| Author |
Message |
    
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 7:57 am: |     |
I think that the Reval can be saved. However, the following problems exist:
1/ It appears that the Certified field people rushed their inspections because of time restraints. This is especially true in the Jefferson area. Factual mistakes abound. These have to be corrected. This may or may not have been taken care of during the interviews with the Certified representatives.
2/ We have to have more information on the methods that Certified used to come to the new assesment numbers. Many of us suspect that they use some computer model. This type of model is most accurate when it is used in a "development suburb" and may be wildly inadequate in a place like Maplewodd with a very diverse housing stock.
We have homes from the pre-reveloutionary period through the post WWII era in all styles and in all conditions, often on one block!!
If these issues can be resolved by February 1 let's go ahead with the new assesments. If not, let's put it off a year, if the State will go along with us. I don't think we have to scrap everything that Certified did.
However, Tick, tock, tick, tock, time is running out. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:04 am: | |
Bobk,
Here's how the situation looks to me:
The first letter that many homeowners in the Jefferson area got were very close to the market value that their homes had this summer. That's why they never called Certified. It was disappointingly high, but not unrealistic given what the actual market has been in this area. It wasn't until the News Record reported that Certified may have made some neighborhood-wide errors that so many people began protesting.
The second letter from Certified brings the numbers in line with cooler-market selling prices, and for most people who live in four to six bedroom homes in the area, it is hard to argue that the assessment isn't accurate, even though the tax bite still hurts.
I don't doubt that some individual homes need a new, on-site inspection, but my impression is that homeowners have until April 1 to appeal. While I am sure that process is inconvenient, is it onerous? Costly to the homeowner? I don't know and I don't want to be cavalier about it. But I suspect there is never a revaluation done anywhere where some assessments aren't terribly screwed up. Holding up the whole reval -- and denying tax relief to those expecting it -- seems problematic. After all, people in Jefferson talk about having to move out of town because of taxes. But might it be that there are people in other parts of town who've been paying too much on their houses who might have to move out of town if they don't get relief?
Also, who will guarantee that the re-do of the re-val will be "perfect"? I'll sure be mad if the next re-val whacked my assessment way out of line with reality, causing me to appeal, and the only reason it was done was to satisfy some people's sense of intellectual tidiness -- even after they had no reason to contest their own assessment. I'm not saying that's your position, but I don't think a townwide re-do of the reval is called for just for the sake of restoring credibility to the process. If someone's assessment is accurate, what more are they looking for?
By the way, I don't know what a "development suburb" model is, but are you sure it broadly disadvantages us? I don't know if people in my neighborhood would be happy to have new inspections which resulted in their original wood moldings, stained glass windows, Tiffany sconces and claw foot tubs, etc. resulting in higher charges. If Certified thinks we live in pre-fabs, fine.
It seems to me that people who now have in hand an accurate assessment of the value of their own home from Certified should be quiet for a moment so we can see how many are left in town who know from real estate agents that their assessment is still through the roof relative to the real market. Does anyone know even approximately how many? |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:21 am: | |
Townie-
your logic is ok except that this is not an exclusively "Jefferson" problem by any stretch of the imagination. From this board alone, it is obvious that the problem extends to S. Mountain area, "Golf Island", Prospect ave and many many other streets off prospect which would include the Tuscan and Clinton areas. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:51 am: | |
Ffof,
I agree with you. Bobk mentioned the Jefferson area, and since I live in that area, I talked about that. Just for the sake of sociological gab, despite the fact that I live in the Jefferson area, all the people I know best in Maplewood (because they work in my field) live in other parts of town. I get very mixed reports from them. Most of them feel their assessment accurately reflected rising home prices for Maplewood -- but interestingly, one friend in College Hill thought his home was overvalued relative to its condition, and he instantly called Certified. I have to say that while most my Jefferson neighbors have ranged from concerned to outraged, none of them (except me) called Certified -- and I only did it because I didn't understand the re-val (I've never owned a home before).
I don't disbelieve the people who are saying that their assessment is absurdly wrong and bears no relation to house prices in Maplewood. But based on my extremely unscientific survey of town reactions, I'm concerned that some people just don't realize that their house (with the new additions they've recently built, along with the central air and renovated kitches) really are worth a lot of money because the Midtown direct has made Maplewood an extremely desirable place to live, competitive even with Summit and Brooklyn for Manhattan workers. And their refusal to accept their assessment without checking out the realities with several real estate agents is posing a problem for the whole town.
Also there is scare-mongering going on. Many of the people who got big increases can afford them, especially since property taxes are deductible from income tax. I know some people can't, and I'm worried about seniors, but I worry about seniors in all parts of town, including where tax relief is owed. But I don't think you'll find a forest of real estate signs on lawns in Maplewood once the snow melts. People will stay, unless they are relocated or plan to move for other reasons. I'm sure the people who are seriously in danger of being forced out of their homes are gathering all the information they can for an appeal -- and most of my neighbors aren't.
I'm sure there are houses all over town where Certified didn't get it right. But it appears from the trajectory of protests thus far, the most protest is coming from those who live in the most desirable housing in Maplewood.
But if it turns out that most of Maplewood as a whole was wrongly assessed, I don't think we should stick with this re-val. But it appears to me there's no evidence to suggest all or even most of it was. Just some of it. And it appears to me that most of that can be fixed rather easily, and some of it already has. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:01 am: | |
I know it is hard to believe, but a fairly large number of people were not aware of the issues on the Reval until the last couple of weeks. Two weeks ago last Saturday I talked with about ten of my neighbors. Two of them were not aware of the issues. A goodly number of people in town do not read the News Record. In addition, the letter from Certified led people to believe that their taxes wouldn't change.
As far as modeling is concerned, any model (admitedly not realestate) that I have worked with assumes that conditions not addressed by the model do not exist. The fact that the housing stock in Maplewood, and this is true through out the town, is not homogeneous. Therefore, a model that works in a subdivision with three or four styles of home, all built to the same standard within a couple of years of each other, is going to be pretty accurate. Using that model in Maplewood isn't going to give an accurate result.
Since Certified hasn't revealed the methodology used this is speculation, but given the results, probably fairly close to the truth.
Not all houses in the Jefferson area are four to six bedrooms, with original moldings, etc. This was my point.
Given sales in late 1998 next door to me and across the street I still feel I am over valued by atleast %50,000 and maybe as much as $100,000. The 2000 sales on our street reflect houses of the type that Townie is talking about. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:17 am: | |
Bobk:
Everything you say makes sense to me, and I certainly don't want to generalize about people's individual situations and even neighborhood housing markets. On the street where I live, houses have sold in the last 3 years in a range between $350,000 and $750,000. Some people overpaid, some were distress sales. And I think my street is quite atypical of most of Maplewood, so my experiences here don't tell me much about anything.
I'll even believe that some people didn't understand the re-val. But I dearly hope that by this time they have acquired some idea of what their house is worth. They got a piece of paper in the mail saying: Your house is worth this for tax purposes. If they really aren't sure if that figure is what they could realistically sell their house for, I recommend they ask a few local real estate agents. That's really all I'm saying. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:46 am: | |
I would be very hesitant to put too much value in what a real estate salesperson says. That is a TOUGH business. They have a vested interest in keeping values as high as possible and getting listings. I have had two calls from real estate sales people in the last two weeks soliciting listings!!
Hey, someone has to make some money out of this.
The $350,000 to $750,000 range is not atypical. The problem is that if the $750,000 sale took place in 2000 that is the one Certified used in the Reval. Maybe your house is compariable (gold faucets,granite counters, custom woodwork, claw foot tub and all). Mine isn't. I am being asked to buy into the idea that my house has doubled in value in two years. That is a return more normally associated with the distribution and sale of powdery white substances. |
Livinwestwless
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 12:26 pm: | |
Townie and Bobk (et al)
I live in your area Townie and the price range you quote is pretty on target for us, too. I have to admit until I signed on this board, I was fairly ignorant of the implications of my assessment. But you can bet I'm on it now. I realize this is now an individual fight and those who have a good case will probably do okay.
When we moved to Maplewood three and a half years ago, we came for the nice neighborhoods, the tree-lined streets and the accepting attitudes...not for the affordable standard of living and the low taxes! I knew that the things I wanted came at a price and I planned accordingly. Our realtor showed us houses in our range on the east side and on the west side. I was, in fact, unaware there was a division. Eventually, we found a great place---a small (relative to the neighbors) three bedroom on a beautiful street between Ridgewood and Wyoming. For whatever reason, it was going for the same price as several of the houses we looked at on the eastside. At the time I thought we were lucky, but it doesn't feel that way right now.
We are not rich, and it was a struggle to buy this property. But we did it and through personal sweat made it a better place. I really resent this notion that all people "on the hill" have an unlimited supply of cash around and are just being greedy. Certainly there are wealthy people here, but this attitude of we got screwed, now you can get screwed is not helping anyone.
My house, according to Certified is now worth $270,000 MORE than we paid for it and $220,000 more than a 1999 bank assessment valued it. I can hear the retorts already---"So sell your house...and take your big profit" "Move to another house in Maplewood, or isn't this side good enough for you ". These amazingly unsympathetic responses are truly hurtful. First, no one who hasn't been living in Creedmore for the past ten years would pay a half million dollars for my house and second, I don't want to have to go. As for buying again in Maplewood, the thought of driving up my old street to see a new, wealthier family in "my house" is one I can't bear. I bought this house as a place to live (and possibly to die in) not as an investment to be turned around for profit. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that with careful budgeting and a little bit of good fortune from my meeting with Certified (tomorrow), I will be able to stay.
I don't think anyone should be hurt by unfair taxes. Since this assessment debacle started, I have come to learn that many people in this town have been paying more than me for houses that have not appreciated in value. They obviously deserve the cuts they are getting. I am willing to pay my share, but it must be based on a fair assessment. Why do people find this so hard to fathom? Fair. I don't begrudge anyone a tax break, so why are so many acting as if those who have been overvalued are greedy?
There are some regular, struggling folks on the hill, too. (Well, at least for the time being.) |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 1:01 pm: | |
Livin:
Well put and there is nothing more I can say. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 2:06 pm: | |
Dear Bobk and Livin,
One of the hazards of conversing on message boards seems to be not coming across the same way as one probably would in face-to-face conversation. I hope nothing I have said comes across as unsympathetic to people whose houses have been overvalued. Most of my comments have been addressed to people who weren't overvalued.
It certainly makes sense to me that people with small houses on streets loaded with big houses may have been overvalued. And I don't think anyone whose house has been overvalued is being greedy in appealing their assessment. I don't think anyone is being greedy -- although I do think some people who are being fairly assessed (not you) who have the ability to pay (perhaps not you) are being unrealistic and unhelpful in continuing to protest the re-val. Re-doing it isn't going to change their personal situation, and it might result in higher taxes for all of us if the town loses lawsuits and appeals. It's only going to delay tax relief for some people who are fairly entitled to it.
I wouldn't trust a real estate assessment as the last word, but it serves as additional information about market realities. I would ask an agent what my house would fetch if I wanted a fast sale. That would probably yield an answer on the lower end. Also, I would be candid with the real estate agents, who know all about the reval, why I was asking. They might be able to give an answer that wasn't self-interested -- or tell you that asking real estate agents wasn't the way to go! But I think it's a better source of information than neighborhood guesswork about what your house might be worth. And by all means: talk to a real estate lawyer! You may need professional advice (not message board advice!).
I think there is no question that the people most hurt by the re-val are the people who recently bought in Maplewood, and stretched their budgets to do so, unaware that their particular property assessment was so far out of line with reality. I don't think people (or people worth listening to) would expect you to move out of a house you just bought. And part of what makes all this so difficult is that we are talking about people's homes, not just their houses. Many of the people most affected on my street have lived here for more than 20 years, some as long or longer than 40 years. They never dreamed they'd live in such a fashionable neighborhood. They don't want to move, and yet the taxes are more than they were ever prepared for. So no, many of the people on the hill are not rich and never have been.
It's also true that using market peak prices as a baseline for determining assessments is unfair, perhaps even illegal, and that needs to be addressed and corrected wherever it may have happened. If the entire re-val was flawed for the entire town, it needs to be rejected. But all of us will end up paying higher taxes if people with highly valuable houses lobby to get their assessments knocked down to below market values. Their tax burden will shift to us. |
Ted
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 2:27 pm: | |
Townie, I too live in the Jefferson Area and I'll tell you that I and most of my neighbors DID in fact arrange for meetings with certified as soon as we got the first letter. In my case, we got the first letter on 12/18. Upon seeing that my 3 bedroom house was assessed at 516k + you bet I called right away. Since Jefferson Ave was probably the last batch of houses to get their initial assessment, it wasn't until relativley recent that people had a chance to respond. BTW, Certified was very unsympathetic to the fact that we were heading out of town over Christmas and originally told me the process was over on (i forgot the exact date) and all other time slots (which I could make) were already taken - Too bad.
Not until some loud complaining and an Okay from somebody (Gallante probably), did they add a few more days and I did meet with their rep on 12/27. |
Livinwestwless
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 2:27 pm: | |
Townie---
This was my first post after reading a lot on this board. My comments were not a reaction to anything you said at all (you and bobk seem to be very reasonable people) but rather a bit of a rant on things I've read over the past few weeks. I think we're pretty much on the same page about a lot of things...
It looks like the residence of Maplewood are getting a second civics lesson this year (as if the Presidential debacle wasn't enough) and people who aren't used to having to fight for themselves are having to do it.
I wonder if by being a bit slow on the gun in getting to Certified, I might be a bit better off than if I had gone in November. Certified (who I might add has been very nice to me on the phone) may be a bit more willing to listen than they were to some of my neighbors who basically got a "Sorry, nothing we can do about it" a few months back.
A question, though: Since this is coming down to a individual basis, do you think people who are more eloquent or analytical can get a better deal than someone who can't express themselves in a face to face meeting? What about old people, who might not have anyone to explain this to them.
There are so many questions and inequities here. And more come up when you scratch the surface: a view charge for the golf course? Come on: What's next a "transportation" charge for backing onto the train tracks? |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hi again Livin:
I'm glad to hear Certified is being receptive to you. I certainly agree that those of us in Maplewood are getting an amazing education in government at its rawest: it's about taxation.
I do think the most eloquent, the best educated, and those with the most time on their hands and who have the energy to pursue it are the least vulnerable in any revaluation, including a new one if that's what's done. And I think it is up to the township to make sure that the process is fundamentally fair all across town, and actually, in this respect, I think our liberal, neighborly TC is sensitive to the impact on the elderly and the otherwise possibly disadvantaged. And since there is a geographic balance to the TC, that too is a plus.
While I support full disclosure, I also see a lot of unnecessary noise coming out of everybody trying to second-guess and pick over Certified's or any re-val company's "methodology." Plainly, what Certified considers a selling point of your house (I'll use fiction here), something like "close to school," makes me never want to buy your house (I like quiet in the mornings). You'd hate living by a golf course with its leaf blowers and duffers, Certified says that the view of extended open space and all that rolling green is a selling point, and six buyers from the bleek streets of Brooklyn who fought over houses in Golf Course Island agree.
I can't assess other people's property values, even after you give me a handful of variables. Not as an amateur. I can't tell if Certified did its job in other parts of town, or even with other houses in my neighborhood. I'm willing to hear evidence that really egregious mistakes were made in whole neighborhoods -- that houses never sell for what Certified said. I'm not all that eager to hear people complaining that it galls them their correct assessment was arrived at by including a golf view charge when, in fact, they live next to golf course. If the assessment was correct monetarily, take yes for an answer! If it wasn't, appeal!
This is what I think matters: Not HOW Certified arrived at the correct market value of my house, but that it is correct. There is real world information out there that tells me my assessment is correct in essence. However, if that only happened by accident to a few of us in Maplewood, and for an unacceptable and unmanageable number of residents the process resulted in something other than a reasonable assessment of the market value of houses, toss the thing out and re-do it! But only do that if it's a the cost-effective way to produce an accurate result. Because when all is said and done, I'm going to have to pay taxes on my house. My house is worth not only what Certified said it was. It is worth what the next reval company will say it's worth, because if they do there job right, they will come up with the same number Certified did. And at this point, I think that may be true for most people in town.
I'm very much hoping that individual situations like yours can be fully corrected to your entire financial satisfaction without doing another town-wide revaluation. If it can't, I'll pay for another re-val. But I won't pay for it just because somebody can't figure out how assessors do their jobs even when they come up with the right results. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 3:23 pm: | |
Apparently Ellen Davenport got her 2nd letter from CV and her assessment went down (a friend had a conversation with her). My friend hasn't had the opportunity to meet with CV yet as I'm sure is the case not only with people who know they still need to meet with them but with those who don't know. I guess that's the convenience you get from being on the TC! |
Eliz
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 4:00 pm: | |
Rumor mongering... I called CV on Friday and had no problem getting an appt for tomorrow and I'm certainly not on the TC or even know anyone who is. People need to take some personal responsibility in this matter and stop making snide comments. If you're unhappy with your reval get off your behind and do something like duh pick up the freaking phone!
Sorry but I'm getting a little tired of these schoolyard comments. |
Livinwestwless
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 4:07 pm: | |
Townie---
I truly in my heart believe my house has been over assessed by $100,000 (almost $500,000 for 3 bedrooms - on a normal lot) To illustrate your point however, a neighbor of mine with a house easily twice the size of mine and probably more (on a much larger lot) is contesting his $625,000 assessment. So its all relative I guess when it comes to money.
I don't think the evaluation should be thrown out...but people need to be vigilent in protecting themselves. You can't let this slide. I wonder if Certified has so many "problems" to fix they aren't going to go out of their way extend these "neighborhood" reductions (if they in fact exist) to people who don't ask. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 4:09 pm: | |
Tut Tut Tut, how many seniors are there out there or new people to town who are legitimately clueless? Are you helping your neighbor Eliz? And thank you very much but I picked up my "behind" weeks ago which is more than i can say for you. PS. Vic just posted an update about the reval. |
Mag
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 4:35 pm: | |
Yes, Mr. DeLuca did just post an update regarding this obviously still on-going process. But now it appears (although I will reserve final judgment until tomorrow night's meeting) that the increase in my middle-of-maplewood home's assessed value, as reflected in my just-received revision letter, is possibly a result of Mr. Galante's neighborhood review as opposed to CV's error. In effect then, it seems, some neighborhoods will be seeing reductions and others will be seeing increases. Has anyone else received an increase in their assessment via their revision letter? |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 5:12 pm: | |
Dear Ffof,
A lot of Ellen Davenport's neighbors (I'm one of them) got 2d letters from Certified that showed a decreased amount. And we didn't get them because we have an in with Ms D. or the TC! I don't know if the downward adjustment was based on my meeting with Certified or from the neighborhood adjustment, but I tend to think the latter. I expect to learn which at the Tuesday night meeting.
Also, ps. to Livin': I think anybody who thinks their house may be overassessed in the numbers you are talking about should get the pros in to take a detailed look. You don't owe it to us not to. If a friend of mine from New York City asked me how much it would cost to buy above Ridgewood in Maplewood, I'd say "Be prepared to spend $500,000 minimum." However, if the house kitty-korner to mine went on the market at an asking price of $500,000, I'd be reluctant to see my friends pay that amount. It's unusually small for the street and I suspect needs some work. And if those neighbors kitty-korner to me got anything near my assessment, I'd advise them to appeal. Throughout the area above Ridgewood, there are smaller houses which aren't typical of the kinds of houses that have tended to make this area such a hot housing market. Yet they may have gotten swept up in some general assumptions from the assessor's computer that need to be appealed.
I very much agree people need to be vigilant in protecting themselves. And we all have to understand this: once everybody's house is adjusted correctly, we then have to apportion taxes fairly on that basis, same rate for everybody. Which means that, if in the first go round, some houses were way overvalued, the estimate of the taxes those people were going to be paying was incorrect and too high. On the 2d go-round, with their assessment lowered, they'll be appropriately paying less. But that amount we originally thought they were paying will now have to be distributed among the rest of us, to everyone else in town. Everybody's "mil" rate will go up accordingly -- although your assessment will remain the same because it is based on the real estate market, not the current town budget.
Since it appears that not many houses were way over valued, the amount that needs to be re-distributed to other tax bills won't be all that much. But it's a zero-sum game. However, the law absolutely requires that people's assessments be correct, so any one who is over-valued is entitled to get it corrected and we owe it to them (and ourselves) to support the effort. It's the only way to get anything close to fairness in an inherently unfair and regressive property-based system of taxation.
GOod luck, Livin'!
I am hoping all the corrections can be made for individuals without re-doing the re-val. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 5:33 pm: | |
ffof - Just fyi I am new to town and before I moved here did some research and was aware of the ongoing reval and I had to hunt down my home's reval from Certified. I love the way people throw around "senior" like they are incapable of reading their mail, making phone calls and going on appointments. I know plenty of seniors (including my 90 year old grandfather) who would be offended by comments like that.
Don't get me wrong - I have complete sympathy for people who have received erroneous revals but I have no sympathy for people who throw around innuendo and sarcasm - there is nothing productive about making the kind of comment you made.
There is a system for correcting evaluations and it is open to everyone. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 6:09 pm: | |
Hi Eliz,
I don't know if you were talking to me, too, but I do want to say that those of us who have expressed concern about the impact on seniors are aware that some seniors throughout America are 10 steps ahead of us in every respect, but that some of our visible neighbors don't have the sustained health to fight for an appeal and some have financial situations that mean that they won't be able to deduct the cost of any tax increase from their income tax, so that the reval puts them in a more difficult financial situation than it does the rest of us, and we are concerned.
In general, it appears that the reval process has left quite a few people in town scratching their heads, young and old. And it also appears that Certified got the message in recent days that it needed to be more responsive to Maplewood residents, so people expressing frustration on these boards with Certified's record of performance aren't necessarily griping without cause -- and griping is what many people come to these boards to do, as your initial gripe would indicate! |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 6:45 pm: | |
Townie- thank you very much, at least you understood my point. Unfortunately, in this situation, eliz is only looking at everything from her own personal viewpoint (from getting her CV appointment to defending her own 90 year old grandfather - which by the way isn't she lucky).
and eliz - by the way, if I "throw around" "innuendo and sarcasm" I'm not looking for sympathy, it's because i like to throw around innuendo and sarcasm. Don't blame me if you take it too seriously. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 7:28 pm: | |
Townie, while a small house in an expensive neighborhood is still only a small house, when values are rising it's likely to rise way out of proportion to its size. Realtors always like to say it's better to buy the cheapest house in an expensive neighborhood than the most expensive house in a cheaper area, and that's exactly why. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 8:26 pm: | |
Townie - Actually I wasn't including you in my remarks - I think you are one of the clear voices of reason and I respect and agree with pretty much everything you've written - have you considered township politics ? I frankly just got tired of some of the obnoxious comments and lost my temper. I thought ffof's innuendo re Ms. Ellen Davenport was cheap. I'd like to believe ffof's that concerned about other people but words sometime betray personality. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 9:07 pm: | |
Townie - I certainly agree with your point about seniors and income tax deductions. What can be done?
Wouldn't it be great if some of the same passion and activism that we are seeing here was directed at some of these larger problems - including the way education is funded? |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 9:08 pm: | |
I'll take that as an apology. thanks. and cheap shots are just all too easy as we sit here staring at our computers.
From now on I'll make sure I've got WFUV streaming online to keep me sane (this is not sarcasm!) www.WFUV.org This is the only good music in NYC (unless your a classical or jazz only person). Just know that on weekends, it's irish music. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 9:40 pm: | |
Dear folks,
Now that I have restored peace and harmony to the boards, I will respectfully decline NOT to serve in town politics and be thankful I'm content to simply run my mouth from the sidelines: I have never been able to add up a column of numbers in my life and get the same results twice! Were I responsible for the town budget, I'd be executed before the end of my first term to the resounding applause of the entire town.
Curmudgeon, I believe you about small houses rising out of proportion to big ones due to location, location, location. But it's also possible some folks in small houses simply got whacked. They should check it out.
Eliz, I agree about funding for education, but don't know what can be done about it. What happened to Jim Florio seems to have taught New Jersey politicians not to ever even mention the wisdom of shifting shared obligations to the state income tax.
Ffof, thanks for the tip on music to keep one's temper down! Maybe at tomorrow night's meeting we should try a group jig. |
Papa
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:09 am: | |
too many people run their mouth from the sideline GET INTO IT... I AM TO OLD ,I AM GOING TO A TOWN THAT WILL LIKE ME FOR WHAT I AM, AND FOR THE MONEY I HAVE. PAPA I JUST CANNOT AFFORD THIS TOWN ANYMORE.....;.... |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 9:25 am: | |
Dear Papa,
In a post above, Eliz asked me "Have you considered township politics?" and I told her I declined to run for office because I'm not qualified. In addition to running my mouth from the sidelines on these boards, which I consider a way of being involved, I'll be at the meeting tonight. Also, if you check out the boards, you'll see several posts from me expressing concern about the impact of higher taxes on those older than myself.
See you at the meeting! |
Dave23
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 10:08 am: | |
Townie,
I'm also a neighbor of Ellen but have not received a second letter from Certified. What was the percentage of your decrease?
Thanks.
dave |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 11:06 am: | |
Dear Dave,
I know you didn't mean to, but there is nothing like being made to feel like a complete idiot and it's not even noon yet! I really am not good at numbers, and I suppose my first question is: Percentage decrease in what? The overall assessment? To make things worse, how would I figure that out? (I was really good at drawing and singing in school!)
May I make a suggestion? Jerry Ryan has a website. The url is: http://ryanfamily.org/reval.html. I'm assuming that has all the latest figures from Certified, because the numbers given for my house on his Excel spreadsheet match the 2d letter I received in the mail. Perhaps, even though you didn't get a letter, you'll see a decrease reflected there. I don't know whether my decrease, however, was due to a meeting I had with Certified where I provided more information about my house or a neighborhood reduction (or a combination of both).
Hope this helps. I'm reluctant to post my actual numbers on an open website. I think a great deal of this information will be available at tonight's meeting, which I'm assuming will be broadcast live on Ch. 35. |
Dave23
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:15 pm: | |
Townie:
Sorry. Didn't mean to make you feel like an idiot. What I meant was what percentage your eval decreased by is (using simple numbers): if it went from $100 to $90, that would a 10% decrease.
(If you don't want to post numbers that you think would give away info you don't want public, I completely understand.)
To figure it out: Find the diffenence between the two numbers [$100 - $90 = $10]. Then divide the difference [$10] by the orignal number [$100]... $100 divided by $10.
I was just curious to see what percentage decrease my neighbors have been seeing. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:47 pm: | |
Hi Dave,
I followed your instructions (I think). I found a calculator right here on my desk. The number in the little window is:
0.0809792
Don't forget that I had a meeting with Certified, so maybe this decrease is just about my house.
I'm going back to singing and drawing now. Hope that helps! |
Dave23
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:36 pm: | |
Townie,
Thanks. I'm not very good at math, but I'm even worse at singing and drawing. I'm just trying to gauge what's going on in our 'hood.
Happy singing. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page