| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 6:10 pm: |     |
tom
we don't have scap the whole thing but every value has to be looked at again. Not just a portion, not just the west side but the whole town. Its been proven that this re-val is not only flawed but flawed badly. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 6:38 pm: | |
Well Ellen Davensport does seem nice but I will remain open-minded and see who will run next year. We need NEW Democrats to run, the Republicans can't win here. Is there any contest in the primary? Does anyone challenge these incumbents, is there any competition? We have basically handed over ALL decision making responsibility to them. And then you wonder how this tax fiasco can happen. And to boot, in my opinion, from a man who probably resented this town growing up in Newark so it's payback for you rich people on the hill!  |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 6:41 pm: | |
Did anyone listen last night? First, Ms. KIng did address the reason why the people on the east side didn't appeal their taxes. Most people when they move in or get their annual increase believe that they are paying their fair share of taxes and no more than that.
Second, does anyone pay attention? Everyone at the meeting was so busy with their own agenda that they didn't pay attention to what was being said by the committee. All everyone wanted to say was "thrown out this reval, and lower my taxes." For people who are suppose to be so intelligent they sure didn't use their brains last night. Everyone wants Vic and Jerry recalled, and then they want the reval thrown out.
Let me address both of these issues. First, throwing VIc and Jerry out won't change the fact that you now have to pay your fair share of taxes.
Second, if they throw the revals out, the east side appeals their taxes with the county and they will win!! There is no question about that!! So, in answer to your next question...where does that leave you? It's simply, you pay tax on your old value. What, you say that's great? NOT!!! The town simply has to raise the tax rate and then you still pay more. Face it the taxes (one way or another) will now be fair to the whole town. |
Golden
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 6:49 pm: | |
The TC meeting last night was quite similar to the reval process - poorly planned and poorly executed. Just some quick observations:
1.The fact that the mayor was "suprised" at the large turnout tells me that he is not in touch with the feelings of the ENTIRE town.
2.The statement made by the mayor at the start of the meeting was foolish. We are adult taxpayers who do not need to be lectured to concerning proper conduct.
Mr. Liebman again proved to be the voice of reason when he proposed putting the reval off until it is done right. Ms.Davenport and Mr. Ryan also seemed open to this idea.
If putting the reval off for one year results in an increase in lawsuits from east side residents, and subsequent costs to the town, than so be it.
Don't the members of the TC realize that if the reval goes forward, the town will have an even greater cost due to lawsuits filed by westside residents?
As one speaker noted, the TC was elected to represent the concerns of the entire town. It is time for them to admit that they blew this reval, and come up with solutions that are fair to all. |
Jfb
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 6:55 pm: | |
Fair. But worthwhile? If you are paying 15K a year what is it for? Hell, we don't even get garbage pickup! I get a warning everytime I park my sailboat in my driveway for over four hours!
And while we are at it, what is fair? Is it fair that your kids get subsidized by those who have no kids?
We had this debate over resources. While I'm at it, is it fair that my neighbors send their kids to private school but will be paying HUGE taxes?
NO, not fair.
Maybe people will vote Republican for a change. This is what the democrats dream of. Income redistribution. A chance to sock it to them rich folks up on the hill.
All I can say is thank GOD that Al Gore didn't make the grade. Instead of a fed tax cut we would be having more tax increases. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 6:57 pm: | |
eb
your missing the point
If people on the side appeal their taxes and they go down thats whats suppose to happen. taxes on the west may go up some but not 4-8k. I agree some home on west should paying more but 60% increases are out of line and 35% deductions are also out of line. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 7:01 pm: | |
I believe the other three on the TC would table this re-val in a minute if not for Vic & Jerry.
The longer this takes to get resolved the worst its going to get |
Commonsense
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 7:21 pm: | |
it really is two points 1) the process of revaluation was very flawed. many folks had their own examples of that last night and it certainly seems that Certified took a very inconsistent and sloppy approach to the work-even the town committee seemed to agree that many outcomes are out of whack. 2) imposing 45-80% increases at once does create a hardship that will hurt the overall town,and in the end HURT all of Maplewood. Though Vic said that using the impact of higher taxes on figuring the valuation is not allowed, at this level, there has to be some consideration because the increases in many homes are so high, both percentagewise as well as nominal. The house which sold through the offer level and traded for 600k last spring in the heat of NASDAQ quite frankly is now worth less anyway and will be worth an additional 75k-100k less because of these higher taxes. That's why the reval process needs to be done in a more complete method (measured over a three year period) and when a more rational re-valuation process is in place, the increases need to be phased in. The assessment problem was not created overnite and certainly a proper solution needs an adjustment period also. The one overriding theme of last night, away from peoples' own stories, was how much they loved Maplewood. It will be a challenge to everyone to keep that in mind as we seek a solution. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 7:56 pm: | |
Thomas -
"Can you tell me why his assessment is so low. is all of the hilton section this low? If so than I know why my taxes are going up 5k."
As has been said here more than twice - houses in the Hilton area which were assessed in the neigborhood of $50-60K in 1981 are now worth $100-$150K. Houses in other parts of town, mostly but not exclusively on the west side,assessed in the $60-$100K range in 1981, are now worth $275-$750K. Some parts of town, like Hilton, have seen their property values go up 2-3x while others have gone up 4-8x. THAT'S why Mr. DeLuca's taxes stand to go down and yours stand to go up. That he's mayor and you're not has nothing to do with it. |
Tom
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 7:57 pm: | |
jfb, I'm going to assume that the part about the sailboat was facetious. As far as garbage pickup goes, if it became part of your tax burden, you'd pay for it at a price proportionate to your tax rate. In other words, a lot more than someone in the Hilton section. Even though you have the exact same amount of trash. I don't think you'd like that, and would prefer the existing setup where everybody pays the same for their two 30-gallon cans.
Yes, it is fair that people without kids subsidize those with. We were all kids once, each and every one of us, and we were subsidized by the citizens of the towns we lived in. Now we're grown up, and it's time for us to return the favor to the next generation.
Others have had their kids go through the system, with a subsidy from their fellow citizens, and now its their turn to subsidize others.
Others will have children in the future, etc. etc.
If you can sort this out in a way that's equitable, you're a tougher man than I am.
As far as the folks that send their kids to private schools, well that's their personal decision. If they don't want to use the resources available to them, for whatever reason, that doesn't mean that they have no further responsibility to the community.
It's the social contract. It's the community spirit that makes America what it is. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 9:45 pm: | |
Sorry Curmudgeon
but your wrong, you have much knowlage of values in this town as the TC. if you need backup data here it is:
80 Lexington sold for $185k
119 Hilton $189k
27 Wellesley st $171,900
21 Field Rd $167k
76 Hillcrest $175k
11 Williams $170k
need more?
Now how is Deluca at 130,000
maybe all of Hilton is under assessed or maybe just Deluca. I have known way of knowing.
Why can't we get a list of all the new assessments in the town. |
Jfb
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:48 pm: | |
Tom,
Not kidding about the boat. Ordinance about boat in driveway. Got a few warnings.
As far as private school goes, they are subsidizing the public school. If every private school child registered in public schools, the additionl 1200 students would create a dire situation. And yes, we would pay more in taxes but it would be deductible, and much less than the corresponding private school tuition. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:56 pm: | |
Thomas, the numbers you gave may be more accurate than mine, but they still illustrate my point extremely well:
| Address | '81 | Now | Change | | 80 Lex | 59000 | 185000 | 3.14 | | 27 Wellesley | 63400 | 171900 | 2.71 | | 21 Field | 69100 | 167000 | 2.42 | | 76 Hillcrest | 61500 | 175000 | 2.85 | | 11 Williams | 52500 | 170000 | 3.24 |
(I don't have an '81 number for 119 Hilton)
Since the average town-wide change in assessment was 3.89, ALL the properties you mentioned should have their taxes reduced.
Vic DeLuca's house at 154 Lexington, purportedly assessed at 130000, was assessed in 1981 at 53500, so his change was 2.43, which is in the ballpark for that area, maybe lower than some, but not out of line. |
Buddy
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:59 pm: | |
JFB:
Yeah. Really dig the "vote republican" thing.
By the way, WHY are you complaining? Aren't Mrs. Whitman's income tax cuts from 93 covering your increased property taxes?
Tah dah!!!!!! Now you see it, now you don't.
Vote republican. (NOT).
Damned election stealers. |
Lizzyr
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:06 pm: | |
I heard from a township official last week that Certified is responsible for defended the town on all tax appeals for 2 years after the reval is accepted. I think they will be sorry they ever took this job, given the amount of time they have had to put in...
Another fact that most people seem unaware of is that Maplewood was spending over $100k annually on the tax appeal process and typically losing. That's one of the real reasons behind the timing of the reval. It's been in and out of the town budet for 2-3 years now. (Join the CBAC & get involved with the budget process, it can be eyeopening). |
Papa
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:12 pm: | |
Go ahead keep votng democratic . you will all leave town like I intend to do, I have no choice.I GIVE UP I GIVE UP I GIVE UP, How much more plan can I say it.......... |
Papa
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:14 pm: | |
Go ahead keep votng democratic . you will all leave town like I intend to do, I have no choice.I GIVE UP I GIVE UP I GIVE UP, How much more plane can I say it.......... |
Buddy
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:24 pm: | |
I will keep voting democratic - warts and all.
As for you, Katherine Harris has a nice trailer in Tampa all ready for you.
God Bless Her. and DUBYA. He's a good maHN. A decent maHN. A fine maHN.
A dumb maHN. |
Shakespeare
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:54 pm: | |
How would W handle the local tax situation? Probably execute illegal students. And their families. With a smile.
Right, DWM? Marie? Ucnthndlthtrth? Papa? Fringe? |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:58 pm: | |
Thomas -
Since the numbers you very kindly provided showed that Hilton values have gone up 2-3 times (as I originally said), let me hit the other side, too.
Jerry Ryan has been very upfront about his property's numbers. His '81 assessment was 86600; his new one is 591900 - a change of 6.83.
While I don't have a lot of comparables, I do know of one house in my own neigborhood (NOT on the west side of town, btw...well to the east of Prospect St) which sold within the last 3 months for right around 600K. It was assessed in '81 at just under 90K. That's a change of 6.67. Once again, the assessment change seems to match reality (and my earlier numbers) fairly well.
I'm not denying that Certified might have done a poor job in quite a few instances, but neither Vic's nor Jerry's new assessments show any hint of favoritism or unfairness. |
|