| Author |
Message |
    
Jake
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:41 pm: |     |
DeLuca & the TC's lack of understanding of the "big picture" is truly astounding. The fear that has been created over the past few months has devastated every fiber of our community. Real estate, commerce & our schools will all continue suffer immeasurably.
Any time you intentionally inject uncertainty into a market of any kind, chaos follows.
One of the unique aspects of Maplewood, is the village. What happens when rents are raised, bussiness' fail & empty stores replace the quaint mecca that presently exists?
Will the the people who recieved a tax break step in & save the beaucolic Village, just as they have done for the Springfield Ave Project? Or is the Village on the wrong side of town.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:45 pm: | |
Bacata, I lived on the other side of town for 8 years. I bought a bigger house to support my family, which outgrew the house I was in. If I move again, it will be out of Essex county and its ridiculous tax burden. Thanks for the kind invitation, but I have no interest in moving again within Maplewood. |
Kayceecee
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:57 pm: | |
Overtaxedalready:
By your user name it's obvious you felt overtaxed before the re-eval. But yet you moved to a neighborhood that you knew was more expensive and therefore likely at some point to be taxed more because of it. You say you moved to a bigger house to support your family. Well, we have plenty of big houses on this side of town. What was the real reason for your move? Maybe because you saw you would be getting a good deal on taxes in proportion to property value? And now that's drying up so you're angry? Just a guess. I would love to know what you WERE paying relative to the kind of house you live in. Also, you ask if I would be upset to see my taxes go up when more of the private school kids hit the public schools. Actually, no I wouldn't, since I send my kids to the public schools already and I feel that it is a community's responsibility to pay taxes to educate the community's children. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 4:03 pm: | |
Overtaxed, et al --
Remember that valuation is based to a large extent on market value. Not just number of rooms, square footage, bathroom fixtures, etc.
If you have a disagreement about your market value (also remembering the October 1 value), then you should be able to address that with Certified and then the tax assessor.
However, I am almost certain that you are one of many on this board who will complain, but have actually done nothing concrete to rectify your situation.
If I'm wrong, please tell us specifically what you have done, otherwise please don't waste more of this board's time and energy. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 4:03 pm: | |
I bought the biggest house that I could afford, that had what I considered high property taxes. My expectations were that those taxes would increase at some reasonable rate going forward, but that i would have the wherewithall to keep pace with that increase. I never expected a 60-70% increase in a single year. If I knew that would happen, I never would have bought. Your accusation that I bought the house because I would be getting a good deal on the property taxes is as laughable as your idea yesterday of using a home equity line to pay for the increase in taxes. As for you not being upset if your taxes go up because of more kids being in the district, I guess that makes you one helluva great citizen. I'm proud to live in the same community as you (for the time being anyway). |
Bigkahuna
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 4:41 pm: | |
KCC mentions that everybody's taxes are based on unrealized profits, which is not quite the case. The current fair market value may represent unrealized profits or losses, depending upon the price paid. One concern from recent buyers is that the market may drop due to the taxes and due to the economic climate (some of us still remember the housing mkt in 1987). Since they purchased at the highs, they are most exposed to the risk.
A question I have is: assuming the worst case scenario that the revaluation sticks and does lead to a drop in fair market value, that will leave most homeowners paying taxes on values higher than the true value of the property. What would the remedy be in that case?
Second question: if property values drop and there is a revaluation downward, is there any wiggle room in the budget to deal with lower tax revenues? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 4:51 pm: | |
This is what I think the answers to your questions are. First, if there is a drop in fair market values, there will be a line of people at the tax assessor's office demanding revaluations. Second, it is highly unlikely that there is any wiggle room in the budget, so the tax decreases given due to drops in property values will need to be recouped by raising the rates for everyone. That's what I think, but I could be wrong. |
Kayceecee
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 5:25 pm: | |
Overtaxedalready:
I never suggested that you get a home equity line of credit to pay for property taxes, that must have been someone else on this board. What I was talking about was that you may have seen that your new bigger home was undervalued tax-wise IN RELATION TO what the house was worth. I'm sorry your taxes are going up, mine are too. Also, a lot of people (not necessarily you so no hate mail please) have purchased these monster homes they can barely afford and are struggling like crazy. And when a big financial hit comes it sends them over the edge. I guess being in the "right" neighborhood is more important than having furniture or financial security. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 5:40 pm: | |
Overtaxed: I think you are confusing KCC and Bacata. There is actually more than one person in this town who feels the way I do.
Bigkahuna: Many of us have already been paying "taxes on values higher than the true value of the property" for many years. That's the issue with the relative property values. What is the remedy? Those who favor a moratorium or even a gradual phasing in of the newer taxes are unwilling to address the existing inequities. That's my big complaint. It's the "I've got mine and I don't care about what it's costing you" mentality. Bidding wars are one aspect of this mentality as well. The "I've got to have it at any cost" attitude does come home to roost, one way or another.
The kids going to private school are entitled to an education in Maplewood, too. Simple fact. Maybe their parents will realize that the smaller classes they were getting in private school should be happening here, too. How much is private school tuition, anyway (not the standard local parochial school)?
Bacata |
Ffof
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 5:41 pm: | |
Kayceecee- why do you think that those who bought "monster homes" can "barely afford them and are struggling like crazy"? |
Kayceecee
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 6:16 pm: | |
Ffof:
Certainly not ALL the people who bought big homes are struggling to afford them. I never said that. But there are a lot of them who are, and many people in this economy who have overextended themselves with bigger homes than they need and more debt than they can comfortably carry. I am not generalizing. Everyone's situation is different. But a lot of people who were thrilled by the great economyand who watched their homes greatly increase in value are now complaining about paying for it all. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 7:52 pm: | |
Kayceecee-
it seemed that a lot of people who spoke at the town meeting the other night were actually long time residents who bought their homes with no expectations of a "great economy" or foresight of rising house prices. |
Buddy
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:34 pm: | |
Bak:
I DID hear many eloquent speakers that night.
Did YOU hear the TC members indicate that corrections were being made to 500 properties that were assessed incorrectly? Did you notice, between all of the rudeness, any of the discussions regarding whole neighborhoods being redone?
Or does that not matter? If they come back to you and show a decrease in your assessed value to a figure that represents a tax reduction, will you remove yourself from the discussion?
I still contend that there are alot of people out there interested in maintaining the status quo and do not want a reval EVER. |
Buddy
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 8:39 pm: | |
Melidere:
First, I'd suggest that you reread my post. I believe in fairness. If the assessment in those areas has been wrong for years, then by all means, lower their taxes.
Yes?
Now that we agree, don't hand me that nonsense about "no redress". Why didn't they appeal? The Township has indicated that they are doing this because they lost many appeals every year. |
Sac
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 10:31 pm: | |
Overtaxedalready (and others): re "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?"
The above pretty well summarizes the arguments against the use of property taxes as the primary funding source for our services. However, that is the system we have right now and given that fact, "fair" means paying in proportion to property value.
all: I could go on, but I would essentially repeat what was stated very effectively by several contributors to the opinion pages in today's News-Record: Bob McCoy, Amy Higer, Michael Paris, David Frazer, and Annette DePalma. I urge you to read what they had to say and consider it carefully.
I would also like to commend Jerry and Vic for their continued participation on this board considering the nature of the exchanges that have been taking place here. Apparently there have been some mistakes made in this process, but I believe that they and the rest of the Township Committee are working to reach the best possible resolutions within the constraints of the law and the calendar.
Sally Chew |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 8:32 am: | |
Buddy,
it never would have occurred to me with a 1981 valuation less than 100,000 that you could appeal your 'relative' tax. I'm not sure how they did that but apparently they were. I talked to someone yesterday who bought a home on the east side for 129,000 with a 6,000 tax bill. Apparently a lawyer contacted them and advised them they could appeal. The elderly couple that sold the house wasn't aware that they could appeal either.
i'm still not sure how they did that. |
Jrf
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:36 am: | |
I have a friend who was considering moving to Maplewood but has now decided to look elsewhere due to the tax issue. This is really sad... the TC is on the verge of killing this town.
If your taxes are raised, good luck selling your home. Even if you lower the sales price, who's going to buy a 4 BR home with taxes over 15K a year?
Jrf |
Marie
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:48 am: | |
Jrf,
According to a Euclidean I was talking to yesterday on the train - a house just went up for sale in that area and sold a day or two later, over the asking price, after a bidding war among three or four potential buyers. It appears that the TC is correct. There is still a market for homes on the west side of town by buyers who will gladly pay the taxes and more than the asking price of the home. It appears that the future taxpayers of this town carry more weight than the current taxpayers of this town. That's been message all along; If you can't afford to live here, move and don't complain because your going to make a lot of money on the sale of your house. It's sickening. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:57 am: | |
No, marie. that is not the message. The message is that if the west side wants their lower taxes back then they have to get involved and insure that the entire town is benefitting from this demand for our homes. Maybe the new buyers have the same drive and desire to work to make all of this town a safe and desireable place to live and have faith that we'll accomplish it. I have faith, and i think they are making a good bet that in a year or two, when the caps are lifted from the eastside homes, their taxes will come back in line.
This isn't a raise, it's a rebalancing. Eastsiders are current taxpayers too. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 9:57 am: | |
Marie- That seems like heresay. What house? how much? give facts. |
|