| Author |
Message |
    
Mlj
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 10:50 am: |     |
Jerry,
Thank you for all your hard work.
Please clarify:
1) Will the above info be published in paper or otherwise made available in hard copy to those residents who are either not on-line, or are unable to download?
2) Please advise: I already met with Certified, and received my second letter stating a lower assessment, but believe it to be STILL too high. If I interpret Mayor De Luca's recent post correctly, my new lower assessment was based upon my meeting with Certified AND Mr. Galante's adjustment per neighborhood review. And, that my next step is to take my case to the Essex County Tax Board for more individual attention (because Mr. Galante will not schedule a meeting with me to do so at this point). Please, do I have this right? I await your illumination, as I am feeling adrift in perilous waters.
Please, and thank you. |
Ejt
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 11:00 am: | |
Curmudgeon- Why don't you ask your long time neighbors on Summit Ave. what their taxes are? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 11:11 am: | |
Mlj:
1. I would hope to have the above in a handout tonite and would expect to give it to the newspaper as well. I am not going to print out the entire database and hand it out since too many trees would have to die.
2. I think that's wrong; there will be information about this tonight, but there is still plenty of opportunity to meet. |
Golden
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 11:53 am: | |
Jerry,
Appreciate the fact that you continue to respond to our posting.
As noted in a prior posting, I called the town assesor's office on 1/22 to request an appointment with Mr. Galante to go over obvious errors with my reval ( these errors were acknowledged by Certified at our initial meeting). I was told by a secretary that Mr. Galante will not look at individual compaints, and I should just go ahead and file an appeal with the County.
Is this true? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:38 pm: | |
That does not sound right based on a conversation I just had with Vic. We are working out the details of the procedures to use. We wexpect that all the details will be resolved shortly and we expect that we will be announcing it this evening. You do NOT have to file with the County at this time. Vic will post the procdure to use when it's finished. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:55 pm: | |
ANOTHER UPDATE
It's nice to not be the only math geek in town. A number of folks downloaded the spreadsheet and have been grinding at the numbers. One person (thank you Jon Fisher!) helped me find a small rounding error in the spreadsheet.
I have posted a corrected version (and left the old one in place) on http://ryanfamily.org/reval.html. I am also emailing everyone that downloaded it to tell them to fetch the corrected one.
The error is mine, in the column that calculates "new tax". The total error was about $19.8K across the entire new tax column. The error does not change the calculation on the rate (in fact I was using a calculation for new tax that caused a rounding error; this is now fixed).
I am posting corrected pieces of the analysis after this. Also note that these will be in a handout tonite.
Jerry |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:56 pm: | |
Jerry,
Thanks for making this available on the boards and the website. You've taken a lot of heat and your good overall cheer is impressive. Obviously people can't help but be emotional about all this, but I know I'm not alone in hoping it won't turn people against each other as we continue to sort this out.
So thanks again for constantly re-inserting sympathy and friendliness and hard work into the process. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:59 pm: | |
SUMMARY OF AMOUNT OF TAXES UNDER REVAL (corrected)
An analysis of how many residential properties would have paid how much in taxes, by amount of taxes, under the reval.
| | | new tax | new tax | RES | LAND | COML | RES | RUNNING TOTALS | RES | RUNNING TOTALS, REVERSE | | | 0 | <1000 | 4 | 32 | 15 | 4 | 0.06% | 6841 | 100.00% | | >=1000 | <2000 | 123 | 16 | 12 | 127 | 1.86% | 6837 | 99.94% | | >=2000 | <3000 | 235 | 3 | 24 | 362 | 5.29% | 6714 | 98.14% | | >=3000 | <4000 | 764 | 4 | 37 | 1126 | 16.46% | 6479 | 94.71% | | >=4000 | <5000 | 1036 | 0 | 19 | 2162 | 31.60% | 5715 | 83.54% | | >=5000 | <6000 | 668 | 1 | 29 | 2830 | 41.37% | 4679 | 68.40% | | >=6000 | <7000 | 627 | 1 | 22 | 3457 | 50.53% | 4011 | 58.63% | | >=7000 | <8000 | 724 | 2 | 23 | 4181 | 61.12% | 3384 | 49.47% | | >=8000 | <9000 | 802 | 1 | 26 | 4983 | 72.84% | 2660 | 38.88% | | >=9000 | <10000 | 561 | 0 | 26 | 5544 | 81.04% | 1858 | 27.16% | | >=10000 | <11000 | 294 | 0 | 13 | 5838 | 85.34% | 1297 | 18.96% | | >=11000 | <12000 | 180 | 0 | 12 | 6018 | 87.97% | 1003 | 14.66% | | >=12000 | <13000 | 194 | 0 | 13 | 6212 | 90.81% | 823 | 12.03% | | >=13000 | <14000 | 231 | 0 | 5 | 6443 | 94.18% | 629 | 9.19% | | >=14000 | <15000 | 143 | 0 | 5 | 6586 | 96.27% | 398 | 5.82% | | >=15000 | <16000 | 116 | 0 | 14 | 6702 | 97.97% | 255 | 3.73% | | >=16000 | <17000 | 58 | 0 | 5 | 6760 | 98.82% | 139 | 2.03% | | >=17000 | <18000 | 33 | 0 | 3 | 6793 | 99.30% | 81 | 1.18% | | >=18000 | <19000 | 23 | 0 | 6 | 6816 | 99.63% | 48 | 0.70% | | >=19000 | <20000 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 6821 | 99.71% | 25 | 0.37% | | >=20000 | <21000 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6823 | 99.74% | 20 | 0.29% | | >=21000 | <22000 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 6826 | 99.78% | 18 | 0.26% | | >=22000 | <23000 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6828 | 99.81% | 15 | 0.22% | | >=23000 | <24000 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6829 | 99.82% | 13 | 0.19% | | >=24000 | <25000 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 6834 | 99.90% | 12 | 0.18% | | >=25000 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 36 | 6841 | 100.00% | 7 | 0.10% | | | 6841 | 60 | 361 | | | | |
|
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:06 pm: | |
SUMMARY OF TAX CHANGE UNDER REVAL (corrected)
This shows how the tax change is distributed, by number of properties.
| | | change | change | RES | LAND | COML | RES | RUNNING TOTALS | RES | RUNNING TOTALS, REVERSE | | | | | | | | | | | | 0 | <-8000 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 0.00% | 6841 | 100.00% | | >=-8000 | <-5000 | 4 | 0 | 49 | 4 | 0.06% | 6841 | 100.00% | | >=-5000 | <-4000 | 10 | 0 | 30 | 14 | 0.20% | 6837 | 99.94% | | >=-4000 | <-3000 | 62 | 0 | 38 | 76 | 1.11% | 6827 | 99.80% | | >=-3000 | <-2500 | 117 | 0 | 20 | 193 | 2.82% | 6765 | 98.89% | | >=-2500 | <-2000 | 308 | 0 | 27 | 501 | 7.32% | 6648 | 97.18% | | >=-2000 | <-1500 | 701 | 1 | 23 | 1202 | 17.57% | 6340 | 92.68% | | >=-1500 | <-1250 | 456 | 0 | 17 | 1658 | 24.24% | 5639 | 82.43% | | >=-1250 | <-1000 | 556 | 3 | 13 | 2214 | 32.36% | 5183 | 75.76% | | >=-1000 | <-750 | 565 | 7 | 9 | 2779 | 40.62% | 4627 | 67.64% | | >=-750 | <-500 | 376 | 8 | 9 | 3155 | 46.12% | 4062 | 59.38% | | >=-500 | <-250 | 263 | 6 | 18 | 3418 | 49.96% | 3686 | 53.88% | | >=-250 | <=0 | 220 | 7 | 10 | 3638 | 53.18% | 3423 | 50.04% | | >0 | <250 | 187 | 14 | 8 | 3825 | 55.91% | 3203 | 46.82% | | >=250 | <500 | 252 | 5 | 13 | 4077 | 59.60% | 3016 | 44.09% | | >=500 | <750 | 285 | 0 | 7 | 4362 | 63.76% | 2764 | 40.40% | | >=750 | <1000 | 359 | 0 | 2 | 4721 | 69.01% | 2479 | 36.24% | | >=1000 | <1250 | 398 | 1 | 3 | 5119 | 74.83% | 2120 | 30.99% | | >=1250 | <1500 | 294 | 1 | 0 | 5413 | 79.13% | 1722 | 25.17% | | >=1500 | <2500 | 695 | 2 | 10 | 6108 | 89.29% | 1428 | 20.87% | | >=2500 | <3500 | 352 | 2 | 6 | 6460 | 94.43% | 733 | 10.71% | | >=3500 | <4000 | 142 | 2 | 5 | 6602 | 96.51% | 381 | 5.57% | | >=4000 | <5000 | 154 | 0 | 4 | 6756 | 98.76% | 239 | 3.49% | | >=5000 | <6000 | 45 | 1 | 4 | 6801 | 99.42% | 85 | 1.24% | | >=6000 | <7000 | 24 | 0 | 4 | 6825 | 99.77% | 40 | 0.58% | | >=7000 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 9 | 6841 | 100.00% | 16 | 0.23% | | | 6841 | 60 | 361 | | | | |
A look at the change statistics shows the following:
- 407 properties, or 5.95%, are changed 250 or less
- 922 properties, or 13.48%, are changed 500 or less
- 2120 properties, or 30.99%, are increased 1000 or more
- 733 properties, or 10.71%, are increased 2500 or more
- 501 properties, or 7.32%, are decreased 2500 or more
- 2214 properties, or 32.36%, are decreased 1000 or more
|
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:07 pm: | |
Townie: You're welcome and thanks for the kind words. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:15 pm: | |
VACANT LAND REPORT
Here's a table showing vacant land in the town. Note that there are some other "vcs" values that you didn't see in the earlier report: these are places that have land but no residentials. Also I eliminated lines with 0 values.
| | | | | | assessment | | | taxes | | | | vcs | num | factor | orig avg | new avg | new stdev | orig tax | new tax | new-orig | | Wyoming, Upper Wyoming | AC01 | 3 | 7.69 | $35,566.67 | $270,266.67 | 23880.86 | $3,634.91 | $7,439.54 | $3,804.63 | | Claremont Ave, below Wyoming, Ridgewood, Maple Terr | AC02 | 2 | 5.53 | $37,750.00 | $211,250.00 | 66550.00 | $3,858.05 | $5,815.01 | $1,956.96 | | Kendall, below Wyoming, Collinwood, Cedar | AC04 | 3 | 1.99 | $6,500.00 | $14,833.33 | 18275.73 | $664.30 | $408.31 | $(255.99) | | Washington Park | AC05 | 2 | 19.00 | $100.00 | $1,900.00 | 700.00 | $10.22 | $52.30 | $42.08 | | Below Ridgewood, Woodland, Maplewood Ave, Walton | AC07 | 1 | 2.97 | $10,000.00 | $29,700.00 | 0.00 | $1,022.00 | $817.54 | $(204.46) | | Winthrop, Baker, Lenox | AC08 | 1 | 11.00 | $100.00 | $1,100.00 | 0.00 | $10.22 | $30.28 | $20.06 | | Carleton Ct | AC09 | 1 | 5.38 | $23,100.00 | $124,200.00 | 0.00 | $2,360.82 | $3,418.81 | $1,057.99 | | Burnet, Salter | AC10 | 1 | 4.52 | $2,700.00 | $12,200.00 | 0.00 | $275.94 | $335.83 | $59.89 | | Elmwood, Kensington, Midland Blvd | AC12 | 3 | 12.39 | $2,400.00 | $8,533.33 | 9669.31 | $245.28 | $234.89 | $(10.39) | | Burr, Berkshire, Burroughs | AC13 | 1 | 3.53 | $5,100.00 | $18,000.00 | 0.00 | $521.22 | $495.48 | $(25.74) | | South 4th, Essex, Hudson | AC14 | 3 | 1.88 | $10,500.00 | $19,700.00 | 0.00 | $1,073.10 | $542.28 | $(530.82) | | Elberta, Midland Blvd, Ball Terr | AC15 | 2 | 11.50 | $100.00 | $1,150.00 | 150.00 | $10.22 | $31.66 | $21.44 | | Orchard, Meadowbrook, Hillcrest | AC16 | 1 | 7.00 | $100.00 | $700.00 | 0.00 | $10.22 | $19.27 | $9.05 | | Prospect St | AC20 | 1 | 2.48 | $7,500.00 | $18,600.00 | 0.00 | $766.50 | $512.00 | $(254.50) | | Boyden Parkway | AC22 | 1 | 3.96 | $50,700.00 | $200,600.00 | 0.00 | $5,181.54 | $5,521.85 | $340.31 | | Park Ave, Harvard, Tuscan | AC23 | 4 | 4.17 | $12,750.00 | $88,650.00 | 53257.04 | $1,303.05 | $2,440.24 | $1,137.19 | | Rynda Rd | AC25 | 2 | 11.04 | $9,250.00 | $38,350.00 | 36550.00 | $945.35 | $1,055.65 | $110.30 | | Hilton Section | AC26 | 8 | 1.41 | $11,412.50 | $28,637.50 | 21793.34 | $1,166.36 | $788.29 | $(378.06) | | Jacoby, Van Ness, Newark Way | AC27 | 3 | 1.73 | $17,733.33 | $40,300.00 | 28397.30 | $1,812.35 | $1,109.32 | $(703.02) | | Lee Ct, Troy Ct | AC28 | 1 | 1.38 | $8,200.00 | $11,300.00 | 0.00 | $838.04 | $311.05 | $(526.99) | | Rosedale, Cypress | AC40 | 9 | 7.35 | $16,800.00 | $53,166.67 | 33313.46 | $1,716.96 | $1,463.50 | $(253.46) | | Raymond Terr | AC41 | 1 | 5.42 | $8,400.00 | $45,500.00 | 0.00 | $858.48 | $1,252.46 | $393.98 | | AC99 | 1 | 3.00 | $100.00 | $300.00 | 0.00 | $10.22 | $8.26 | $(1.96) | | ACI0 | 2 | 3.79 | $19,550.00 | $45,050.00 | 13550.00 | $1,998.01 | $1,240.08 | $(757.93) | | FF01 | 3 | 10.51 | $14,366.67 | $33,500.00 | 25148.09 | $1,468.27 | $922.14 | $(546.13) | | | 60 | | | | | | | |
|
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:20 pm: | |
COMMERCIAL REPORT
| | | | | | assessment | | | taxes | | | | vcs | num | factor | orig avg | new avg | new st dev | orig tax | new tax | new-orig | | Wyoming, Upper Wyoming | AC01 | 1 | 9.71 | $110,600.00 | $1,074,400.00 | 0.00 | $11,303.32 | $29,574.65 | $18,271.33 | | Claremont Ave, below Wyoming, Ridgewood, Maple Terr | AC02 | 2 | 17.13 | $82,350.00 | $520,150.00 | 188,150.00 | $8,416.17 | $14,318.00 | $5,901.83 | | Kendall, below Wyoming, Collinwood, Cedar | AC04 | 2 | 3.70 | $98,200.00 | $364,700.00 | 53,900.00 | $10,036.04 | $10,038.98 | $2.94 | | Below Ridgewood, Woodland, Maplewood Ave, Walton | AC07 | 1 | 1.32 | $65,400.00 | $86,500.00 | 0.00 | $6,683.88 | $2,381.06 | $(4,302.82) | | Elmwood, Kensington, Midland Blvd | AC12 | 1 | 4.88 | $23,700.00 | $115,700.00 | 0.00 | $2,422.14 | $3,184.84 | $762.70 | | Elberta, Midland Blvd, Ball Terr | AC15 | 2 | 3.69 | $86,950.00 | $323,800.00 | 63,300.00 | $8,886.29 | $8,913.14 | $26.85 | | Park Ave, Harvard, Tuscan | AC23 | 5 | 3.75 | $93,060.00 | $348,800.00 | 37,888.52 | $9,510.73 | $9,601.30 | $90.57 | | Rynda Rd | AC25 | 1 | 2.58 | $88,200.00 | $227,300.00 | 0.00 | $9,014.04 | $6,256.81 | $(2,757.23) | | Hilton Section | AC26 | 3 | 2.69 | $51,533.33 | $145,100.00 | 68,169.98 | $5,266.71 | $3,994.12 | $(1,272.59) | | Jacoby, Van Ness, Newark Way | AC27 | 3 | 3.10 | $55,700.00 | $172,700.00 | 103,592.12 | $5,692.54 | $4,753.86 | $(938.68) | | Lee Ct, Troy Ct | AC28 | 1 | 2.96 | $127,700.00 | $378,500.00 | 0.00 | $13,050.94 | $10,418.84 | $(2,632.10) | | Rosedale, Cypress | AC40 | 279 | 2.94 | $133,811.47 | $426,815.41 | 738,046.28 | $13,675.53 | $11,748.81 | $(1,926.73) | | ACC6 | 1 | 6.11 | $117,300.00 | $717,200.00 | 0.00 | $11,988.06 | $19,742.13 | $7,754.07 | | ACI0 | 41 | 2.71 | $219,082.93 | $595,373.17 | 967,040.64 | $22,390.28 | $16,388.64 | $(6,001.64) | | ACI1 | 11 | 4.60 | $550,309.09 | $1,832,954.55 | 2,071,789.67 | $56,241.59 | $50,455.13 | $(5,786.46) | | FF00 | 1 | 5.02 | $152,700.00 | $766,700.00 | 0.00 | $15,605.94 | $21,104.70 | $5,498.76 | | FF01 | 2 | 2.79 | $70,300.00 | $198,300.00 | 88,400.00 | $7,184.66 | $5,458.54 | $(1,726.12) | | UN10 | 2 | 3.62 | $1,002,750.00 | $3,517,300.00 | 904,700.00 | $102,481.05 | $96,819.55 | $(5,661.50) | | UN11 | 1 | 3.12 | $11,880,200.00 | $37,085,200.00 | 0.00 | $1,214,156.44 | $1,020,831.99 | $(193,324.45) | | XXXX | 1 | 2.76 | $125,000.00 | $345,600.00 | 0.00 | $12,775.00 | $9,513.22 | $(3,261.78) | | | 361 | | | | | | | |
|
Sac
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:31 pm: | |
Jerry,
Thanks for all the data!
What neighborhood is Oakview Ave - East of Prospect?? I only found "West of Prospect". |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:37 pm: | |
Jerry,
I know a guy who can get you a pocket-protector cheap.
I started to play with the spreadsheet you sent me this morning. (What a whopper!) I sorted the 'database' by sold date in decending order. The 74 class 2 properties (residential) sold in October and September of 2000 sold for $1,109,621 more than they were valued at.
To me, that means that Certified was off in their calculations by an average of $15,000 below actual market value.
How much closer to market value can you get than using the ACTUAL market value. Not one of the reval assessments matched the selling price, though some did come close. Some were off by as much as $57K.
What formula did Certified use for this?
Please have their geeks call our geeks.
Dytunck |
Eliz
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:46 pm: | |
Isn't what everybody's been talking about is comps from 98, 99, 00 not just 2000. Also why are sales for Oct included is the reval is as of oct 1? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 2:07 pm: | |
Sac: there's to be a map at the meeting tonite.
Dytunck: those things will be asked tonite regarding comps. Bring the pocket protectors... |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 2:24 pm: | |
Eliz,
The spreadsheet includes sales from November too. I am trying to determine Certified's methodologies. They stated that they assessed the values as FAIR MARKET VALUE AS OF October 1, 2000. So I wanted to see if they had done so. Not one match to the actual fair market value. Some were higher, some were lower, but the average of the 74 sales was resulted in a under valuation by an average of 15K.
By what formula?
Where are the over-values to make up for this shortfall?
I think that Certified's formulas must be divulged. They are not proprietary. They're not even proper.
I'll be at tonight's meeting. Jerry, don't let Vic use the bullhorn. It's a bad publicity photo-op waiting to happen: "Maplewood Mayor Shouts Down Tax Protestors"
Dytunck |
Tomr
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 2:29 pm: | |
Jerry, or the other "Geeks"
Thanks for the information, once again. Do you, or does another number cruncher, know how to do a sort based on addresses.
I've extracted my "vcs" area information but am not familiar enough with Excel to sort multiple values from a cell. To clarify, when I run my address sort I get a return of 2 Girard, 2 Park Ave, 3 Girard, etc.
I can do it the hard way, but help is appreciated.
Thanks again,
TomR. |
Sac
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 2:33 pm: | |
I can't make tonight's meeting - is it possible to post the map on the Internet somewhere?
Thanks,
Sally |
Eliz
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 2:35 pm: | |
Dytunck - I don't think the numbers from Oct, Nov and onwards should even be included otherwise when does it stop?
In an effort for me to try to understand this let's say you have a street with three houses that are identical (I know I know nothing in Maplewood is identical but for the sake of an example...).
One house has the same owner for 20 years, one was sold in 98 for 200K and one in 2000 for 350K - do all three houses get the same evaluation? Is the eval the one sold in 2000? or is it a formula of the sales from 98 and 2000?
Help? |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 3:10 pm: | |
Tomr-
They should have listed the addresses as street names in one column and numbers in another. That way, you could sort by address. However, there is a way...
In Excel, click on from the top menu.
1) Select "Filter"
2) Select "Auto Filter"
3) Then click on the pull-down menu in column E (the address field)and select "custom..."
4) It will say "Show rows where: address"
5) Now go to the menu and scroll down to "contains"
6) In the right box, type in your street name
7) Voila
As for Eliz, the answer to your question is they will all be wrong.
Dytunck |
Tomr
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 3:43 pm: | |
Dytunck,
Thanks. It works as described. I had been working up a spreadsheet for my area using the reported sales data and nearby neighbor supplied Reval data. Between you and the good Mr. Ryan, I should have some time to talk to my wife tonight.
TomR. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 3:52 pm: | |
This is the approach I took:
1) Insert two columns after column E (the address)
2) Label the new column F "number"
3) Label the new column G "street"
4) In F2 enter: =LEFT(E2,SEARCH(" ",E2,1)-1)
5) In G2 enter: =RIGHT(E2,LEN(E2)-SEARCH(" ",E2,1))
6) Copy F2:G2 and paste into F3:G7384
You now have number and street in separate columns, except in a few oddball addresses. The next think you want to do is sort by column G then by column F (ascending) to see where you fit in with your immediate neighbors, and also to gague neighborhoods, although the block numbers do that well also. |
Golden
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 3:57 pm: | |
Jerry,
For those of us unable to attend today's meeting -
will copies of any documents or hand outs distributed be avaiable at town hall later this week? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 4:02 pm: | |
Looks like my method turns the street number into text, so it doesn't sort right (e.g. '139' comes before '14').
To make F2 a number that will sort properly: : =VALUE(LEFT(E2,SEARCH(" ",E2,1)-1))
This creates its own set of problems, such as "18A Yale Street" and other non-numeric numbers, but it's still better for most analysis. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 6:25 pm: | |
I accomplished the task by inserting a few columns and then using 'text to columns' under the menu item data and changing the delimiter to 'space' from 'tab'
Jerry, this is truly a public service. It's amazingly interesting to study this data. I'm finding the most interesting information by sorting to look just at the homes that have actually sold in the last year or two and comparing them to their assessments.
Fact is, look at valuations vs sales prices...and you'd think the high
end of the market crashed this year.
Durand road...sold for 650 in july, valued at 515
Maplewood avenue..sold for 699 in march valued at 615.
Woodland Road...sold for 675 in april, valued at 467.
I'm not quite sure how you justify that.
on the other hand there is the poor guy who bought the house on prospect
at 230 in OCTOBER and was assessed at 514.
not a lot better off than the guy on elmwood who bought way-back-when (2 months before the reval) in august for 240 and was assessed at 354.
or the sorry fellow who bought the house on north crescent for 360 in may and is assessed 5 months later at 575. A neighboring house sold for 585 in november suggests that someone left a lot of money on the table.
I think the REAL public service, jerry, might be to add a column for the name of the realtor that made the sale. With all this talk of bailing out of houses, it would be a public service to 'steer' the public away from the guys/gals that sold those houses on prospect and the crescent for a song.
or maybe the real truth here is that the biggest hit for the 'bubble' effect wasn't up on the hill..it was in the area adjacent to prospect. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 8:54 am: | |
Ejt -
I'm not sure why you're suggesting I ask my Summit neighbors what their taxes are...I was just asking what neighborhood number (in the data Jerry posted) corresponded to my neighborhood. Are you suggesting there's some problem in AC12? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 9:24 am: | |
Melidere, I love your examples, especially the houses on the west side that appear to have low valuations compared to their market values.
However, I do have one explanation for the house on the Crescent for $360. It was the monstrosity at the top near Prospect that was unused for many years; it was gutted and renovated, including new kitchen, baths, lighting and landscaping. I believe that over $100K was put into it, and given the neighborhood, it was well worth it. I was buying at the time, but the house was just too much work for me.
The house was then sold at the end of November or beginning of December for an amount that was in line with the reval. |
Ejt
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 10:11 am: | |
Curmundgeon- Yes, I think a $900 increase is a problem. I thought they would remain the same or decrease. It could even be more for those who live on a corner property or have added an addition to their house. |
Sullymw
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 10:21 am: | |
To get your area isolated in the spreadsheet, sort by block, lot, address. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 10:41 am: | |
With regards to these VCs, they are sometimes not organized logically. For example, the people living directly across the street are in AC15, and my side of the street as well as the people behind me are in AC15. In my area, it appears to be similar to the recycling/garbage pickup districts. That was confusing too! |
John
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 10:46 am: | |
Njjoseph is right if the house that sold for 360 is the one at the top. I went to see it as well. When I looked at it, they already had an interested party and would not entertain anything under 400K. There wasn't one thing in the house that didn't need excessive work. Without knowing the condition of the slate roof, and assuming it was not in need of repair, I guessed it would have cost at least 150K to repair the house. That would be doing the work yourself. The people who paid 360 for it did an excellent quality job at repairing it. I don't know what it ended up with but before the demolition began it was a 5 bedroom, 5 bathroom house. I believe they resold it somewhere between 600K and 700K. I hope they made a decent profit because they really improved the house and therefore the neighborhood. If the house assessed at 575K and all the bathrooms are still there, the new owners are getting a real great deal. Their taxes were probably around 12K and, if my calculation are correct will jump to near 16K. I hope they didn't stretch their budget too much to purchase the home. Welcome to Maplewood! |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:51 pm: | |
I know the owner-renovator personally, but don't know the exact figures. However, I do know that he was being pursued aggressively by the current owners. Although I might be wrong, my guess is that they can well afford the house and the taxes; they bought in September or October when everyone was well aware of the tax reassessment and that there was $150K or so improvements.
BTW, the house was not livable prior -- no running water, the baths and kitchen were already gutted, paint falling off the walls and ceiling in sheets. It was a mess! If it had been livable, I would have bought it myself, but there was just too much to be done. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 1:34 pm: | |
Ejt, I understand your concern, but it doesn't look like there's a problem with the valuations given to houses on Richmond and Summit. The Y2000 sales there are almost all well above the assessments that those houses received. My taxes are going up considerably more than $900 and I've not added on to the house nor am I on a corner. I do know from recent comps that my house has gone up in line with my assessment. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page