| Author |
Message |
    
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 8:48 pm: |     |
It is abundantly clear, to this observer, that the TC has cornered themselves into a position (we must accept the Certified Revaluation figures) that they may not be able to get themselves out of.
Over 500 angry, intelligent, articulate , informed and overtaxed residents, attempted to get this Township Committee's attention. For the most part, they turned a deaf ear.
By involving the State, as a partner in the town's revaluation of properties in Maplewood, (unlike the Millburn case) our governing body
does not feel it is at liberty to reject what any reasonable human being on the planet feels is an obviously, seriously, flawed evaluation by Certified.
They will not sue.
They will not with hold payment (the geniuses already paid 95% of the bill)
And most importantly, last night, they showed everyone, from Mayor DeLuca's opening statement, to the close of the meeting without a resolution regarding the ability to reject Certified "fuzzy math", that this will clearly be their "Alamo".
Their only recourse to remedy this absurd situation is to compel the town's part time assessor to, case by case, house by house, perform a complete revaluation of Certitudeâs evaluation of the entire community.
It's so ludicrous that all you can do is laugh !
How did they (we) get themselves into this mess ?
Incompetence on their part and clearly not paying close enough attention on ours.
Now that enough people will face significant personal financial loss, we (the collective we) have finally begun to ask questions. And they were good questions.
Why wasn't a reval done early ? Forget Grasemere !
Why not in 91 ? (every ten years ?)
How about 92 ? 93 ? 94 ?
Why didn't the overtaxed, supporting you rich folks on the west side east side residents contest their high evaluations all those years ?
Why was the west side of town conveniently notified of their new assessment numbers after the election ?
Why? Why? Why? indeed.
Many questions , very little credible explanations.
Does the Committee take us for fools ?
Yes, they do
"We had no idea the meeting would be so crowded." !
6 police units, the fire department, roadblocks, and a dozen officers must have sprung up from nowhere !!! Give me a break !
What exactly is the current financial state of the township's budget, reserve,?
Newly anointed, Mayor DeLuca's opening statement was the height of arrogance !
It is unimaginable, for an elected official, the new mayor no less, to open an extremely volatile meeting, attended by hundreds of irate citizens,( most who were standing in the lobby or outside!), by basically saying, "we've made up our minds, the revals stands, we are going through with this ....OK, who wants to speak on this issue !"
Favorite quote :
"Understand, that when we ask you to make a tremendous dent in your monthly budget, we take it seriously. Very Seriously" - Ms. Davenport
Dent in your monthly budget ?!!!
Ahh... Ellen ...People are talking about leaving town in droves because they won't be able to afford living here anymore ! A bit out of touch... are we ?
The longest, loudest, sustained applause came after a speaker mentioned recalling thew whole lot of them and THEY STILL DON"T GET IT !!!
Maybe we need 1,000 on Monday.
Think they'll notice ? |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 9:57 pm: | |
Is this taxation without representation?
Or is that concept condemned to the trashbin of history?
DWM |
Buddy
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:02 pm: | |
To be clear...I live on the west side. My taxes are going up 33%. I bought in July '00. I'm fighting it with facts and data.
As for you, I think that you are totally out of control. Cut these people some slack and recognize that this really does require extraordinary political courage.
Just curious, would you be interested in putting this off for a year? Two? Four? Ten?
Take your pick. I went last night fully prepared to criticize the TC. I left believing that for many in the crowd, the simple solution is to keep things status quo. No reval EVER.
For those of you who push for a new eval, great. But if a year from now the "corrected numbers" show a LEGITIMATE 30-40% increase for particular homes, say a long time senior resident, what would your remedy be?????
VERY curious indeed. |
Papa
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:02 pm: | |
This action by the tc does not take courage ,because they have none ,otherwise thay would have seen the problem right up front and handled it...... |
Buddy
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:36 pm: | |
I beg to differ. It takes great courage to initiate it. It takes greater courage to recognize a flawed process and rectify it. |
Bak
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:08 am: | |
Buddy, I think many eloquently stated they understand certain parts of town have benefitted more than others in valuation and that they are willing to pay their fair share.
The crux of the argument was the way in which the valuation company arrived at each value and the lack of information processed to those who simply wanted them to "show their work".
The land valuation seems to have been overestimated with a broad-brush approach in some areas. Some pointed out higher valuations of homes only sold 30 days before the reval strike date of 10/1/2000. Others contested the validity and legality of taking a point in time to come up with a real estate value, which is usually more predictable and constant.
There was certainly enough "reasonable doubt" cast Tuesday night that our 5-member "jury" should not push for Mr.Galante to use Certified's data and adjust each home and submit tax numbers to the county by 1/24.
Buddy, I heard that people just wanted to get it right. Didn't you? |
Buddy
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 7:47 am: | |
I DID hear all of those things. But you didn't answer my question. What is your recomendation regarding seniors who may legitmately face a large increase based on a FAIR assessment? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:33 am: | |
I'm interested on YOUR recommendation for all the seniors living in those houses on orchard that were paying 500 a MONTH in tax on tiny homes valued at an average of 160,000.
Not many pensions cover a bill like that.
Particularly when you are referring to seniors, many of whom have lived here for forty or fifty years,I'm not sure i understand why you think the case of someone facing a sudden increase is so much more important than the ones who have been suffering chinese water torture of constant increases and no redress for the last couple of decades. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 9:03 am: | |
Incidentally, in my more radical moments i really do worry about the fate of seniors in this town. I believe that keeping them here is extremely valuable to the community. Since i doubt that it is legal to tax them differently, i think that one answer would be to see to it that they get more for their money. Transportation is a huge need as they get to the point where they can't (or shoudn't) drive. It would also be a good idea to create some sort of office of 'fix-it' guys/gals who would be subsidized by the town to help our elderly couples defray some of the costs of routine maintenance.
They finance our schools for 40-60 years when their children are only in them for 15. Seems like our budget could reflect their needs a little more. |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 9:04 am: | |
It isn't fair to blame the TC for the plight of those who can no longer afford to live in Maplewood because of property tax increases. Until there is a decision at the state and/or federal level to fund public education out of income taxes, we will always have this property tax problem.
I would imagine that the TC members are as sad as anybody else to see people forced to leave Maplewood because of property taxes.
What we can expect the TC to do is to ensure that the revaluation is done consistently and transparently across Maplewood. So far, it looks like they have not succeeded in this area. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 12:59 pm: | |
Why can't people on the "west side" of town even CONSIDER moving to the east side of town if you feel your taxes are too much? You claim that your houses are basically the same size as ours, and many of them are. Why do you have to move out of Maplewood instead of toward the center or the east? Same services, seems like it would be a bargain to you.
As to why folks on the east have not contested their taxes, how do you contest on a valuation of 57K (from '81.) Gee, Mr. Assessor, I think my home is worth less than that? We WRONGLY ASSUMED that we were paying appropriate, proportional taxes compared to the rest of the town. Why wouldn't we? How would we have known that folks whose homes were selling for 3 times ours (and more) were paying the same or close? (6K for us this year, for those who need to know.) Come on down! In my neighborhood people have been taking serious losses on the home sales for at least 5 years. There has been no bidding war, barely nibbles. Why?
The kicker is that a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house on my street was actually listed in May of 2000 at $63K after being on the market for about a YEAR. Not 163, 63. And that's not the house that's been vacant for over 2 years. So please tell me what you think I should be paying? And please tell me why you're not interested in moving to my neighborhood of well-tended modest dwellings if you truly would like to stay in Maplewood? Try a little honesty, with yourselves if not the rest of us.
Bacata |
Eas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 1:22 pm: | |
Bacata--You bring up an interesting point. The same thought crossed my mind when I read The New York Times Magazine story last summer about the family which was considering moving out of Maplewood because they could no longer afford the taxes. My first thought was--for the 600K they could get for their house on the west side, they could buy a nice, more modest house for 300K, or even less in the center or east part of town. That would leave them with a huge profit and a lot of money in the bank. I didn't understand the whole point of the story--that these people were being forced to leave because of economic conditions. If anything, the huge increase in the value of the home gave them more options all around. Or was I missing something? |
Jonnyb120
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 1:56 pm: | |
Euclidean ---
You raise an issue that has crossed my mind often in the two years I have lived in Maplewood. Property tax relief needs to begin with a change in the taxes collected for Public Education. While a tax in income may not be a popular solution, what about a small increase in the sales tax? By increasing this tax, non-residents will also shoulder some of the burden. Just a thought. Bottom line is that we need to exert more pressure on Trenton to fix this. |
Kayceecee
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:19 pm: | |
Most of the folks in my neighborhood (the middle of town, but apparently on the "Wrong" side of Valley) will see our taxes go up slightly but are willing to pay our fair share. Yes, our home values have increased but not to the extent of people living on the western side of town. A lot of us in this neighborhood have a hard time listening to the whining of rich folks in huge houses worth three times what ours are (and in a lot of cases paying very little more in taxes) complaining about an increase. Yes, some may have been overvalued, but that doesn't mean the whole re-eval should be scrapped. Perhaps a phase in would be possible. But, hey, if your house is worth 3x what ours are you SHOULD pay 3X the tax. And of course we who were paying too much all those years didn't challenge the old tax rate. A lot of us had no idea of the inequities, or if we did, that it was so widespread. There is a very sane letter in today's News-Record by David Frazer and Annette DePalma, basically saying that most of us agree with the re-eval results, although most of us will pay more. And I will say again what a few have said already. If you can't afford to live on that side of town, don't leave Maplewood! Dare to venture across Valley and join us over here! |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:41 pm: | |
Rich folks? Who exactly are you talking about? And please tell me, how does an increase in the fair market value of my property, which I haven't realized yet, and is not in the bank, give me the ability to pay an 80% increase in taxes? Why SHOULD i pay 3x what you pay when we get the exact same police, fire, park, etc services? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:50 pm: | |
It's like changing the rules of the election afterwards. The rule is that market value is given heavy consideration to valuation.
Don't like the rule? Do what it takes to change the rule. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:55 pm: | |
You didn't answer my questions. |
Kayceecee
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:57 pm: | |
Absolutely. You should pay 3X what I'm paying if my property is worth a third of yours. Property taxes are NOT based on services used, that is irrelevant. EVERYBODY'S taxes are based on unrealized profits unless we sell our homes. Maybe some of the folks will be using more of the services anyway, since they won't be able to afford to send their kids to private school anymore. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:02 pm: | |
And what do you think are going to happen to YOUR taxes when those kids who can't go to private school anymore are put back into the public system? |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:32 pm: | |
Overtaxed: you still haven't responded to the question of why you won't even consider moving to another part of town? What are you afraid of? Having less to whine about? But with the same services?
Bacata |
|