| Author |
Message |
    
Citizen
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 6:18 pm: |     |
Bacata...
Please check the dictionary. Extortion has many meanings. The one I was thinking of was meaning 3:
"An exorbitant or excessive charge."
-- The American Heritage Dictionary
Houghton Mifflin Company
pg. 480
As for irresponsible, I'd say that best describes how the Town has handled this situation.
And, yes thank you, I already met with Certified and showed them a bank assessment done in September that disputes Certified's assessment by well more than $100k. But I still believe the reval issue is only one symptom of something more systemically troubling in Maplewood -- only one person's opinion, of course.
By the way, you may want to lighten up a bit...life's too short... |
Face
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 6:16 pm: | |
Excuse me if I missed this, but Baccata I wonder if during all of the years that you overpaid you requested and obtained an new assesment. |
Jur050
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 7:40 pm: | |
Face, I believe that the purpose of the reval was that it was overdo, and that the Town's Assesor was plagued by the volume of cases. Many of the cases were proven valid. Perhaps Baccata was considering an appeal, sounds like she deserved one. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 9:48 pm: | |
If folks on the east side of town have been so overtaxed, how come there were relatively few tax appeals over the past five years? It just doesn't add up. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 11:06 pm: | |
Winkydink: What makes you think there were relatively few tax appeals over the past five years? My understanding is that there were an increasing successful number of such appeals, and that is one of the reasons the town finally built up the nerve to do the assessment. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 11:16 pm: | |
Winkydink,
I guess you haven't read the previous posts or you would have seen the answer to your question.
So I will explain once again. The people on the eastside did feel that they were paying a lot of taxes but assumed everyone in town was paying their fair share of taxes. It wasn't until the revals were done that they realized how overtaxed they really were.
For those of you who want the reval thrown out or delayed...it's a bad idea. And no I won't explain why just yet. The TC knows why it is a bad idea and they know what will happen if it gets thrown out. |
Pnp
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 11:56 pm: | |
Eb - Are you saying that we should take the reval as gospel even after seeing the many mistakes that have been made? It's up too individuals to determine if they think their assessments are fair - both on the east and west side - yesterday, today and tomorrow. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 12:04 am: | |
PNP,
That's not what I said. In previous posts I said that anyone who had a problem should have it reviewed. I am for the TC taking the time to correct the problems in the revals that had mistakes but, do not throw the whole thing out or delay it for a year. |
Jln
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:49 am: | |
This whole uproar boils down to differing perceptions of what's fair. One view of fairness would base the apportionment of the tax burden more heavily on those who use the services. That sort of system would assess user charges for the use of municpal services, and in that scheme homeowners with school aged children would probably pay the most.
Another view bases the apportionment of the tax burden on those who can most readily afford it. A progressive income tax is the usual mechanism for that scheme, and of course we're all familiar with how that works and what the issues are. That is probably be the most acceptable form of tax. A property tax also relies on that theory, but the problem with a property tax is that real estate is an illiquid form of wealth and is only loosely tied to an individual's current ability to pay cash. Young families who have stretched to buy their first home, middle aged families who are the victims of corporate downsizing, and the elderly on fixed incomes are all potential victims of this type of scheme. Is that fair? I guess it depends on your perspective.
Consider our current dilemma. Based on the data posted on this board last week by Gerry Ryan, approximately 24% of the homes in Maplewood are on what would be considered the West Side of town. You might think that these homeowners should pay more than 24% of the total tax burden because they are generally more affluent. But how much more is reasonable? If they pay 26.4% of the total tax, then they're paying 10% more than their proportionate share (i.e. 24% plus 2.4%). If they pay 30% of the total, then they're paying 25% more than their proportionate share. Well in fact, under the new reval, those folks will be paying about 37% of the total, which is tantamount to paying 54% more than their proportionate share. Now most of the folks on the west side are more than willing to do their fair share, but how much is enough? A good case can be made that the result of this reval goes over the edge of fairness, especially when there are numerous people who really can't afford it and will be seriously hurt.
In the interest of accuracy, these figures are not quite correct because they do not include the tax burden to be assumed by commercial properties, but you get the idea. They do accurately reflect the proportions of the taxes to be borne by homeowners. |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 9:30 am: | |
I think that the perception of fairness is an important emotional factor in this taxation issue. For better or worse, however, I have the impression that state tax laws don't give the TC much flexibility to address fairness concerns.
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand state tax law, the TC is required to periodically assess all property in the town to establish reasonably correct values (market). I don't think the TC is authorized to consider the fairness of property tax.
It doesn't seem that reasonably correct market values have yet been established, but that is all the TC is authorized to do. |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:20 pm: | |
Euclidean,
I think you are certainly right in saying that the TC has to follow the law and tie taxation only to the correctly established market value of property. It is not authorized to make determinations about ability to pay -- and one can easily see why. While it may seem that those who live in the larger houses sloping toward the reservation have more ability to pay, a family experiencing sudden medical expense or sudden unemployment may be in less position to pay than a very thrifty homeowner in a much smaller house elsewhere in town.
Fairness in taxation works out best with an income tax combined with allowances for deductibles. This is why New Jersey should pay for some state mandated services, chiefly public education, out of a state income tax, not the local property tax, to insure fairness in sharing the burden. But there is almost no hope that this is politically achievable in NJ for the foreseeable future.
The "fairest" we can achieve in Maplewood is to follow the law, which says that all property must be assessed in line with its market value. If you don't know what the market value of your home is, ask a real estate agent. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:46 pm: | |
Let me try again, Face. My assessment prior to the reval read at 57K. What was yours prior to the reval? Would it have occurred to anyone to go the assessor to say the assessment was too high (I paid 126K in '91.) On what basis? Less than 57K????? It certainly never occurred to me that my tax share was disproportionate to those of my neighbors whose similar sized homes and properties were being sold at 2, 3, or 4x what mine did. The current reval on mine is 163K, slightly high I think. Do the math, even at the new questionable assessed price, what is the percentage increase in the worth of my home over 9 years? 29% over the course of 9 years. How much has your property increased in value since the '81 assessment or even since '91? Forget Certified, how much could you have gotten in 2000? 3 times your orginal assessment price? Or what, honestly? Check today's Star-Ledger for asking prices in my neighborhood: 139K and 149K. Last week there was one for 119K. These are asking prices and we don't having bidding wars over here.The one listed at 200K is a 2-family.
In terms of fairness of various forms and formulas of taxation, there are state laws and regulations in place. Changing those is a different issue from Maplewood's current reval situation. They need to be reviewed and probably changed but that is not at all within the scope of the town council.
The town does have a legal obligation to conduct a reval and determine whether the tax burden is being fairly allocated according to EXISTING laws and regs. The TC is trying to meet this obligation. Certified's methodology is certainly subject to question and review. But the fact is that the reval has to be done, is seriously overdue and the delay in doing so has created a much more polarized situation than necessary. Further delay, while placating some people, will not ultimately change the outcome and will give those of us paying disproportionately a valid reason to pursue legal remedies, perhaps as a class. Now that the inequities have been exposed it is incumbent on the township to rectify the situation from this point forward. The injury has already occurred and to allow it to continue (apart from being morally reprehensible) would certainly provide the basis for serious litigation. I would not advise going down that path. FIX THE CURRENT REVAL AS NEEDED but don't attempt to obstruct the process.
Bacata |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 4:28 pm: | |
Bacata,
I couldn't agree more with your last point. Step 1 is for Certified to explain their process. I suspect most of us in Maplewood will be able to understand the valuation process if it is explained to us. Step 2 is for the TC to maintain a log of questions and answers on this message board. I am sure that site administrator can set them up with a read-only section so that TC responses to questions raised in various venues wont't be mixed up with our general discussion points. |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 6:05 pm: | |
I agree, Bacata. Some one would have to demonstrate to me that Certified did not follow existing laws and regs, and that it was impossible to correct the errors Certified made before I would support stopping the current reval processs.
Your post is very helpful. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 6:23 pm: | |
Townie-
would you also support the stopping of the current reval if it was proven that Certified breeched their contract, i.e contract says look at last 3 years, but they decide to only use 2000 data for part of the town? |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 8:40 pm: | |
Dear Ffof,
If the contract was breached and the process wasn't legal, then the town could be subject to lawsuits if it went ahead. I don't want to pay for lawsuits, and in general I don't think the town should ever knowingly do anything that starts with an illegality! However, the example you used (contract says look at last 3 years, but they decide to use only 2000 data for part of the town) sounds to me like something the County Assessor has the legal authority to fix -- for free! If the adjusted result is legal, I don't want to delay implementation of the result. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:52 pm: | |
Ffof,
The TC addressed that matter with Certified and the answer was that they used 3 year info but put a little more weight on 2000. SO, while it may not have been the fairest way it doesn't appear that certifed breeched the contract. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 8:39 am: | |
Eb1154 and Townie-
Apparently they did not uniformly "put a little more weight on 2000". Some people were told that only 2000 comps were used. If Certified can "come clean" and be able to tell the assessor "where" they used "which" comps, then i would believe that yes, the assessor would have not only the authority but also the knowledge to adjust the results "for free" and accurately i might add. Maybe there'll be an answer to the big "if" at tuesday's meeting.
In the meantime, I hold the opinion (it's just an opinion) that the TC was incredibly inept as to let Certified go as far as they did with all the knowing and glaring mistakes that have been uncovered in the last 2 weeks. Someone posted that "they are part-time officials and you get what you pay for", but really, if you were overseeing a job at your place of employment and it was discovered that you really neglected to oversee that job properly resulting in a fiasco such as our town is faced with, my bet is you'd be fired. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:07 am: | |
Hi Ffof,
That was me who posted "they are part-time officials and you get what you pay for." And I still believe it, and your analogy is pretty much illustrates what I was trying to say: It isn't their place of employment. Most of them, I believe, have jobs elsewhere. They do this at night and in their spare time. It's not professional government. Professional government is Al Gore telling you to eat your spinach and fetches a hefty price in terms of expertise. This is an era of nostalgia for small town community (including the charm of neighborly citizen government) and privatized services. We got both. I think big boo-boos have been made. Mercifully, it appears some are easily fixable, maybe even cost free. (Nothing will roll back house prices in Maplewood to their pre-Midtown Direct levels).
However, the County Assessor really is a full-time paid professional whose job is, I would think, to not let townships get away with phony or erroneous property valuations. Probably he spends most of his time making sure towns don't undertax themselves and can make dictatorial corrections as needed. He's probably eager to have the pleasure of for once being the wildly popular guy who actually corrects the numbers downward.
I, too, hope Tuesday provides solutions so we can move on. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi Townie- I do like your sense of humor! Anyway, what of this...We have our own Maplewood tax assessor, Mr. Galante, whose job is partime. This position used to be full time. A full-time employee of the town would probably have definitely done us a greater service and not have gotten us into this mess in the first place. |
|