Archive through January 23, 2001

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

Author Message   Gerardryan Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:17 pm:        As you have likely heard by now, Certified and the Township Tax Assessor have updated the assessments based on meetings that citizens had with Certified, and based on the Assessor's review of sales data for the entire town. Late last Friday I received an electronic copy of the current version of the assessment database from Certified. I pulled it into an Excel spreadsheet and ran some analysis on the entire database. In the postings that follow, I will put up some summary information that I derived from all of this raw data. It is important to emphasize that this information is current as of 1/19/01; it does not reflect recent meetings with Certified or the Assessor. Please note, as was announced in Mayor DeLuca's posting, all of the deadlines have been extended a month; this means that there is still the possibility of future adjustments based on further meetings. Further, please note that I am only posting this information in order to provide as much data for the citizens as possible. This posting should not be construed as implying that "the township committee has decided that this is a done deal", or that all members are in agreement with all the numbers presented. I would further like to make the raw data and the source of the analysis available to any other fellow numbers geeks. To that end, if you email revalinfo07040@aol.com, I will send you the spreadsheet with all this stuff in it. Keep in mind, please, that the file is huge (about 4MB). Jerry Ryan ---------- Here is the "README!" tab from this workbook: This workbook is based on data from a report generated by Certified Valuation on Friday 1/19/2001 The "database" worksheet is the entire assessment database for the Township The columns in the database are defined as follows block tax map block (in certified database) lot tax map lot (in certified database database) qual qualification code (in certified database) class property address [see "class" worksheet for definitions and summary] (in certified database), address property class [see "class" worksheet for definitions and summary] (in certified database) old total total assessment for 2000 (in certified database) new total total proposed assessment for 2001 (in certified database) vcs a neighborhood code (in certified database) n/o new/old (in certified database) norm n/o normalized to the average factor in town (added by me) old tax old total * old tax rate (added by me) new tax new total * new tax rate (added by me) change new tax - old tax (added by me) sale date most recent sale date for property (in certified database) sale prc most recent sale price for property (in certified database) ratio ratio of most recent sale to new total (in certified database) the "total collections" worksheet shows the sum of the total tax for all taxable properties, "old tax" and "new tax" columns the "class" worksheet shows a breakdown by, and definition of, property classes the "vcs and class" worksheet shows counts of the number of properties by class and vcs in the township the "nbrhd summary" worksheet shows a summary by vcs code and property class the "extract" worksheet can be used to extract out subsets of the database based on criteria that you define; there are instructions on the sheet about how to use it. send comments, questions, etc. to revalinfo07040@aol.com   Gerardryan Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:26 pm:        SUMMARY INFORMATION First a quick word on overall size and taxes. There are several classes of property in town. I did a rough pass on sizing that lets us see the changes from 2000 to the new reval. Description # on 2000 list 2000 total # on 2001 list 2001 total factor Vacant Land 68 804200 60 3281200 4.08 Residential 6855 484486000 6841 1835917700 3.79 Commercial 342 68528100 361 216997300 3.17 Totals 7265 553818300 7262 2056196200 Old valuation for town 553818300 New valuation for town 2056196200 Description % of tax paid in 2000 % of tax paid after reval Vacant Land 0.15% 0.16% Residential 87.48% 89.29% Commercial 12.37% 10.55% New Factor 3.71 New Tax Rate 2.75%   Gerardryan Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:28 pm:        SUMMARY BY FACTOR If we calculate taxes based on the new rates, here is how they break out by factor. You will note that I included land and commercial here as well as residential. factor >= and less than tax % tax% RES LAND COML 2 53.87% 21 15 53 2 2.5 53.87% 67.34% 465 7 78 2.5 3 67.34% 80.80% 1670 8 76 3 3.5 80.80% 94.27% 1124 4 58 3.5 4 94.27% 107.74% 893 2 39 4 4.5 107.74% 121.20% 1441 2 30 4.5 5 121.20% 134.67% 760 1 12 5 5.5 134.67% 148.14% 326 3 5 5.5 6 148.14% 161.60% 106 1 1 6 6.5 161.60% 175.07% 29 0 2 6.5 7 175.07% 188.54% 4 2 0 7 188.54% 2 15 7 6841 60 361   Gerardryan Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:33 pm:        SUMMARY BY % OF 2000 TAXES I also did the analysis broken out by tax percentage. That is, each row shows what taxes are as a percentage of 2000 taxes. tax% range Factor range RES LAND COML RES RUNNING TOTALS RES RUNNING TOTALS, REVERSE 30% 1.11 2 7 3 2 0.03% 6841 100.00% 30% 40% 1.11 1.49 3 2 5 5 0.07% 6839 99.97% 40% 50% 1.49 1.86 6 3 31 11 0.16% 6836 99.93% 50% 60% 1.86 2.23 125 6 50 136 1.99% 6830 99.84% 60% 70% 2.23 2.60 616 5 67 752 10.99% 6705 98.01% 70% 80% 2.60 2.97 1313 6 48 2065 30.19% 6089 89.01% 80% 90% 2.97 3.34 974 5 45 3039 44.42% 4776 69.81% 90% 100% 3.34 3.71 605 1 39 3644 53.27% 3802 55.58% 100% 110% 3.71 4.08 769 3 22 4413 64.51% 3197 46.73% 110% 120% 4.08 4.46 1103 0 22 5516 80.63% 2428 35.49% 120% 130% 4.46 4.83 675 1 9 6191 90.50% 1325 19.37% 130% 140% 4.83 5.20 343 1 9 6534 95.51% 650 9.50% 140% 150% 5.20 5.57 196 2 1 6730 98.38% 307 4.49% 150% 160% 5.57 5.94 72 1 1 6802 99.43% 111 1.62% 160% 170% 5.94 6.31 26 0 1 6828 99.81% 39 0.57% 170% 180% 6.31 6.68 9 0 1 6837 99.94% 13 0.19% 180% 190% 6.68 7.05 2 4 0 6839 99.97% 4 0.06% 190% 200% 7.05 7.43 0 0 1 6839 99.97% 2 0.03% 200% 7.43 2 13 6 6841 100.00% 2 0.03% 6841 60 361 Things you can observe from this: 53.27% of properties are having no change or a decrease 9.5% of properties are having an increase of 30% or more 1374 properties, or 20.08%, will have taxes between 90% and 110% of what they were in 2000 3451 properties, or 50.45%, fall between 80% and 120%   Gerardryan Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:38 pm:        SUMMARY OF AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID IN 2000 An analysis of how many residential properties paid how much in taxes, by amount of taxes old tax range RES LAND COML RES RUNNING TOTALS RES RUNNING TOTALS, REVERSE 0 <1000 2 27 11 2 0.03% 6841 100.00% >=1000 <2000 17 13 5 19 0.28% 6839 99.97% >=2000 <3000 145 11 15 164 2.40% 6822 99.72% >=3000 <4000 185 6 12 349 5.10% 6677 97.60% >=4000 <5000 523 2 19 872 12.75% 6492 94.90% >=5000 <6000 1006 1 20 1878 27.45% 5969 87.25% >=6000 <7000 1473 0 20 3351 48.98% 4963 72.55% >=7000 <8000 1517 0 19 4868 71.16% 3490 51.02% >=8000 <9000 801 0 27 5669 82.87% 1973 28.84% >=9000 <10000 450 0 19 6119 89.45% 1172 17.13% >=10000 <11000 294 0 24 6413 93.74% 722 10.55% >=11000 <12000 169 0 13 6582 96.21% 428 6.26% >=12000 <13000 99 0 17 6681 97.66% 259 3.79% >=13000 <14000 80 0 18 6761 98.83% 160 2.34% >=14000 <15000 39 0 17 6800 99.40% 80 1.17% >=15000 <16000 22 0 13 6822 99.72% 41 0.60% >=16000 <17000 10 0 13 6832 99.87% 19 0.28% >=17000 <18000 5 0 6 6837 99.94% 9 0.13% >=18000 <19000 0 0 6 6837 99.94% 4 0.06% >=19000 <20000 0 0 7 6837 99.94% 4 0.06% >=20000 <21000 2 0 9 6839 99.97% 4 0.06% >=21000 <22000 0 0 3 6839 99.97% 2 0.03% >=22000 <23000 1 0 4 6840 99.99% 2 0.03% >=23000 <24000 0 0 2 6840 99.99% 1 0.01% >=24000 <25000 0 0 1 6840 99.99% 1 0.01% >=25000 0 1 0 41 6841 100.00% 1 0.01% 6841 60 361   Gerardryan Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:40 pm:        SUMMARY OF AMOUNT OF TAXES UNDER REVAL An analysis of how many residential properties would have paid how much in taxes, by amount of taxes, under the reval. new tax range RES LAND COML RES RUNNING TOTALS RES RUNNING TOTALS, REVERSE 0 <1000 5 35 15 5 0.07% 6841 100.00% >=1000 <2000 123 14 12 128 1.87% 6836 99.93% >=2000 <3000 235 3 24 363 5.31% 6713 98.13% >=3000 <4000 759 3 37 1122 16.40% 6478 94.69% >=4000 <5000 1039 0 19 2161 31.59% 5719 83.60% >=5000 <6000 673 1 29 2834 41.43% 4680 68.41% >=6000 <7000 623 1 22 3457 50.53% 4007 58.57% >=7000 <8000 726 2 23 4183 61.15% 3384 49.47% >=8000 <9000 802 1 26 4985 72.87% 2658 38.85% >=9000 <10000 556 0 26 5541 81.00% 1856 27.13% >=10000 <11000 298 0 13 5839 85.35% 1300 19.00% >=11000 <12000 179 0 12 6018 87.97% 1002 14.65% >=12000 <13000 195 0 13 6213 90.82% 823 12.03% >=13000 <14000 230 0 5 6443 94.18% 628 9.18% >=14000 <15000 142 0 6 6585 96.26% 398 5.82% >=15000 <16000 118 0 13 6703 97.98% 256 3.74% >=16000 <17000 57 0 5 6760 98.82% 138 2.02% >=17000 <18000 34 0 3 6794 99.31% 81 1.18% >=18000 <19000 22 0 6 6816 99.63% 47 0.69% >=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 Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:44 pm:        SUMMARY OF TAX CHANGE UNDER REVAL 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 61 0 38 75 1.10% 6827 99.80% >=-3000 <-2500 117 0 20 192 2.81% 6766 98.90% >=-2500 <-2000 308 0 27 500 7.31% 6649 97.19% >=-2000 <-1500 702 1 24 1202 17.57% 6341 92.69% >=-1500 <-1250 453 0 16 1655 24.19% 5639 82.43% >=-1250 <-1000 559 3 13 2214 32.36% 5186 75.81% >=-1000 <-750 570 7 8 2784 40.70% 4627 67.64% >=-750 <-500 373 8 9 3157 46.15% 4057 59.30% >=-500 <-250 261 6 19 3418 49.96% 3684 53.85% >=-250 <=0 226 10 12 3644 53.27% 3423 50.04% >0 <250 181 14 6 3825 55.91% 3197 46.73% >=250 <500 251 5 13 4076 59.58% 3016 44.09% >=500 <750 286 0 7 4362 63.76% 2765 40.42% >=750 <1000 357 0 2 4719 68.98% 2479 36.24% >=1000 <1250 400 1 3 5119 74.83% 2122 31.02% >=1250 <1500 295 0 0 5414 79.14% 1722 25.17% >=1500 <2500 695 1 10 6109 89.30% 1427 20.86% >=2500 <3500 353 2 6 6462 94.46% 732 10.70% >=3500 <4000 142 1 5 6604 96.54% 379 5.54% >=4000 <5000 154 0 4 6758 98.79% 237 3.46% >=5000 <6000 44 1 4 6802 99.43% 83 1.21% >=6000 <7000 24 0 4 6826 99.78% 39 0.57% >=7000 0 15 0 9 6841 100.00% 15 0.22% 6841 60 361 A look at the change statistics shows the following: 407 properties, or 5.95%, are changed 250 or less 919 properties, or 13.43%, are changed 500 or less 2112 properties, or 31.02%, are increased 1000 or more 732 properties, or 10.70%, are increased 2500 or more 500 properties, or 7.31%, are decreased 2500 or more 2214 properties, or 32.36%, are decreased 1000 or more   Gerardryan Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:50 pm:        SUMMARY BY VCS (NEIGHBORHOOD) assessment taxes vcs num factor orig avg new avg new stdev orig tax new tax new-orig Wyoming, Upper Wyoming AC01 258 4.25 $121,049 $510,776 86770.82499 $12,371.23 $14,059.97 $1,688.74 Claremont Ave, below Wyoming, Ridgewood, Maple Terr AC02 346 5.09 $102,947 $514,487 81457.70191 $10,521.14 $14,162.11 $3,640.98 Hemlock, Claremont Dr AC03 41 4.75 $100,139 $474,251 59961.81761 $10,234.21 $13,054.56 $2,820.35 Kendall, below Wyoming, Collinwood, Cedar AC04 355 4.42 $78,297 $345,784 33452.64462 $8,002.00 $9,518.28 $1,516.28 Washington Park AC05 37 6.94 $108,276 $453,943 64230.4657 $11,065.77 $12,495.54 $1,429.77 East Cedar AC06 41 3.77 $73,759 $278,390 56995.97249 $7,538.12 $7,663.16 $125.03 Below Ridgewood, Woodland, Maplewood Ave, Walton AC07 214 5.02 $89,881 $454,875 76980.13334 $9,185.87 $12,521.20 $3,335.33 Winthrop, Baker, Lenox AC08 75 6.24 $77,249 $387,673 51694.76655 $7,894.88 $10,671.36 $2,776.47 Carleton Ct AC09 32 6.65 $74,363 $317,947 41113.4177 $7,599.85 $8,752.02 $1,152.17 Burnet, Salter AC10 135 4.69 $70,899 $332,207 34417.93934 $7,245.90 $9,144.54 $1,898.64 Dunnell Rd AC11 20 4.10 $61,875 $248,225 42765.82602 $6,323.63 $6,832.81 $509.18 Elmwood, Kensington, Midland Blvd AC12 634 4.14 $72,797 $295,217 47509.97199 $7,439.89 $8,126.34 $686.46 Burr, Berkshire, Burroughs AC13 118 3.42 $76,825 $261,772 28701.41698 $7,851.47 $7,205.71 $(645.76) South 4th, Essex, Hudson AC14 258 2.78 $60,790 $169,324 35784.24099 $6,212.77 $4,660.93 $(1,551.84) Elberta, Midland Blvd, Ball Terr AC15 441 3.15 $71,681 $222,863 48081.36976 $7,325.82 $6,134.67 $(1,191.15) Orchard, Meadowbrook, Hillcrest AC16 454 2.87 $59,731 $168,666 26070.98906 $6,104.51 $4,642.82 $(1,461.70) Jennifer Lane AC17 8 4.33 $99,313 $428,488 30571.24619 $10,149.74 $11,794.83 $1,645.10 Oakland, Park, Oakview (W of Prospect) AC18 77 4.03 $83,473 $335,075 48936.18467 $8,530.91 $9,223.51 $692.59 North Crescent AC19 46 4.52 $105,246 $474,287 65359.04717 $10,756.11 $13,055.54 $2,299.43 Prospect St AC20 57 4.58 $106,995 $488,670 69875.51328 $10,934.86 $13,451.46 $2,516.60 Courter, Oakland, Plymouth AC21 384 4.24 $73,445 $309,937 34708.00276 $7,506.11 $8,531.53 $1,025.42 Boyden Parkway AC22 57 2.54 $73,256 $182,449 34184.78231 $7,486.78 $5,022.22 $(2,464.56) Park Ave, Harvard, Tuscan AC23 570 3.97 $71,421 $284,966 47217.30225 $7,299.27 $7,844.18 $544.91 So Pierson, Broadview AC24 115 3.34 $63,993 $213,801 34630.16402 $6,540.09 $5,885.23 $(654.86) Rynda Rd AC25 135 3.11 $61,587 $183,798 24628.43123 $6,294.16 $5,059.34 $(1,234.82) Hilton Section AC26 660 2.75 $52,405 $144,296 24766.13313 $5,355.82 $3,972.00 $(1,383.82) Jacoby, Van Ness, Newark Way AC27 583 2.86 $55,491 $156,742 30190.5811 $5,671.21 $4,314.59 $(1,356.62) Lee Ct, Troy Ct AC28 114 2.81 $74,633 $209,629 29818.69402 $7,627.53 $5,770.39 $(1,857.14) Condominiums - Irvington Ave AC29 18 2.49 $34,572 $85,994 12419.62928 $3,533.28 $2,367.14 $(1,166.14) Condominiums - Irvington Ave AC30 22 2.86 $39,541 $113,168 10614.88605 $4,041.08 $3,115.14 $(925.94) Condominiums - Hausmann Ct AC31 16 2.40 $39,925 $95,800 6908.69018 $4,080.34 $2,637.05 $(1,443.28) Condominiums - Burnett Ave AC32 18 3.01 $28,917 $86,906 3018.548625 $2,955.28 $2,392.22 $(563.06) Condominiums - Boyden Ave AC33 10 2.72 $27,160 $73,840 3720 $2,775.75 $2,032.57 $(743.18) Condominiums - Ridgewood Rd AC34 8 4.00 $75,688 $302,338 10461.35 $7,735.26 $8,322.34 $587.08 Condominiums - Highland Pl AC35 13 3.59 $64,085 $229,762 6363.179958 $6,549.45 $6,324.57 $(224.88) Condominiums - Valley St AC36 86 2.71 $29,694 $79,217 22135.02009 $3,034.75 $2,180.59 $(854.15) Condominiums - Meadowbrook AC37 148 2.39 $27,337 $66,134 13452.84915 $2,793.86 $1,820.46 $(973.40) Condominiums - Ostwood Terr AC38 8 3.27 $45,913 $149,463 8613.933117 $4,692.26 $4,114.20 $(578.05) The Top AC39 92 4.45 $87,779 $404,788 220869.6187 $8,971.05 $11,142.47 $2,171.42 Rosedale, Cypress AC40 41 3.10 $61,705 $201,122 51844.77541 $6,306.24 $5,536.22 $(770.02) Raymond Terr AC41 14 3.79 $57,729 $197,414 47437.27975 $5,899.86 $5,434.16 $(465.70) Buckingham, End of Maplewood Ave AC42 82 3.96 $70,022 $277,161 51261.30751 $7,156.24 $7,629.32 $473.07   Curmudgeon Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:27 pm:        Thanks, Jerry Wow - data, and lots of it...but I STILL can't find my neighborhood in there! I know my block and lot numbers, but don't know how they relate to the "vcs." I don't see any street names closer to me than "Burr, Berkshire, Burroughs," which are close, but no cigar. My neighborhood could be defined, I guess, as Richmond and Summit north of Parker. Which vcs is that?   Dytunck Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:30 pm:        Jerry, You are such a geek. I eagerly await my spreadsheet. For I too am a proud card-carrying geek.   Jln Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:36 pm:        Gerry, This is information is excellent. Can you or the Township Committee provide a maps showing the exact boundaries of the neighborhoods? Thanks.   Loyo65 Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:04 am:        Gerry - How did the tax rate suddenly go from 2.66 to 2.75? So, we get our assessment down and the rate goes up? Therefore, the tax increase remains the same. Am I missing the point here???   Gerardryan Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:44 am:        It looks like @home has size limits on what I can email to you. SO: to get the data go to http://ryanfamily.org/reval.html . Not the prettiest web page in the world but you should be able to right click the download link. PLEASE email me if you took the file so that I can update you if there are any changes... and if you have any questions about the data, email me at the revalinfo07040@aol.com address. Curmudgeon: you can find your property in the database. All of Richmond, and almost all of Summit, are in AC12. Two addresses on Summit (580 and 615) are in AC21. Dytunck: back to our plan to take over the world... Jim: trying Jerry   Gerardryan Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:59 am:        Loyo65: First let me remind you and everyone what the tax rate number means. The number is a projection of what your 2000 taxes WOULD HAVE been IF the assessment from the reval HAD BEEN in place for 2000. The tax rate number went up since the last time I posted detailed data because the total assessed valuation for the entire town went down. Revals are a zero-sum exercise. There is no net total tax increase across the entire town as a result of revaluation. Take your assessment (from the database) and multiply it by 2.75% to calculate what your taxes would have been if the reval had been in place. hth Jerry   Gerardryan Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:21 am:        Full disclosure: the revisions made have resulted in a lowering of my own property assessment. My assessment is now 541,900. This is a 6.26 factor of increase in valuation. My taxes would change to 169% of what they were, to $14,923, an increase of $6072. FYI: If you use my spreadsheet and rank order the 'norm' column, I'm at #20 in tax increases in the town. Ouch. Jerry   Aruba18 Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 3:58 am:        Jerry-Okay, I guess I'm a computer geek but definitely not in your league with numbers! I called Certified today because our daughter was hospitalized, as an emergency, just around the time that the reval's arrived. I was told by Diane at Certified that they have no more appt's available, now or ever, if I live in Maplewood, and they suggest that I take it up with the tax assessor after the 24th. I called Mr. Galante-his sec'y was about ready to walk out from frustration-she couldn't find him-but I finally located him at the Essex Cty.Tax Board. I left a message for him, but he didn't return my call. If Certified lowered only the property values of those who were privileged to have an appt. with them, then what happens to the rest of us?   Bobk Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 4:44 am:        Mr. Ryan: Thank you for the first full disclosure of information that we poor taxpayers have been allowed to see, specifically the neighborhood groupings. However, a review of the information you provided leaves me convinced that the methodology is indeed flawed. Specifically I am concerned with the inclusion of Ridgewood Tr., Clinton Ave., Mountain Ave., and Maple Tr. with Roosevelt Park. The fact of the matter is that houses on these streets do not have the value that those in Roosevelt Park have. These are, especially on the lower end of these streets near Ridgewood Rd., smaller houses on smaller lots and the streets are much less homogeneous than others in the area.. Ask any realtor. Congradulations on making the top 20 list. Let this be a lesson to you, move, don't improve! The new tax structure makes improving your home economically foolhardy. It is like buying a yacht, it isn't the initial cost, it is the upkeep. I would like to hear a presentation from Certified on their methodology. I respect that the actual weight they put on factors they use in their models is prividledged trade secrets. However, the general methodology is not. I suspect that the model(s) used do not factor in the diverse nature of Maplewood housing as respects style, condition and construction quality as well as age. Again, thank you for the information. It is appreciated by all.   Gerardryan Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 7:10 am:        Aruba18: I hope everything is OK with your daughter. There were changes made as a result of meetings with Certified, AND changes made as a result of Galante's review. There is also the possibility that further meetings with Certified and/or Galante may result in further changes. Bobk: I know the area well. Please don't focus on "the neighborhood". The question is, is your assessment correct? I expect that there will be some discussion/presentation about methodology tonight. By the way, as for "move, don't improve": I did both! That'll teach me...   Bobk Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 8:01 am:        Mr. Ryan: IF my house had a newer kitchen and a new bathroom (one that we do not have to hang plastic around the tub to keep from leaking) and if the second bathroom that doesn't have any fixtures or wall finish (that the Township still insists on charging us for)is finished, yeah the assesment is probably right on. Estimated cost for these approvements is maybe $100,000 which would increase the value of our home by maybe $50,000. As it stands we are at least $50,000 over assesed. When we met with Certified they said our house was in average condition. It ain't!! This is one of the major problems I have with the methodology used in the reval. The other problem is that the housing stock is diverse here in Maplewood, especially in the three or four block area I mentioned before. Two years ago houses around ours were selling in the $250k to $300k range. A couple of very nice houses located further up the block sold for twice these numbers last year. One was a Queen Anne victorian that a young couple spent ten years and a lot of money working on. These people made Dean and JoAnne from HOmetime look like amateurs. The other was a large tudor in excellent condition that can be best be described as "baronial". Certified is asking us to buy into having our 1920s plan book colonial revival homes valued on the same basis. We are basically being asked to buy into the idea that homes have doubled in value in the last two years. These are returns that are more usually associated with the sale and distribution of powdery white substances. Glad that you took my move, don't improve comment in jest. After I hit the post key I was a little worried that it would be misinterpreted. OK, I will get off my soapbox now. I swore when I discovered this forum that I wouldn't get personal. I just violated that. STOP ME BEFORE I POST AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Nohero Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 10:47 am:        Jerry - Thank you (seriously) for providing this analysis. It helps to put a lot of this in perspective. But, there are so many different ways to search, sort and otherwise play with this thing, that now I have yet another time-wasting activity on my computer, to go with reading the MaplewoodOnline message boards! Thanks again, anyway!