Archive through January 21, 2001

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Author Message   Citizen Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 9:27 pm:        The Township Committee Must Reject and Redo the Revaluation! Attend Tuesday's (January 23) Meeting At 8 pm At Columbia High School Auditorium To Protest The Property Tax Revaluation On last Tuesday night, Maplewood residents did an outstanding job of voicing their concerns to the Township Committee over the unfair revaluation. Now we have another chance to be heard. Today's letters from Certified provide further evidence that the revaluation is both flawed and arbitrary. Keep the pressure on the Township Committee to Reject and Redo the revaluation. Everyone is encouraged to attend Tuesday's meeting to demonstrate the same resolve and community spirit the Township saw last Tuesday. Together, We Can Make A Difference   Townie Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 9:22 am:        I hope that the people from Fair Tax will be fair to everyone else and not try to monopolize the sign-up list for speakers. Fair Tax apparently represents one point of view: Reject and Redo the revaluation. They don't need 40 people repeating that, depriving those who think that is too expensive a solution to impose on the entire town the chance to be heard. I hope the Fair Tax people will act responsibly at the meeting. They should delegate a few speakers to make their group's point. Also, it has become evident that some of the people in Fair Tax making the most noise have never even contacted Certified or the County Assessor to get an adjustment of what they are shouting at meetings is an outrageously unfair and innaccurate assessment. If it was that bad, why didn't they pick up the phone and call Certified or the Assessor? Maybe they need to listen at least as much as they shout.   Euclidean Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 9:40 am:        I think the people hit with five or six or seven thousand dollar property tax increases are entitled to some emotion, particularly in light of the ongoing environment of misinformation created by Certified. However, I do hope that the Tuesday meeting is more focused on solutions and problems which the TC is authorized to address. For example, the overall fairness of property tax in general is not an issue the town council can address - that is a state problem. I actually would be interested in an update on exactly what aspects of this revaluation mess the TC is legally empowered to address.   Ffof Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:28 am:        Townie- how is it evident that "the people making the most noise have never even contacted certified"? and if you'd been paying attention, i think Certified has already had over 1200 meetings (jerry R posted the number on one of these threads) and many many people have called and CV doesn't even answer the call! CV has been inconsistent at best and incredibly problematic at worst.   Fairtax01 Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:33 am:        "Townie" - I don't know of anyone from FairTax who didn't contact both Certified and Ed Galante. FairTax had 4 planned speakers from our group. The remaining 40+ speakers were people not signed up with FairTax. Everyone representing FairTax introduced themselves as such. I agree it sounded one-sided, let's here more from both angles on Tuesday.   Townie Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:36 am:        Euclidean: Hi, neighbor! I'm on Durand. I think people hit with high tax increases are understandably emotional and it's certainly understandable that many have shouted. I'm glad people shouted and have caused a second look to be taken at what was done by Certified. The reevaluation process is a very complicated one, as we are all learning. I'm hoping Tuesday's meeting will produce some real light, instead of more heat. From reading these boards, it appears that NJ state puts out a guide for tax assessors. Did Certified follow these guidelines? I am beginning to get the impression that all tax assessors use certain 'weighted' formulas, which makes sense in principle. But can the County Assessor demonstrate to us that the formulas used were legal and appropriate, and that he can adjust for any errors Certified may have made? If Certified followed the guidelines and if the Assessor's review guarantees that the right formulas are used, it would be highly irresponsible for people to insist that the rest of the town bear the costs of a Redo. Some individuals may want to appeal the final assessment that the County Assessor gives them, but it looks like after all the final adjustments are made, people's assessments will be very close to what any responsible real estate agent will tell them their house is worth. They should check that out, of course -- but it appears some people haven't done anything but talk to neighbors! I'm not suggesting people be unemotional -- just that do the minimum in homework before they demand the floor. I absolutely agree with you that the underlying problem is the irrational and highly unfair tax structure of New Jersey. But I hope the Tuesday meeting isn't used to address that. I think we will need all the time available that night to learn about the law as it applies to property owners in Maplewood. Cheers -- this is a difficult process to brain our way through. I've still got more questions than answers. And I'm not mad at my neighbors, which includes the whole town.;-}   Townie Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 11:14 am:        To Ffof and Fair Tax: Hi, I'm on Fair Tax's mailing list, and I was surprised that the last e-mail I got included this: "According to a spokesperson from Certified Valuations and a Maplewood Township official, they're only adjusting property values for homeowners who went in and contested their figures... Any taxpayer who didn't have a meeting with Certified won't get a reduction. Why didn't The Township Committee send out postcards (at the very least) to each homeowner informing them of their rights as per the extension?" The question it raised in my mind is: How could anybody expect to get a reduction in their assessment from Certified if they didn't meet with Certified? The first letter everybody got included a telephone number to call by a certain date. After the News-Record reported that all of Euclid and Durand had been improperly valued, many residents went to town hall to find out what they could do if they hadn't met with Certified. They were told the date for meeting with Certified had been extended. I know lots of people in town met with Certified (I'm one of them) and I think those who tried and failed have plenty to complain about. But I don't feel the whole town should have to bear the cost of sending out postcards to people about the extension of the deadline to meet with Certified, which was announced at the town meeting. If representatives of Fair Tax were there, why didn't they tell their members about the extension? Other things in Fair Tax's e-mail make me wonder if Fair Tax understands a revaluation process, or how taxation works in Maplewood and the county -- all of which is very complex so I'm not saying they should. But I originally saw Fair Tax as a citizen's group to demand answers, but it now seems to be an organization committed to undoing the revaluation. That may be needed, but I think it is too soon to make that judgment and I'm hoping the bulk of the time on Tuesday will be for answering questions. I think the main reason I got the impression most of the speakers at the last meeting were from Fair Tax is because I received so many e-mails in the days proceeding it from Fair Tax encouraging its members to get there early to get on the speaker's list. PS, Ffof: Didn't claim I'd read every thread on this board, but I certainly believe 1200 people met with Certified! What surprises me is that people who had any reason to think Certified must have made a mistake didn't get a meeting.   Bobk Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 11:48 am:        I expect, but do not know, that all taxpayers in an area where a neighborhood adjustment was made will get the benefit. It is impossible for me to believe that this will not be the case even with the way this Reval has been going. I am, however, concerned that many of us who met with Certified and even talked with Ed Gallante will have the impression that the meeting was the reason their assesment was reduced and will abandon the cause under the theroy "I've got mine" even though the change only reflects the neighborhood adjustment. I would also like to know if these neighborhood adjustments are the revisions the TC talked about last Tuesday that were going to be done by Ed Gallante on a "street by street" basis. This should be brought up at the meeting. In other words is this all we are going to get. I got the neighborhood adjustment only, even though I am being charged for a bathroom I don't have. Many of the homes in town, and not just on the westside are still overvalued by any sane standard. It would be a good idea if someone who has 'rights' to set up a new discussion to compile a list of questions for the TC. This will given them time to get the facts and eliminate the "we will get back to you" answers.   Fairtax01 Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 12:36 pm:        "Townie" The letter from Certified told people they had to make an appointment within a week of receiving their letters (back in December)There were so many people contesting their revals that scores of folks couldn't obtain appointments. I agree that notifying everyone by postcard is costly (maybe $2,000?), but it would seem to be a good way to ensure that everyone is notified of the extension. For those not "in the loop" for myriad reasons i.e. -- not reading the local paper, not on an e-mail list, not talking to their neighbors regularly (the weather keeps people indoors) a postcard would inform everyone of their extended opportunity to question the accuracy of their assessments through Certified.   Fairtax01 Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 12:53 pm:        "Townie" The letter from Certified told people they had to make an appointment within a week of receiving their letters (back in December)There were so many people contesting their revals that scores of folks couldn't obtain appointments. I agree that notifying everyone by postcard is costly (maybe $2,000?), but it would seem to be a good way to ensure that everyone is notified of the extension. For those not "in the loop" for myriad reasons i.e. not reading the local paper, not on an e-mail list, not talking to their neighbors regularly, etc.--a postcard would inform everyone of their extended opportunity to question the accuracy of their assessments through Certified. We always told the people on our e-mail list about extensions - but our list just can't reach everyone who needs the info. . We never told anyone to arrive early at the Township Committee and sign up. If you can produce any examples to the contrary, please do so. We have recommended that people participate in the process.If you review past e-mails from us,we suggested that people listen closely to the other speakers and not repeat what was already said.   Townie Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:07 pm:        Hi, Fair Tax: Thanks for your response. I'm happy to accept your version of what you've done and are doing. Is it the position of Fair Tax that the town should redo the re-evaluation?   Kmk Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:16 pm:        Townie - may your clear thinking prevail. I also believe that this "angry mob" mentality will get us nowhere. Progress towards a reasonable solution will only happen when every cools down a bit. It's as though the wheels of change have seized up. A little patience, a little compassion and a lot of communication would go a long way to set solutions into motion.   Townie Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:29 pm:        Thanks, Kmk, but let me also add that I've been through my own bouts of anger, and changing thoughts in this process -- and I don't want to get mad at Fair Tax either, because I think it was a good thing a shout went up, a shout that said "Slow down and stop!" What we are facing is pretty complex. I'm not sure that, short of all of us turning into professional tax assessors overnight, we will fully understand how the final assessment of our house was arrived at. But my feeling today is that people also should be willing to take "yes" for an answer. If I end up with a valuation that a real estate agent tells me is what I could sell my house for, I'm going to think twice about imposing the costs of a redo on the entire town just because it looked like a confused process got this going. But I don't blame people who still feel that their own personal assessment is still wildly off for continuing demand answers about the process and whether it was legal. Nobody in Maplewood should be assessed more than the law requires. And I would support a redo if the first one was illegal.   Fairtax01 Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 4:46 pm:        Townie --FairTax supports a re-do as long as the entire town wasn't assessed according to the same standards, comparables, etc. While "reject and redo" may seem extreme in light of the adjustments many folks have been getting, a decent case can be made that we should continue to pursue it until the Township comes clean with a complete, detailed, and public disclosure of all the underlying methodologies, definitions, comparables, assumptions and results. The Township Committee should prove objectively and conclusively to us that what's been done is fair.   Townie Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 5:55 pm:        Thanks Fairtax01 for the response. I'm not sure what you are asking for. I support full disclosure, and surely the law already mandates that some of this information be public. I'm unsure what you mean by assessing the town according to the same standards, comparables, etc.. Don't different neighborhoods have incomparable selling points that add to a home's value? It makes sense to me to talk about Maplewood as "one town" for community reasons, but it is actually made up, to my eye, of several different housing markets. I can't see why, if people take the assessment they are given and it matches what a real estate agent tells them their house is worth they think they have a case for re-doing the revaluation. If it doesn't match, they have grounds for an appeal. Just trying to puzzle this through. A re-do would be very expensive and risks lawsuits from homeowners legally entitled to tax relief. The only reason I can see for rejecting Certified's adjusted numbers is if their process was illegal. But make your decent case! I'll be listening. I've not closed my mind completely to it. I'm just extremely skeptical it is in everyone's interest. It sounds expensive.   Rckymtn Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 6:57 pm:        There will be no do-over. It's a done deal. The town already has received two extensions from the county, and it is highly doubtful they will get any more. Any solution to this will have to be a property owner by property owner solution. Which makes sense since every property, like it or not, is unique. I wish the best of luck (this is sincere) to those who challenge their revaluations to Galante, or to Essex County. May the truth prevail, which like most things is probably somewhere in between what YOU think your house is worth and what Certified thinks it is worth.   Citizen Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 7:07 pm:        Hi Townie... Your questions have merit. Not everyone has to agree with the Maplewood Fair Taxation Committee's theme of Reject & Redo. It's not our goal to create group think in a community as diversely rich as Maplewood, but rather to encourage people to participate and voice their own ideas and concerns, as they so adroitly did last Tuesday. Many of us in our group do believe the revaluation was based on flawed and arbitrary processes that overly inflated property value assessments (and under-valued others in some cases). In most instances the numbers bear this out. And as a fledgling group made up of your neighbors, we, too, have struggled with what should and should not be done going forward. In the absence of any cogent explanations of the reval methodology, in many of our minds the only fair next step would be to throw out the current assessment and start over. Cost is indeed an issue, but if Certified made the errors in the first place, there should be no reason why they can't redo it to rectify them, within the current contract...an interesting question for Tuesday would be if Certified is charging the TC extra to handle the readjustments. The letters some folks received yesterday seem to support the case to Reject & Redo, since it is curious that Certified can suddenly make drastic reductions (or in some cases increases) only after large numbers of residents voiced their concern. One realtor told me today that Certified could have simply used the wrong software for our market -- we'd never know because Certified hasn't provided the details of their methodologies. At this point, the letters (in the minds of some) have only made matters worse because their being sent supports the feeling the revaluation is an arbitrary and mismanaged process. The credibility gap plays a big part in this; the more you play around with the existing reval, the more suspect folks will become. And, frankly, I'm not convinced many of us will be more confident if a redo is conducted by Certified. There are other alternatives, including using last year's assessment or exploring the phase in of any steep increases. But the TC seemed to dismiss those Tuesday. It takes guts to admit you're wrong, bite the bullet and start again. We've all been there. And it seems the TC has the opportunity to make the right decision on this rather than attempt stop gaps (such as the letters) hoping that incremental concessions will stem the tide. Speaking on my own behalf -- if nothing else, the most important outcome of the past two weeks is that the community is energized and involved. That's what makes democracy work, and it's what will keep the TC on its toes as it enters the next several months of budget debate, which is something we as residents also must involve ourselves in. So Townie, keep being skeptical and asking the tough questions, because it's the only way we will get the TC to step up to the leadership plate.   Mck Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 7:51 pm:        Citizen: Please do stay involved. The core problem is not a tax problem but a budget problem. Obviously, there's not enough money to do the things the school district and the town, and most of its citizens, want it to do. I hope all that savvy and energy exhibited by the high powered people up on the hill will be put to good and creative use on the town's finances. Because this will never be over until we're in control of our economic future. I noticed two people, Frank Nolan and Jim Nathenson, who spoke eloquently against Certified's work, (I don't share their position) who have been extremely involved and knowledgeable about the workings of the town for years. Their example is a good one.   Euclidean Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 8:05 pm:        What would have happened if Certified had reduced all new assessments by 25% prior to sending out the notification letters. Assume they did this to be conservative. The tax impact would not have changed although the rate would have been higher. However, there might have been much less outcry because the assessments would have more easily passed the "reasonableness test" and the reassessment process might not have generated this big controversy. At least now, a few more people might watch the TC more closely going forward.   Townie Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 9:32 pm:        It's nice to see such a civilized discussion on the message board -- even though people see things from differing points of view. Last week I felt that it might be necessary to reject the whole revaluation just for the sake of credibility of the result, so that everyone could accept it, but now I think that's too expensive a route to go if indeed a legal process has taken place. I think if the County Assessor is satisfied Certified generally followed legal guidelines and whatever errors were made are correctible by his office, the results shouldn't be rejected -- especially if people know that the numbers they have been given for their own house match what realtors are telling them is the market value of their house. I don't think people can go around as amateur assessors trying to determine which houses in what neighborhoods may have been over valued, under valued or valued just right. If your house is over valued, everybody understand your right and need to scream. But it is harder to understand trying to stop the whole process to have your mind rested that everybody in town's assessment is accurate. Re-doing the whole process from scratch is unlikely to produce a markedly different result from where we stand today, or a different distribution of the tax burden. Generally speaking, the people who live in big houses with big yards who have easy access to the Midtown Direct are going to pay more taxes than those who don't. I don't think a "phase-in" would be legal. People can ask again, but from what I've heard about the laws in New Jersey, I don't know how you can phase in an assessment. The kinds of phase-ins that appear to have been allowed in severely economically depressed areas don't seem relevant to Maplewood, which doesn't fit the description of a town struggling to stay afloat! I'm not sure that "incremental concessions" were the purpose of the letters some people received reducing their assessments. I think they reflect errors corrected in Certified's process. And I'm not surprised no reductions were made in whole neighborhoods until whole neighborhoods screamed. The only way Certified would know their method may have produced a wrong result would be because the affected people complained. A whole neighborhood screaming is a sign that something went wrong in the whole neighborhood. That neighborhood-wide "something" was likely an error in applying a neighborhood formula, rather than the fault of an on-site inspector making the same mistake in every house in one neighborhood. So that error can be found and corrected in the office. Euclidean is probably right that had the initial letters from Certified stated the now-corrected, lower property assessments, there would have been no initial outcry. As it was, there was very little initial outcry on many streets until the News-Record reported that some streets may have had particular problems. Then residents on those streets, who previously were only disappointed that their assessments reflected optimum market value, got quite worried that their assessments might be too high relative to nearby streets with similar houses. That appears to have happened and now adjustments are being made. After much thought and calming down, none of this has left me with a bad feeling about the TC or about paying taxes to keep up services in the town. The TC may be politically a bit tone deaf, but its official statements have pretty much reflected reality: When we became aware of possible errors, we talked with Certified and the Assessor. Certified said it would correct its errors and the Assessor will make all the further adjustments as needed. We're delaying moving forward so you have time to bring your problems to the right authorities. The end result will reflect market reality. They are not politically adept when it comes to handling screaming crowds, but they are only part-time citizen legislators. We get what we pay for, and the cost of having full time political professionals running the town is too expensive. So far, they haven't done anything illegal and they are trying to keep all of us from getting sued. And they've been telling us the truth as far as I can see.