| Author |
Message |
    
Bak
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 11:18 am: |     |
A Town Hall Meeting would go a long way to help this community regain its faith in the TC and a comfort level on the revaluation.
Format: A line of people waiting behind a microphone, asking questions with immediate answers.
I attended both meetings and while I applaud your effort, the format of these meetings is not shedding enough light on the 'How's' and the 'Why's' of the revaluation process and the TC's thoughts, options, etc.
The way to solve the ignorance is to answer peoples' questions. If Certified would attend, I imagine the TC would be interested in some of their answers to the public as well.
By the time the questions were addressed last night, it was well after 1AM and few remained at the high school or in front of the TV.
While I truly believe that all in Maplewood would eventually support a 'stay of execution' for this reval until the right people with the right amount of time can generate what Mrs. Davenport called a "sound" revaluation, it appears 2 or 3 members might vote to complete this assignment this year even if there were still inconsistencies perceived by the community.
A Town Hall meeting with questions and answers would go a long way to shifting the town's confidence in you and this revaluation.
Thank you. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:20 pm: | |
Dear Maplewood:
Here's an explanation to the colorful Maplewood neighborhood map that was on display at the 1/23/00 meeting: If your home is in an area that was colored in, you are paying too much property tax. East side is paying too much. West side is paying too much. Anyone disagree?
Last week's overcrowded meeting demonstrated to the TC that Maplewood is in a crisis mode. People vented their anger, shared their concerns, demanded results from the TC, etc. Last night, it was clear that the concerns are still there, but the emotions were a little more civil. Good. That's where we start.
Listen, if the town was another kind of crisis, say engulfed in a huge fire, would the citizens of Maplewood stand back and demand the Fire Department deal with the problem? Or wouldn't the community do whatever they could do to assist the people whose job it is to deal with the crisis? Wouldn't citizens step up and assist the officials for the overall good of Maplewood?
Our leaders need us to work with them and we are all just taking pot shots at them. Yes, they are the elected leaders, but they need help.
So, yes, we can blame Certified, we can blame the politicians, but we the community must share some of this blame ourselves.
John F. Kennedy challenged Americans to, "Ask NOT what your country can do for you. Ask what YOU can do for your country." Just substitute the word "township" or "community" for the word country.
To the TC, don't hire some "expert" to audit Certified. That's a waste. If Certified was going to expose their methodologies with anyone, it should be Mr. Gallante, the TC, and the taxpayers. They have not done so, and will not with a hired hand.
I volunteer to assist in this project. I ask the TC to post a volunteer sign-up sheet. We'll form the "Bucket Brigade."
This is Maplewood's problem. Only Maplewood can fix it. Any other takers? How about it TC? |
Rheims
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:45 pm: | |
One solution might have been to disallow all the people who spoke last week from speaking again this week, at least until after all the new speakers had their turns. It took at least an hour before someone new with something different to say came to the mike. One guy later on even had the audacity to not only repeat what he said last week, but read a letter aloud with commentary that he sent to the TC. I know these people are angry, but hogging the camera only delays the TC responses.
And why did few people remain when all the speakers were done? I would bet it's because people left once they spoke, suggesting all they wanted to do was rant and moan rather than have their issues addressed. Sure, they might have gone home and watched the rest of the meeting on TV, but what kind of message does that send? The TC had to sit there until the end when they did address, through obvious exhaustion, as many of the concerns as they could. If the people who spoke cared so much, they should have stayed too.
Regarding Certified, I would be happy to join a posse to ride out, track them down and haul them in chains back to Town Hall for a meeting. Of course, they probably fear being tarred and feathered should they attend, which is understandable, if not acceptable.
Finally, where is that 56% of people who are supposedly getting a break from the Reval? While they might not want to stand up in front of their neighbors and say they are happy they are no longer getting in the ear on their taxes, they should. Otherwise they may not get their long-deserved tax relief. |
Mim
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 1:42 pm: | |
Rheims, that's odd, I thought there were LOTS of voices heard last night from the satisfied 56%. (Unlike last week.) That's why the meeting was so much more civil, I figured, because 'the 56%' are pleased with the results, and have only to politely plead with the TC to accept the re-val. No torches and pitchforks for them! |
Eliz
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 1:44 pm: | |
Rheims - I wholeheartedly agree re the speakers - they should have monitored who spoke last week and given new people priority. Having said that - you ask where are the 56% who are getting relief - while not 56%, a good number of people who's taxes are going down did speak but most not until later. |
Karenatha
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 2:17 pm: | |
I think last night's town meeting was a missed opportunity. The TC listened to another 5 hours of mostly the same rants (and yes, some repeats from last week -- we got it already!). I am one of the citizens of Maplewood who feels that my taxes are already too high for the property I have, and they stand to go higher. I'm not happy about this.
The TC had an opportunity last night to start taking control of the situation and the mood of homeowners. Instead it was another bitch and finger point session. When is the TC going to start answering questions? I agree with the Town Hall meeting suggestion -- let's have immediate answers. (By the way, why did Mr. Galante support weighting the year 2000 in the revaluation? How can people get behind these numbers if they continue to be based upon skewed market conditions?? If we haven't done a reval in 19 years, I think the least we can do is use three full years of sales data to come up with "sound" numbers.)
I also agree that we have a lot to complain about now, but many of us, myself included, did not attend the meetings when the reval was discussed and took no notice until it hit me in the checkbook. So while I think the TC has not demonstrated such impressive leadership with this effort and the "crisis," I don't think they are solely to blame.
Let's get together a panel of citizens from high and low housing market neighborhoods, with expertise that includes real estate, law, taxes, assessment, and plain old number crunching to start looking at CVI's methodology, assumptions, execution and calculations. I have reservations about hiring an expert to audit their process. Where's this money going to come from? I would only agree to it if we get our money back from Certified (or at least enough to cover this expert assessor). I do not support spending more money out of our already stretched budget.
I also think we residents who are balking at the new taxes have a responsibility to get more involved in finding out how the town, school and county budgets are planned and implemented. Let's see if there's any fat there that can be trimmed to start reducing the overall tax burden. Also, let's find out more about other ways to finance the town, county and schools. I agree with those who have said that the housing is a finite resource that can only be stretched so far. Let's agressively look for alternative sources of revenue. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 2:33 pm: | |
Mim- What was uncivil about last week's meeting? As soon as the sound problem was fixed, one by one people had their say in mannered, well-spoken tones and without interuption except for polite (albeit loud) applause. Last night may have only appeared more civil because finally there were enough seats for all. I don't think it was because of who was there and who spoke. |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 2:44 pm: | |
Can we issue awards for last night's speeches?
Most humorous: a tossup between the speaker originally from Trinidad describing his search for attributes Certified claimed his house had and the speaker who moved here from Brooklyn. The lady who described her search for the golf course view was pretty good as well.
Most dramatic: Mr. McNany (sp?) demanding TC action on his motion to have the state review the township finances.
Hardest Question: The lady who asked Mr. Ryan if the TC was going to return the $175,000 taken from the pool fund. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 2:52 pm: | |
What is so skewed about the market conditions in 2000? If there hadn't been a reval, the market would still be rising. What is skewed about that?
There were still bidding wars until the end of the summer (at least) even when people knew the reval was coming. Once the numbers were in, however, the tone changed.
Even so, if you take the 1999 numbers, I'm sure you would see that all houses in Maplewood had lower market values than they do in 2000. They may not have risen in exactly the same proportion, but this is exactly why we need a reval. A house on Hilton went from $50K in 1981 to $130K in 2000. A $50K house on Wyoming became $550 in 2000.
There will NEVER be an exact point in time that is perfect. However, the imbalance needs to be corrected NOW, and the future assessments will be ongoing to account for any imbalances. These changes will occur even in late 2001 and 2002. |
Rheims
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 4:04 pm: | |
Re the 56%: Yes, a lot more of those getting a break at last did speak, many later, but not so many that they made up 56% of the speakers. Only because so few spoke during the first meeting, I think, does it seem that so many spoke during this one.
My vote for best speaker: the guy who bid on his house 10/15/00, closed on it 12/15 and got his revaluation that day during the walk-through. Although he paid $425K, CVI told him the market value of his house on 10/1 was $525K. So he went to CVI and said, basically, "Didn't I just set the market value?" CVI responded by dropping his assessment to...$509K. Does CVI have any connections to the military? Because this is a classic snafu. |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 8:49 pm: | |
BAK: I also would love to volunteer to review the process. However, the way the process has been set, it appears that we do not have time now to do this.
However, there is nothing that says we cannot have the assessor revalue property every year or two, without going to an outside entity. Cerainly, properies should be "marked-to-market" when sold, refinanced, or significantly renovated. And in this case, a civilian review panel that is required to also educate the public would be a grand idea. |
Papa
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 10:39 pm: | |
I agree with Ffof last night's meeting was more calm. but it was only because everything was right in the speaker dept.and seats to sit in............ |
|