| Author |
Message |
    
Tip
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:24 am: |     |
I recently remember a candidate, namely Ann Marzano, who ran for a certain office in this town. Didn't her platform include addressing the tax situation in Maplewood? Hmmmmm. I wonder how many would have voted for her had this 2.66% figure gotten out b4 the election. How many would consider a healthy mix of conservative and liberal views better now. The dangerous mix of an entire committee of one party is and always will be bad news. You wanted it-you got it Toyota. |
Jfb
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:37 am: | |
Eliz,
I lived near Maplecrest park for almost nine years. This was not so long ago.
By "East" I meant the Hilton section, not the vast middle area between Valley St. to the west, South Orange to the north and Springfield Ave and Maplecrest Park to the east.
Sorry for any confusion. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:41 am: | |
Where is the Hilton section, exactly? I know I take the Hilton jitney, but it doesn't cross Springfield Ave. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:52 am: | |
Tip - I don't think a revaluation is "liberal" or "conservative", or "republican" or "democratic". It just "is". It should be done right, of course, and the increases or decreases it produces should be justified by the facts.
However, even when properly done a revaluation results in increases and decreases for individual properties; this does not make it wrong. |
Tom
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:57 am: | |
What does liberal or conservative have to do with the market value of a piece of property?
And what does it have to do with the math of
newRate = oldTotalAssessment / newTotalAssessment * oldRate
?
You can be a Marxist or a Fascist, the numbers work out the same. |
Tip
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:44 pm: | |
Nohero:
I didn't say the REVAL was liberal or democratic. I simply think the current "powers that be" are not going to try and do anything about the unbelievable tax burdens that many are facing. Many will be forced to move because of this.
Tom,
Thank you for the math lesson.
Many posters have indicated that the market values of the homes are in many cases inaccurate and they are less than satisfied with Certifed. Do you agree or disagree with that? What will be done?? |
Tip
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:46 pm: | |
Also Nohero,
The key word being properly done. It is not being properly done. Who should be held accountable? Well, let me think.......... |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:46 pm: | |
Tom and Nohero- I think you may be missing Tip's point. If there had been a balance on the TC all these past years, we may have gone about this reval in a different way. 1)would have done the reval in the early 90's instead of putting it off til now and then blaming Grasmere 2)would have not made the tax assessor a parttime job 3)would have hired our own tax assessor to do the reval at considerably less cost than hiring Certified (or any other company for that matter).
Those are just a few things that come to mind. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 12:58 pm: | |
Ffof - With all due respect, there was a "balance" in the early 90's - the republicans had the majority. They did not take the steps needed to do a reval. As we have all learned, gearing up for a revaluation is a multi-year process.
As for holding people accountable - I do not disagree that the valuation company should be required to do a proper job. The governmental officials who are being given such a hard time lately, are trying to do just that. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 1:05 pm: | |
Let's hope. |
Tom
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 1:34 pm: | |
My point about the "math lesson" deriving 2.66% is, that it's an almost meaningless number; so your message "I wonder how many would have voted for her had this 2.66% figure gotten out b4 the election" is a misdirection.
It's not the overall number that's the problem here, it's individual cases. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 1:41 pm: | |
At what point, or what year, will the people in this town STOP blaming the Republicans for the current SPENDING of the township committee? Police Directors, lawsuits resulting from it and other Police grievances, paying almost 1/2 million dollars for a reval that should have been done in house? When does it stop? Yes, the reval should have been done in 91 but Maplewood was STILL recovering from the crash of Oct. 1987. There have been dems since 1996, why not then? Take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming others. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:00 pm: | |
Mr. Nil - I guess I was responding to all of the "Oh, in the good old days" posts on the various message threads. My specific message above was a response to Ffof, who seemed to link the "balance" in the Township Committee to the fact that a revaluation was not done until now.
In the end, our tax problems are due in no small part to the fact that our tax base is primarily residential - no matter who controls the Township Committee.
One day, the results of the current efforts to improve Springfield Avenue, and to otherwise pay more attention to the more neglected parts of town, will pay off. Then we can stop mentioning the fact that those areas were neglected under past administrations. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:06 pm: | |
What I do remember is Mr. Grasmere installing gates to protect the people of the east side from all the auto thefts. He ended up on the Donahue Show defending his actions against Mayor Sharp of Newark, who insisted that Maplewood children/residents were stealing bikes and cars from Newark. Even the audience laughed at that. |
Kap
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:21 pm: | |
Nil, Perhaps you should recheck your memory. The gates in Hillcrest were put up to stop the 40mph traffic that was always going through the neighborhood. (It worked) And although the honorable Mr James said many stupid things on Donahue, he didn't say that. I was there. |
Tip
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:46 pm: | |
Thanks Ffof--at least someone understands me. I have seen several messages stating that republicans were to blame for this reval. Ridiculous. Let's see if the powers that be can step up to the plate and do the right thing. I really hate to see anyone have to move because of this.
Tom - you are right about the 2.66% being a meaningless number in some instances. In some cases, some will actually see a reduction. I think my point was understood by some - regardless of the mathematical inference. |
Tip
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:49 pm: | |
Tom,
You didn't answer my question regarding your opinion of this process. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:51 pm: | |
Nilmeister... How much would the reval cost had it been done in house? The town would have to hire at least two appraisers and at least one clerk to do the research for the comparables, etc. And then it would have had to been sent out with letters, compiled, etc. And... there would still be complaints. and appeals, and screaming because whenever there is a reval, someone has to be unhappy. There also would have been a lot more screaming about the people who have the connections got a better deal because one person's house would have been undervalued. My guess is that it would cost more to have it done "in-house" than to hire a third party. It would seem to me that an outside firm had to be better. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 2:54 pm: | |
Sorry Kap, I watched the show and saw and heard Mayor Sharp say that. The audience laughed. ). The gates were to stop fast traffic from car theft, ask Mayor Grasmere himself, he is still around town. They prevented fast get-a-way and yes, they worked. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 3:14 pm: | |
Tip - You say
Quote:I have seen several messages stating that republicans were to blame for this reval.
I think you are referring to statements responding to assertions blaming the current Township Committee for the "overdue" reval. To the extent the reval was "overdue", it was "overdue" before control shifted.
Mr. Nil - As for the gates, Kap is correct. The reason given for the gates was traffic control, not car thefts (and in fact, the residents of the area made a sensible case for the traffic control needs, as the gates prevent drivers from "short-cutting" down streets to avoid traffic lights). The gates do not close off all of the streets leading into Newark, just the side streets. As for your assertion that Mayor Grasmere will say something different now, from what he said then, well, you and he can work that out.
The fact that you keep referring to "Mayor Sharp" also suggests that you should recheck your facts. |
|