state constitution. The TC is simply carrying out a process that is mandated by law. And not the committee members individually, since they are acting in their official capacities in carrying out the law.
"I'm going to sue you" worked nicely on the playground, but a lawsuit over this mess is highly unlikely to succeed, and will result only in enormous legal fees for both the Town (which hurt us all) and for the plaintiffs (and who will they be? Citizens? The so-called "fair tax committee"?). It strikes me as odd that the potential plaintiffs would rather pay lawyers a ton of money on a risky scheme in order to avoid paying -- that's right, more money -- anyone thought about the cost/benefit analysis here? Remember, the lawyers will collect even if you never do, and while your taxes might go up two, three, or even eight thousand dollars, lawyers can eat up that kind of money in a week.
Talk of lawsuits is a bit premature. I'm afraid your best legal process is to, as they say, throw the bums out. But even then, your taxes will still be higher than they are today.
I'm not throwing in the towel here or trying to be defeatist, and I'm certainly not a constitutional or real estate or tax lawyer, but it's high time for a bit of hardcore reality. |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:15 pm: | |
Rckymtn,
I don't claim to be a legal expert. And I think your point about injury actually occurring is correct. In a civil suit, I don't think that there needs to be an actual violation of a law. Beyond that, I have been told by somebody who does know something of the law that the relevant legal standard in a case such as this is to prove that the revaluation was "capricious and arbitrary". If complaints directed against Certified during the last town meeting are correct, then you could argue that the revaluation was, in fact, capricious and arbitrary.
I completely agree with your point that legal action would not benefit anybody in Maplewood. However, I think that there might be more than one person in town willing to initiate a lawsuit out of irritation with the revaluation process. That is why I raised the idea of the TC or the Mayor meeting with representatives of those groups experiencing the greatest tax increases. Perhaps a little dialogue would calm people down so that the revaluation can be settled without involving the courts. |
Rckymtn
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:37 pm: | |
That court involvement would not be necessary is my hope too, especially because of my dim view of the likelihood of success of a lawsuit and the extraordinary costs associated with such a case.
"Arbitrary and capricious" is a great-sounding legal term. But it's also a very high legal burden to meet.
And in any civil action there must be an allegation of a violation of law, whether common law (such as auto accidents or slip and falls, or breach of contract), state statute or code, federal statute or code, state or federal constitution, or town code. Courts remedy violations of law, they don't simply exist to tell private assessment companies that they screwed up (which everybody knows happened). A legal violation of some sort is a prerequisite to any remedy for homeowners that a court might order. And any remedial order would have to be directed at the Township or TC -- and I don't think that the TC's decision to accept Certified's figures can in any way be described as "arbitrary or capricious" even though Certified's numbers, in some instances, may have been arbitrary. |
Golden
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:20 pm: | |
This situation would meet the need standard for civil court.
The TC entered into a contract with Certified that called for the analysis of the past 3 years. This data would be used to formulate the new reval, which would effect all town residents.
We now learn that Certified relied on 2000 figures. They were not in compliance with the intent of the contract. If the TC accepts the figures provided by Certified they are indeed acting in "arbitrary and capricious" manner since they have been presented with abundant exhibits concerning major reval problems, yet seem to be ready to accept these flawed numbers.
As far as the cost of litigation...I am sure that there are a number of lawyers residing in town that may belong to one of the neighborhood associations. With their combined talents, I am sure that litigation could be done at a reasonable cost.
Yes, some taxes will go up and some will go down. But to increase taxes based on a flawed process is not just. And there are injured parties in this case ... those who have been given unrealistic revals. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 8:31 am: | |
Euclidean: there have been some "offline discussions" by phone with a LOT of people... and I offered to attend any meeting I got invited to, an offer which still stands modulo family committments and the Battle Of The Bands :-)
What I am trying to do is to get all of the facts that I can and get that information out to as many people as possible. I am also working with Trenton to get the software that does the Revaluation Relief Act analysis.
I am not a lawyer so I am not going to debate legal merits of points made here on this board; that is what discovery is for. However, I do want to comment on this "three year sales" point for a moment.
1. The contract says "The firm shall collect and analyze local sales that have occurred during the previous three (3) years in its application of the comparison or Market Data Approach"
2. Certified never said that they "only used 2000". They said that they placed much more weight on 2000 sales than they did on 1999 or 1998 sales.
The Township Committee has accepted the recommendation of thr Tax Assessor that he examine the assessments and sales data for the entire town.
Jerry |
Ashear
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:01 am: | |
Golden: While I have been (and remain) mostly a distressed observer of this debate I do feel that as someone with knowledge of the law I need to correct your apparent undue optimism about the likely success of legal action under the facts you present.
1) No harm has yet occurred: Until all affected taxpayers exhaust administrative remedies (town, county, and state appeals) of their assessments I do not believe they would have recourse to the courts.
2) I do not believe that the town is bound by the standard set in the contract. As I understand it the relevant state statue requires the valuation to be the value of the property as of October 1. While it might be BETTER to use three years of sales data in making this determination so as to smooth out bumps in the market that is a far cry from making the use of only 2000 sales (which appears not even to be what happened) arbitrary and capricious. To meet that standard would require massive improprieties of a sort not alleged in the facts you present. I have not researched the law in this specific area, and would be interested in hearing from anyone who has, but when you have to meet an arbitrary and capricious standard you almost always lose.
I would also urge you not to underestimate the cost or time involved in any legal action. Perhaps there are lawyers in town who would undertake this monumental litigation (which would doubtless include years of appeals) but I would not envy them.
I hope this is helpful |
Golden
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:52 pm: | |
Asher
Interested in what forms your "knowledge of the law" . Are you an attorney?
Regardless, you should be aware of the fact that a lawsuit could be filed in this case . The merits of the case would be reviewed by a Superior Court Judge , resulting in an order or opinion on the proper course of action needed to settle the situation with Certified.
You should also be aware of the fact that the cost of litigation need not be excessive ... and could even be filed by a non attorney.
This posting is not intended to debate who has better understanding or knowledge of the law.
It is meant to show that their is an avenue open to those residents who will be harmed if the new reval goes into effect.
As far as "undue optimism" - try some, you may like it and find that it does work. |
6yearrez
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 1:54 pm: | |
A question for Jerry Ryan:
Concerning the task of the Maplewood tax assessor going through the reval data with Certified, to review the use of all three years (and the extra weight added to the 2000 values).
I have concerns about the standard the tax assessor will use to determine what is appropriate for each property. I ask these questions:
1) What weights, numerically, will the tax assessor place on each of the three years that are to be used in calculations? I understand that Certified placed "more" weight on 2000, but what weight was it? Where did they come up with the weights used, and can they justify these values? It is an incredibly easy question for them to answer, numerically.
2) Were the weights (for the three years) identical for every area of town? If not, why not? I'm asking you to request that Certified explain themselves. You have a right to that.
2) What truth is there to Certified placing properties at values of $1 million per acre on the west side? Did the TC have any input on certified's assumptions of land value? Where did these values come from?? There is a strong trend apparent in the many assessment values I've heard that the property size had a tremendous impact on the assessment. Will Gallante adjust the land values? I know my land is not worth a million an acre.
As you can see from my name, I've lived here six years. I'm on the "west side". My taxes would go up about 16% with the new reval. I'm not thrilled about it, but I don't fight the idea that an increase is fair. I'm furious, though, that the TC would be willing to accept the formulas used by Certified without full knowledge. What has really irked me is the failure of certified to explain what they did. It is obvious that the values used on my street were wrong. After consulting with many neighbors on their new assessments, we've discovered that a large percentage of the homes were given assessments higher than any home has ever sold on this street. How could these assessment values be valid? The standards applied were just plain incorrect for determining what a house could sell for on my street. None of us could sell our homes at the assessed values, let alone with the tax increase that will come along with it.
It is imperative that Certified reveal it's formulas and answer to them. Gallante needs to be looking at the weights for the years as well as the land values. I urge you to pressure Certified to give up their information, if they haven't already. And if they have, tell us.
Thank you. |
Dave
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:19 pm: | |
And was the additional weight for y2k based on the (low) rate of inflation, or another number?
....See, there was a y2k problem, after all. |
Ashear
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:28 pm: | |
Golden
Yes, I am an attorney.
What cause of action do you think people currently have? The reeval is not yet completed and there are administrative remedies available for individuals who feel their evaluations are erroneous.
This not being my area of expertise it is possible I am missing something but I just don't see a valid claim here, at least at this stage.
I must admit I also hate the American tendency to go to court over everything. |
Golden
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 4:14 pm: | |
Ashear
Thanks for your response - If you spend any time at the Hall of Records or the Wilentz Building, chances are we crossed each other path.
Agreed - a court case should not be a "given" at this point. Let's wait until Tuesday to see what the TC has to say. Hopefully they will have made progress with Certified.
As you are probably aware, the citizens of N.J. are very litigious. It is, however, a legitimate way of seeking relief when all else fails. The issues of reval and increase/decrease taxes are ones that mandate a fair, reasonable, and equitable solution. If such an equation was used, there would be no resulting east vs. west vs. TC campaign. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 5:22 pm: | |
6year: here's the info you wanted
1. I don't know specific numbers on this but we expect to have a presentation and discussion by the Assessor and/or Certified at the meeting on Tuesday.
2. I believe that the answer to this is yes, but this too will be discussed Tuesday.
3. People are calculating their land assessment by their lot size to get a price-per-acre. I understand from the assessor that this is a false analogy.
I am not an assessor, though I have read a lot about it and learned about it. We're not charged with being assessors, and none of us have the expertise to review formulas. Indeed, we were never called upon to review formulas or make decisions on the formulas used. The process is supposed to follow the NJ Assessor's manual, and the Assessor is the expert who certifies to us that it does follow the correct procedures, and that the numbers are correct.
There will be a thorough discussion of this on Tuesday. |
Crocamo
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 6:17 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan,
Can you explain how the assessed value of a property with a View is figured out into your land assessment. I found out yesterday that most proerties on Pierson/Salter and Burnett have this labeled on their Certified documentaion. Also, how are views of Memorial Park, Maplecrest Park, Manhattan, and other views calculated in other asessments. Also, is extreme noise such as leaf blowers at the golf course, heavy dump trucks, and other large vehicles plowing down the street, and not to mention golf carts traveling right next to your house, and backyard for at least 9 months out of the year. How is all this, or is all this calculated into the mix? |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:27 pm: | |
crocamo-
i feel for you (i'm not being facetious). Good luck with this one. |
Lah
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:58 pm: | |
Another issue they didn't consider is busy streets. In other words, people on noisy, crowded streets get the same assessment as the people on the quiet side streets (assuming they're in the same neighborhood). Why is it that a bank looks at all these things in assessing a home's value, but Certified does not? Maybe that explains why we believe a Bank's valuation, but not Certified (even after the new neighborhood "adjustments" are taken into account). |
6yearrez
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 10:58 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan-
Thank you for your candid and prompt response. I hope Certified is as straightforward and clear with their answers. I also understand that none of the TC are assessors. However, there is some basic understanding we all have of the variables that typically are taken into account in assessment, and it seems clear that the assessor can discuss in "layperson's" terms how Certified took these into account in the formulation. I look forward to hearing the answers on Tuesday. I will be watching the televised broadcast from home-- with two small children, given the situation under discussion I can't afford a babysitter :-) Don't underestimate the number of interested parties in this- the number that show up at the meeting are only a handful. I know that South Orange residents are also concerned.
Lah-
Do we even know what Certified takes into account? I don't feel they've given much information anywhere. My biggest regret is not following the Certified rep around my house to ask questions-- for all of the five minutes he was here. I hope they are straightforward when they come in next week.
Then again- did you say, Mr. Ryan, that either the assessor (from Maplewood?) or Certified will show up? Isn't this at least in Certified's contract, that they must come to town meetings and respond? I thought I heard it mentioned at the meeting this week. We did pay for them to give us these answers, didn't we?
Thanks. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:20 pm: | |
6yr: You're welcome. By the way, my daughter's a pretty good sitter [oops, wait, isn't that a conflict of interest??? :-)]
The assessor (Maplewood's assessor, Ed Galante) will definitely be there. Not sure about Certified's particular schedule yet tho my expectation is that they will be present as well.
Certified's contract specifies, among other things: "At the request of the Municipality, appropriate representitives of the Firm shall meet with the Governing Body ... to discuss the performance of services under the contract". |
6yearrez
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:54 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan-
Not a conflict of interest- we are always looking for a good local sitter! I'll be in touch after this whole mess gets resolved : )
"Interesting" wording on the contract, it's hard to tell whether they need to respond to, specifically, the people. Let's hope they see it as their responsibility to send a knowledgeable representative. Thanks once more. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 12:11 am: | |
Responding to people is how I read it...
Jerry
PS Mr. Ryan is my father, thanks :-) |
Lah
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:16 am: | |
6yearrez -
You are correct. We have no idea what Certified considered (isn't this one of the fundamental problems??) I asked specifically about some criteria (busy street, for example) and was told that my numbers were based on my neighborhood, not my street.
BTW, you may have competition from me for Gerry's daughter (we're always looking for another good sitter....) |
6yearrez
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 4:53 pm: | |
lah,
Oh, no, not more babysitting competition! Do you think they're going to start charging more per hour for homes on the west side?
Oh, and sorry Jerry- wasn't sure what you preferred, just trying to be polite! |
Crocamo
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 6:39 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan,
I'll again pose my VIEW question to you, and I'd also like to add the views of people who live in the Condo. complex The Hill..Were they too charged for a VIEW?
Can you explain how the assessed value of a property with a View is figured out into your land assessment. I found out yesterday that most proerties on Pierson/Salter and Burnett have this labeled on their Certified documentaion. Also, how are views of Memorial Park, Maplecrest Park, Manhattan, and other views calculated in other asessments. Also, is extreme noise such as leaf blowers at the golf course, heavy dump trucks, and other large vehicles plowing down the street, causing heavy traffic and not to mention golf carts traveling right next to your house, and backyard for at least 9 months out of the year. How is all this, or is all this calculated into the mix? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 6:57 pm: | |
Crocamo: I have no idea how those sort of things are factored into an assessment. We'll have to ask the assessor. |
Crocamo
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 8:23 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan,
Thank you for your answer. Would you ask Mr. Gallante to have the information for Tuesday's meeting? My neighbors, myself, and other taxpayers with a VIEW would like to know. |
|