| Author |
Message |
    
Townie
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:50 pm: |     |
Last night when I went to the town meeting I didn't sign up to speak because I thought many people would be there who needed to ask questions and they deserved the floor. I didn't realize so many narrowly focused people would come to make emotional speeches, and I'm sorry now I didn't sign up to speak up on your behalf. I'm doing so here and I hope others who read it and agree with me will add their comments. Others may disagree, but I won't be back to elaborte and I certainly won't read those who merely spew vitriol.
My thanks to everyone on the township committee for your hard work and honesty in a difficult situation. You've been telling us the truth. It's hard to understand a revaluation process coming at it cold, but after investing time in learning about it, I can see that the Township Committee is doing the right thing according to law. I'll bet everyone on the Committee personally believes as I do that the property tax system in New Jersey is fundamentally unjust, regressive and a blight on the state. But until that is changed, property valuations must be done and taxes imposed according to law.
I live in the hills above the village. If I put a sign on my lawn offering my house for sale at the price last given me by Certified, the doorbell would soon be ringing. There is no question it is now assessed at fair market value. I've checked out other houses' assessments as posted on Jerry Ryan's website. In almost all but a few cases, those numbers reflect the bottom-line figures home buyers expect to encounter when shopping in Maplewood, especially the hilly west end of Maplewood, including those looking for "fixer-uppers." What us hillbillies have -- and we know it in our hearts -- is location, location, location.
There are still people in town who have incorrect assessments that need to be addressed individually. But most people now have in hand a real-world assessment and they have the ability to pay any additional taxes owed because of it. Those who continue to protest despite the validity of their assessment are hurting the whole town -- but they don't see the whole town. They only see themselves.
When people loudly lament the possibility of neighbors leaving because revaluation will raise their taxes (I've done that myself), they only advertise the fact they've never really thoght about all those other people in other neighborhoods who left because they couldn't afford being OVERtaxed anymore. And I guess some people still don't realize that for every homeowner who unfairly gets their assessment knocked back to a below-market value, the mil rate goes up for everyone else. It's especially disheartening when that attempt at underpaying comes from people who privately know they have the ability to pay the additional taxes. One can only ask them to please stop. And politely point out to them the reval is valid.
As township committee members, you do see the whole town. You do see those who have been overassessed and need adjustments and you are continuing the process of making appropriate adjustments. I am very glad you are hiring extra staff to help those mistakenly still overvalued, not just handing them to the county bureaucracy. I think the steps you've put in place are intelligent and I am glad to pay the costs of such steps to help my neighbors through the re-val process. I will not be happy to pay for another revaluation. It will come up with the same results.
Mistakes have been made. I'm sorry you were blindsided by some of the mistakes from Certified. I'm sure there are many things you wish you could do over. But don't do the revaluation over. I'll be supporting your re-election -- and a change of policy in Trenton so that someday we in Maplewood pay for shared obligations with a progressive state income tax.
My immediate hope, however, is that my protesting neighbors, who are so bright and decent, will take the few extra moments to think about the law, to think about their assessment realistically in light of what today's real estate market is, and to think about what they are costing the town by asking to do over a process that will only come out the same. The burden of proof is on you, not the town, to justify re-doing an assessment that actually reflects the new realities of house buying in Maplewood. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:57 pm: | |
Townie, I agree -- and so eloquently written!
There's been a lot of talk about Trenton and the tax changes in the last few years. Let's hope that we can remember these moments in the next few elections, so that we all go out to vote and make a difference in the future. |
Curmudgeon
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 12:59 pm: | |
A hearty Amen to that, Townie |
Kayceecee
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 1:02 pm: | |
I watched the town meeting on TV last night and I too feel that the re-eval should go forward, despite the fact that my taxes are going up. What was most appalling was the speakers who represent THE VAST MAJORITY were heard from only toward the end, when most people had left. These folks brought up shocking, true tales of gross overpayment of taxes. $6,000 taxes on $120,000 home? And someone else with a $500,000 home paying the same amount? This CANNOT go on. Most people in this town agree with the assessment and it should go forward. A few very vocal people are turning Maplewood into a divided community. |
Patrick
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 1:02 pm: | |
I concur. The revalution, while at times flawed and poorly managed by Certified, was, on the whole, fair! It should not be thrown out. It reflects the values in our town. Yes, with some exceptions. And those should be dealt with. I am from the no-man's land between east and west (betweeen Valley and Prospect) and the values, for the most part, reflect the current market. Period. My valuation is within $5K of a month-old private appraisal for a refinancing. Am I upset my taxes are going up? Yes. But the reval reflects reality. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 1:15 pm: | |
I also agree. I believe that the latest set of revisions I got is much closer to reality that the initial letter. We still have a few more things to challenge, but I don't expect it to drop that much further. That said, I think it's up to individuals to look at their circumstances and decide what their next steps are. My wife and I had a discussion about it last night when I came back from the meeting. Although we are in a position to pay the very large increase we're looking at, we both agreed that it simply doesn't make any sense for us to pay taxes in the mid-teens for the house we currently live in. Although we're not putting a "for sale" sign out tomorrow, I anticipate that we'll be out within two years. That's our choice given the result of the revaluation. Not a happy one, but one that makes the most economic sense to us. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 1:39 pm: | |
Well said as usual Townie. I was distressed at the meeting by comments of some of the people sitting around me when their across-town neighbors got up to speak about paying 6 and 7000 a year on houses worth in the 100's. They seem to intent on this illogic "they knew what the taxes were when they bought". As so many people said - they knew the taxes were high but thought everyone was paying proportionally. It's just not right and how people can say it is is beyond me.
I also live in the middle section and our taxes are going up as well (as are pretty much all our neighbors - despite what some people seem to believe) - it's necessary until the bigger picture of how schools are funded is changed.
Someone mentioned on another thread that it's unfortunate that the TC didn't review CVI's work before making it public and I have to agree. If the numers had been reviewed properly and some of the egregious errors fixed we could possibly have avoided (some) of this agida. |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 2:23 pm: | |
Townie--Well said, and I think that most people who disagree with their valuations agree with your logic.
Still, you should demand that the process be opened up even more, if not for your sake, then for the sake of those who still feel that an error has been made in their assessment. If nothing else, this will bolster the credibility of the process.
Unfortunately, the Township is not letting us see how the values were arrived at for our homes--they are simply reviewing the assessments in private and then letting us know their determination. While this saves time, it only perpetuates the perception of some that the process is arbitrary.
It was unconscionable (sp?) for the Township to have allowed the skewed taxation that has existed to date, and it will be equally so if the process is not felt to be valid by most reasonable residents (there will always be some on the fringe). |
Davel
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 3:29 pm: | |
I agree. Well said Townie.
Even if only a small percentage, say 5%, of homes had a reevaluation that was too high, that would still amount to almost 350 homes. I don't blame those homeowners for being vocal and upset.
By the same token, it follows that many of the howeowners who had reasonably accurate reevaluations would not be as vocal. Given the cacophony coming from those with flawed reevaluations, I think it is important for those of us with reasonably accurate ones to speak up.
Jerry Ryan certainly performed a wonderful public service by making the reevaluation summary data for every property public. I found this data extremely helpful in validating my own reevaluation in the context of our neighborhood.
I hope the town can identify and correct those reevaluations that are out of line in an efficient manner. |
Janet
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 3:32 pm: | |
Townie -
You are a breath of fresh air! I also live on the hill, having moved here last summer. Having been recently in the market to buy here, I can see that my valuation, as well as that of my neighbors, is fair. That doesn't mean I'm happy about my big increase, it doesn't mean that I disagree that there were some terrible errors that need to be corrected, and it doesn't mean I don't understand the pain this is causing some people, including my wonderful neighbors. But the underlying problem is not the assessments - it's the tax rate.
Please submit what you wrote above to both the News-Record and the Star Ledger - your voice of reason needs to be heard by more than the relatively few who frequent this board. |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 3:44 pm: | |
My impression was that the "scrap the reval" movement was a lot weaker last night than a week ago. I think that the information made available by the TC along with the first round of adjustments was responsible for this. |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 4:32 pm: | |
Euclidean--so true, so true. Imagine what would happen if the whole process were more transparent from beginning to end! Somehow, I think that the next time something like this comes up, the Township Committee will try even harder than they usually do to bring in the public. Then again, hopefully we all will be more aware of what the Township Committee is trying to do, also. This is a two-way street, the TC is made up of people just like us, with jobs and families and other commitments, and we need to support them if they are to function effectively. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 5:10 pm: | |
In my humble opinion, a reassement certainly seems to be in order. Tax inequities appear to have existed for some time. Nonetheless, permit me to offer the following observations:
1. I refuse to believe that any Maplewood resident objects to paying their fair tax. However, they need to be assured that the tax they are being asked to pay is indeed their fair tax and was arrived at via a fair methodology.
2. There were apparently a significant number of factual errors in Certified's work product. (I'm not referring to timing or comps here; rather to the many instances of neglect or mis-specification of physical attributes (e.g., they classified our mansard roof overhang as a room and added the square footage).
3. It appears that Certified ignored the provisions of the Appraiser's guide and other common sense methods of establishing fair market value and wrote their own procedures. These procedures resulted in a significant number of valuation anomalies.
4. It appears that the TC did not provide for any contractual method of assuring themselves and through them, the residents, of the quality of Certified's work. Hence, confidence in the efficacy of assessments is extremely low.
5. Consequently, we now find ourselves in this imbrogilio that has degenerated into "east" vs "west" appelations. In twenty years in Maplewood, I had never heard such divisiveness prior to this.
6. Until the outcry from both the beneficiaries and the victims of Certified's work, the TC seemed rather blase about it. There just didn't seem to be much information being made available until it was pried out.
7. The process, if one can call it that, of rectifying errors and addressing appeals that has been put in place by the TC and the assessor seem woefully inadequate to address the number and severity of errors and complaints, and contributes to the general dissatisfaction with the entire reassement process. Simply referring people on the county smacks of passing the buck and ducking one's own responsibilities.
To summarize, equity demands a reassement. However, each and every resident, regardless of whether your taxes appear to be going up or down, should examine very closely the valuation assigned to your residence. Look for factual errors or comp mistakes. Continue to press the TC and the assessor for equity when you find them.
If you feel that your valuation is fair and fairly arrived at, fine. Count yourself lucky. While you're feeling that way, please be supportive, or at least tolerant, of those who do not feel that way. You might be in their shoes next time. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 5:28 pm: | |
How does one look for "comp" mistakes? So much new vocabulary in the past month here!
Bacata |
Mfpark
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 8:07 pm: | |
Nakaille--see my posting today under:
To Township Committee from an Appraiser and a Citizen.
This might help answer some of the "technical" lingo questions you have.
As one gentleman said at the first meeting, this is not rocket science (and he should know, he is a rocket scientist who used to be at Lawrence Livermore!). Appraisals are really very simple tools and should not be made to be mysterious.
An appraisal is a means of communicating how you got to an estimate of value for a property, a way of showing that your assumptions to get there are reasonable and valid. It is a discussion, really, between the appraiser and the reader, where the appraiser lays out his/her case for why the conclusions are reasonable. To the degree that the appraiser does not or cannot explain their actions, the appraisal has failed its mission.
So, you have a right to demand that the language and the assumptions be explained to you in clear, simple language. My guess is that once you can see how the appraiser got to your value, you will likely feel more comfortable with it--and if he/she made a mistake, then you can point it out. But first you must demand to see the data and have it explained! |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 8:54 pm: | |
To everyone who above,
I'm glad to hear that the fighting is starting to come to an end. It was getting pretty ugly in town. I think everyone got caught up in the heat of the moment (including myself.)
I am one of those whose taxes will be getting reduced. And yes I took a strong opinion on this issue because it meant I would pay less in taxes.
However, as I talked to some of the seniors and other families in the area it became apparent that I wasn't as bad off as I had thought. Don't get me wrong, I could use the money being a one income family with three kids, but for some of these residents it was a matter of staying in town or moving.
Another error in my judgement was assuming because the people lived on the hill they had money. I now see that there are some in the same boat as some of my neighbors. Sure their house is worth a lot of money if they sell but they don't want to sell. So basically what I am saying is that I don't have a problem with getting less of a reduction if the people are honest about their revals. However, I can't help feel that there are people who will try to fudge the numbers as much as they can at other people's expense.
Honesty and teamwork will get us through this.
EB |
Debby
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 9:28 pm: | |
I'm glad this viewpoint is finally coming across. This is the way I feel too, but was certain I'd get slammed for posting it. By the way - I live "on the hill", and my taxes are going up about $2K. I'm not happy about it, given that we were already stretching, but it is fair. I just thank God we didn't buy the fixer-upper on Roosevelt in 1997 - we would definitely be forced to move.
Janet is absolutely right - the problem is the tax rate - not the assessments.
From what I've heard at the meetings, there were some glaring mistakes (i.e., the house next to the tracks, on Jefferson, for $610,000).
But the truth is, for the last two years everywhere you went in the village, people were giddy discussing the housing market and what their neighbors got for their homes. I heard it at the park, I heard it at school drop-off, I heard it at Bill & Harry's.
I truly feel for the people who are now forced to make difficult decisions. There are plenty of middle-income people living up here who happened to buy in a crappy market. And when they bought, I assure you they didn't think $7,000 or $8,000 for property taxes was low!
But this does not mean that the whole re-assessment is unfair.
Perhaps a phase-in should have been considered. |
Kap
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 11:05 pm: | |
Unless a "phase-in" is financed with funds from outside the the existing revenue "pie" I feel that it would be unfair to those who are currently paying more than their fair share. I do have empathy for those on fixed incomes that will be getting hit by large increases after a FAIR (read accurate) reassessment of their property values. However, I have no more (or less) empathy for those individuals than I have for those that currently are paying a disproportionate share of the property taxes in Maplewood. |
Toad
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 5:51 am: | |
.....................Very well stated Eb 1154! |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 7:49 am: | |
Yeah, the Reval is now almost sure to go through and it should go through. There is an equity issue here. Until I reviewd the Reval information Mr. Ryan was kind enough to post I had no idea how inequitable taxation was here in Maplewood.
However,the process was horribly flawed, especially when they got to the higher valued sections of town and the rush to completion took over and numerous mistakes were made by the inspectors. The problem is that only those of us who were over assessed will get relieve either from Ed Gallante and his squad of assessors or from the County Tax Board. In those cases where the the harried and rushed Certified inspectors missed bathrooms, bedrooms and in some cases whole floors, nothing will be said. Another inequity added to a ton of inequities that already exist. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 8:24 am: | |
To Townie:
Us guys who work the second shift down at the manhole cover foundry in Harrison was wonderin' about your assessment.....
I realize that the real quality like you don't have to talk to us working stiffs, but with respect (cap in hand, pullin' on my forelock") is your assessment right on 'cause 'da process was right on or because the workin' stiff from Certified missed some of the fine features of your manse? Ya know 'da gold plated faucets, 'da granite countertops and all that stuff. |
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:16 pm: | |
Hi, Bobk
It took me three passes at your post to figure out what you were saying. Irony sometimes looks insulting on message boards. The only reason I said in my first post I wouldn't come back to argue with others was because I didn't want to get in a p***ing match with anybody, just state my view to the TC. I'll take your post in the witty neighborly way in which I now have figured out it was written (??????). Hope answering your question will be of help to you and all the manhole guys. (Did you know that all the manholes in Essex were made by a Maplewood resident? True.)
I feel my assessment is right because it reflects the price I would accept as a fair if not great selling price. The first assessment I got from Certified stated a price I could get if the bidding wars of last summer were the norm. The price I have now is not a price I would be thrilled to accept, but I wouldn't feel cheated. It would only be too bad I didn't sell during the hot summer of 2000. I'd love to get more; I wouldn't be happy to take less. So in my mind, the assessment I've now got is, in every sense of the word, a fair market price. I wouldn't realistically expect any tax authority in New Jersey or a new revaluation company to see it otherwise.
When I bought my house it came with one lovely granite countertop on a kitchen island and faucets with badly pitted chrome. I haven't renovated so Certified looked at both. I asked the on-site inspector if I could get a messy house discount, she barely smiled and said stiffly: "I'm here to look at your house itself, not how neat it is." I wondered if they are trained not to allow themselves to get drawn into conversations with homeowners. The minute she left I kicked myself for not making sure she noted the high watermarks on my basement walls and other defects and things needing repair before the house could be sold. I later mentioned those things in a meeting with Certified. Whether any of them were part of the reduction of my assessment I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. Houses in less than mint condition have sold on my block for prices equivalent to those in good condition (although not always).
Now I've got to get back to work. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 1:01 pm: | |
I was trying to be funny. My shrink says I should stop assuming different personas.
And thanks for the information. Your inspector obviously spent sometime looking at your house.
And no I didn't know about the Maplewood manhole covers. Maybe my my alter eager works for that company............... |
Townie
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 1:15 pm: | |
Bobk,
LOL, as we message board posters say. Joke appreciated per your explanation!
The inspector was in my house four minutes tops I think. My spouse walked with her through the rooms (including the one where I was working) and said afterwards she wasn't friendly. We both later felt silly for having treated her like a visitor we were proud to show the house to instead badmouthing it as a rotten dump! After we got the first letter, I had a meeting where I double-checked that they'd counted the number of rooms right, got the lot size right, etc. and I provided additional information about the condition of the house, and that meeting was probably less than 4 minutes too. The person I talked to wasn't Ms. Warmth, but she got somewhat more relaxed when she realized I wasn't going to start screaming at her. |
|