| Author |
Message |
    
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 6:15 am: |     |
Shakespeare, you are a fool. |
Tgb
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 6:38 am: | |
Buddy:
I love how Dems (local Dems) always pin raising property taxes on Republicans. Please don't equate me and others who know better with the "American public" at large.
For too long Dems have played this divisive game: class warfare, race card, aged vs. young. Dems don't get people to vote for them for any other reason but fear and "lets screw the guy or gal whose doing better than you are". |
Buddy
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:02 am: | |
Tgb: thanks for clearing that up for me. So there was no Whitman-driven income tax reduction and a subsequent reduction in school funding for towns like Maplewood, correct? I'm sorry, I take it back. (Not)
By the way, love the rhetoric on divisiveness. But why stop there? You could have thrown in some other morsels like: "LIBERALS", gun-control nuts, baby killers, and that old favorite "card carrying member of the ACLU"...
Come on, you can do it, let that hostility out totally and then we'll all pray together. Hey, I'll call up John Ashcroft and ask him to join us for the prayer! Venue to be approved ONLY by him. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 9:39 am: | |
Buddy, nice job staying on topic. What do you want to talk about next? Pregnant chads? |
Tgb
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 9:56 am: | |
Buddy:
Your so typical. Your rational for lowering property taxes.......more taxes. How brilliant.
If you want to become more informed check out my post under topic relating to recall that gives a brief overview and my opinion on the history and failure of the state income tax started under Gov. Byrne.
The income tax was a complete failure in lowering property taxes. In addition to high property taxes NJ had to pay a high state income tax. How you figure that more tax dollars going out of people's pocket's (state income tax) will lower their (property tax) is a real concern. But I think one goal of this website is to inform and educate people. I include myself in that as well. So make honest points and stop the red-herrings.
To get off topic: By the way that dumb man (GWB).......is the President of the United States! You'll have to wait until 2004 to pick another one. Are you one of the extreme radicals who deny that he is our president? |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:07 am: | |
Tim -
Not yet he's not...and I for one refuse to call him 'President-elect'; what he actually should be called is 'President-designate', being that he was NOT elected president...he was appointed by the once-respectable U.S. Supreme Court.
BTW...didn't you run for Democratic Committee in the last election? Are you The Mole?
And now back to our regularly scheduled whining-about-taxes session. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:25 am: | |
Well now, then I refuse to call Vic DeLuca, Mayor of Maplewood. I believe his official title is Chairman of the Committee! |
Jfb
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:58 am: | |
Whitman was a disgrace. No doubt about it.
And I'm a libertarian!
The income tax was instituted to aleviate property tax.
What a failure. Now we have both. At very high levels.
My brothers live in North Carolina and Colorodo respectively. One pays 500 a year in taxes the other pays 1100.
They don't live in rural areas either..
(Greensboro and Boulder) |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 1:18 pm: | |
I've posted this elsewhere, but I think it belongs here as well. On my street a 3 BR, 1 bath house was listed in May of 2000 at 63K, not 163. Another home has been vacant with sale signs off and on for over 2 years. No bidding wars here, folks! Why do those who claim they are being taxed out of Maplewood refuse to consider living in a different part of town. We are nice people who take care of our homes. Heck, you could buy 2 or 3 homes in our neighborhood, easily. Or use your profits to renovate through the roof if it isn't exactly the grand style you think you belong in. What really is the problem here? HONESTLY??
Bacata |
Musicme
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:17 pm: | |
So united we stand, divided we fal....hey, get offa my foot!! |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:39 pm: | |
Curmudgeon
sorry wrong again
you calculated the sale prices i gave you vs. the old assessments. are you taking lessons from Vic?
the point is the sales prices in the area are alot high then the new assessments. look at the sales prices compared to Vics 130k assessment. Maybe its not only Vic's but its low. Ask any Realtor what his value is. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:46 pm: | |
Bacata
the problem is some of us are being assessed 150,000 over what we could sell our houses for. Does that sound like a problem to you. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:20 pm: | |
Bacata, you have always impressed me as a person with a lot of heart and class. You seem very exasperated, frustrated and victimized. Here is my attempt at an honest answer from my view:
People live where they want to live and where they can afford to live. Close proximity to the the train station and the village are extremely attractive factors and people who live there want to live there if they can afford to live there.
It is a simple fact that during the course of their lives, some people stay in the same home forever, some trade up or down, as their circumstances dictate. I believe that none of us should be cavalier about another person's situation, no matter who they are, where they live, what they do for a living, or how much money they have or do not have.
I am very worried about this whole crisis (aside from my previously expressed personal problem with my own (incorrect) assessment.) I am much more worried about the big picture and the future of Maplewood - it will affect all of us, regardless of what section we live in. What damage has this situation already done, and can we move forward to resolve the problems of both the bizarre assessments, and inequity in taxes. Or we will all lose big time. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:48 pm: | |
Thomas: have you started your appeal process yet? If not, why not?
Mlj: thank you for your comments. I do understand your points. And I did walk away from that meeting feeling that there must have been serious flaws in the reval process by Certified. BUT, there are remedies of various kinds. I am not being cavalier, but you're right, I am extremely exasperated. There truly are folks who don't understand that many east-siders have ALREADY been taxed OUT OF MAPLEWOOD because there is no cheaper area to go to from her. And some of those same people don't care if we continue to pay a disproportionate share. They think our taxes should stay the same or increase. A couple of them spoke up at the meeting to that effect and were applauded. Those on this board who try to equate property taxes with services are saying the same thing. Or who don't have kids so they don't think they should pay for the schools. That is a red herring here.
People can live where they want to if they can afford to. Absolutely. But if you go through the appeals process and you're taxes still seem too high, maybe, just maybe, if you really want to stay in Maplewood, you can "put your money where your mouth is" and consider moving 5 more minutes away from the train station. Hey, I even hear rumors of a jitney service for our side of town! It's really not Siberia.
Bacata |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 4:15 pm: | |
I read all the postings here, and wonder about the reasons that Maplewood properties have risen, and mostly disproportionately.
While I realize that many homeowners have been here for some time, I also realize that many moved in after the Midtown Direct service started. Add to that the jitney and concierge services. Then think about bidding wars. Did you really need to bid $20K to $50K more than the asking price for a house? Were there no houses 2 blocks further from the train where you could have gotten a better price?
I did not get my dream house, but I still got a nice house in Maplewood. Yes, it's further from the train station, but I can take the jitney. It was a bit larger than I wanted, but was the same price as those a few blocks closer to the train, and $300K less than comparables on Wyoming. And no bidding war, which has artificially increased market values in some neighborhoods.
I bought where I could afford. If I can't afford, well, I'll move or take in a boarder. But I'm not going to sit and complain about it all when I control so many other aspects of my life and destiny.
O.K., so it's not my family home I'd be forced out of. But honestly, my home is part of my retirement plan, and when the time comes that I need the money, I will sell. Until then, I will make the most of every situation, and try to change those that I can't live with. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 5:18 pm: | |
Bacata, I fear that people will not want to live or buy in any part of Maplewood, given our legendary property taxes, topped by our current crisis. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 5:48 pm: | |
So maybe the real estate market will settle down and function more normally. That seems like a good thing to me. And federal interest rates appear headed for a slight down-turn again. So that will make mortgages more attractive and somewhat offset the tax problem. I'm already getting those calls again asking if I want to re-mortgage at a lower rate. Anybody else getting those?
Unfortunately all this MONEY MADNESS does not bring out the best in anybody, definitely me included. I'm sorry if I seem cavalier or uncaring. That's not my usual way of being. I just don't think enough people are looking at the whole town and the whole picture.
Bacata |
Tom
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 6:38 pm: | |
B, you're so correct. What the folks on the west side want more than anything is to have their property taxes lowered. We on the other side of town want desperately to see our equity investment grow. Well, how about if we all got together and found a way to make the east and central areas more valuable? There's really no reason why it can't happen.
As you point out, there are lovely streets, nice people, and if you're not within walking distance of the station anyway, the drive-time difference is nil. Sure the houses aren't as vast, but they're roomy enough.
Springfield Ave. investment can raise commercial tax revenue. Publicity campaigns, incentives, jitney service and realtor recommendations for an attractive, desirable east/central district can drive buyer traffic to the other side of Valley Street. That will lessen that nasty gap between valuations -- of course it'll never go away entirely -- lowering taxes on the one side, and increasing equity on the other. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 7:09 pm: | |
Sorry, Thomas, but it's you who are still wrong.
I'm assuming
1)That the comps you listed are an accurate measure of what the houses are worth,
2)That the 1981 assessments were accurate at that time, and
3)That houses in the same neighborhood have appreciated at about the same rate.
Now take the property you mentioned at 21 Field. Its old assessment was $69,100 and it sold for $167,000. That means it went up in value 242%. DeLuca's house's old assessment was $53,500. If his house appreciated at the same rate, a rational sales price for it (if it were to be sold today) would be 242% of $53,500, right?
Do the math... 242% of $53,500 is (duh) $129,470. Even if you use the house with the highest appreciation in your list (11 Williams, which went up 324%) as your baseline, DeLuca's taxes would STILL go down by around $1000.
There's no plot here...no one has it in for you. You may have a legitimate beef against Certified's valuation of your house, but you certainly shouldn't have one against Mr. DeLuca's assessment. As the numbers show very clearly, his new assessment is entirely a result of where he lives, not who he is. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 7:09 pm: | |
[duplicate post removed] |
|