| Author |
Message |
    
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:07 pm: |     |
1/28/2001:
Dear People:
Your chance to begin to get involved in understanding Maplewood's local government starts on Monday night.
The first general meeting of the Citizen's Budget Advisory Committee will be held on Monday night, January 29th at 7:30 at Town Hall.
This is your opportunity to understand the budget as well as you understand the tax assessment process.
Sincerely,
Maplewood FairTax Committee |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:10 pm: | |
1/25/2001:
Hello everyone,
Thank you to everyone who has participated in the process so far. Tuesday's Township Committee meeting at Columbia High School was informative and balanced.
I want to remind everyone to contest your assessment with the tax assessor if you think that your assessment is still inaccurate.
Everyone must have a copy of your property card from Certified Valuations - you should have your property card no matter what you think of your reval - check it for errors. To receive your property card: send Certified V. a stamped and self-addressed envelope with your request and your Lot and block number. The address is:
Certified Valuations
447 Route 10 Suite 8
Randolph, NJ 07869
attn: Diana.
The Township has an extension to file their assessments with Essex County; the new filing deadline is Feb. 26th. This extension means that property owners who still believe that errors were made on their assessments can have a review with the Maplewood Tax assessor. The Township is hiring additional Tax assessors to review requests from homeowners who still want to have their property reviewed. Even if you've had your meeting with Certified and have received a new assessment you have this opportunity to have the assessor re-review your property. You must send a letter or complete an Assessment Review Form - assessment review forms are available at the Municipal Building (town hall 574 Valley St.) or at any of the town libraries. If you send a letter you must include the following information:
1. Name and address of property owner
2. Address of property
3. Block# and lot # of property
4. Day and evening telephone numbers
5. Reason why you feel there is an error in your most recent assessment.
6. All supporting documentation (re. #5) Supporting documentation would include: Real estate "comparables" (prices that houses in your neighborhood have sold for in the last 3 years - obtain these from a Realtor, most Realtors are more than happy to supply you with them).What you recently paid for your house in the last 3 years if it doesn't jibe with your assessed value. Inspection reports that demonstrate deterioration of the house -- i.e. leaky roof, flooding basement, unusable bathrooms, etc.. Contractor estimates that reflect the cost of fixing roofs, basements, land deterioration, and so on.
The Township must receive your assessment review form or letter by Wednesday Feb. 14th. Send it by Certified mail with a return receipt -- and keep a copy for yourself.
The annual assessment notice will be mailed out around March 1st instead of Feb. 1st.
Sincerely,
The Maplewood FairTax Committee |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:11 pm: | |
1/22/2001:
In a message dated 1/22/01 5:22:43 PM, Bebamforth writes:
a three hour version of last week's meeting will be shown on Channel 35 at 7:30 TONIGHT.
If anyone missed last week's township Committee meeting here's a chance to see it tonight, Monday Jan. 22nd. If anyone is planning on speaking tomorrow evening at Columbia it may be helpful to hear what was already said and the Township Committee's responses following the meeting.
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Publicizing showing of 1/16 tape tonight
Date: Monday, January 22, 2001 5:22:43 PM
From: Bebamforth
To: Fairtax01
cc: Bebamforth
Sent on: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 120
Frank Mullin (audio-visual at high school) just told me that a three hour version of last week's meeting will be shown on Channel 35 at 7:30 TONIGHT. I called Lydia Lacey to recommend that the large e-mail distribution for Fairtax be used right away to get as large an audience for this re-run (it also ran on Saturday some time, I am told) as possible, but only reached her machine. If some one can trigger this widespread message immediately, I urge it. I don't know how and besides Fairtax asked us not to do it on our own. Time is of the essence here.
Ken Swan has a tape of the entire live 5 hour broadcast and is willing to make a copy of it for Frank if he is agreeable to showing it. Ken is going to call Frank between 2 and 3 today to find out if it can be scheduled later in the week during "prime time." This would enable some one to announce tomorrow night that it will be shown, thus generating much more of an audience. Frank will be meeting with his scheduling student around 2 today. As a fallback position if Frank can at least schedule the abbreviated version this week, it could still be announced at tomorrow's meeting.
Frank tells me the missing portion starts about an hour and forty minutes into the meeting.
Brian Bamforth (973-763-9383) |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:13 pm: | |
1/21/2001:
Hi everyone - the snowy weather has slowed down our flyer distribution efforts...
We still need volunteers to distribute them in your own neighborhoods and in the village of Maplewood.
Flyers are available on the porch of 8 Roosevelt Rd (second house on the left coming up Ridgewood)
Check off which street you're covering on the notepad on the porch so that we can keep track of which area get covered.
Thank you!
Maplewood FairTax |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:17 pm: | |
Forwarded Message:
Subj: reject and redo??? i still think so . . . at least for now.
Date: Sunday, January 21, 2001 5:21:38 AM
From: JLNathenson@home.com
To: Fairtax01@aol.com
From: JLNathenson@home.com (JLNathenson)
To: Fairtax01@aol.com
Here's what seems to be going on: In the Jefferson school area folks have been getting notices of $50,000 - $80,000 downward revisions in their property valuations from Certified Valuations. This appears to be a combination of:
(1) a $50,000 downward revision of the "site adjustment" which was previously set at $220,000 and now seems to be $170,000,
(2) downward revisions pertaining to neighborhood land factors such as location on a busy street (e.g. Ridgewood),
(3) downward revisions pertaining to land factors particular to a specific property (easements, etc.), which were brought to light during the interview process with CV, and
(4) downward revisions pertaining to the valuation of the dwelling resulting from correction of errors pointed out during the interview process with CV.
It's reasonable that folks who didn't speak with CV couldn't possibly get any adjustments relative to 3 and 4 above and wouldn't get a notice from CV. However items 1 and 2 should be implementable on a blanket basis, so the most basic question is "will folks who didn't talk to CV still get the adjustments in items 1 and 2 above?"
However there are numerous other questions. We do not know how the $50,000 was determined. More specifically, we didn't know where the $220,000 came from and now we don't know where the $170,000 comes from. We don't know what previous site adjustments, if any, were utilized for other neighborhoods or what revisions have now been made. We still don't know precisely the boundary definitions of the neighborhoods. We also still don't know where the $350,000 per acre base land value comes from, whether it's applied uniformly within the township or whether it varies from neighborhood to neighborhood. Additionally, we don't know what other neighborhood land factors (e.g. busy streets) have been taken into account or where and how they've been applied. We still don't know what comparables have been utilized for particular neighborhoods, nor do we know whether the past three years have been used, and if so what weighting has been applied.
In a nutshell, the entire process is still cloaked in secrecy. While the values seem to be coming more into line with reality, it's almost impossible to determine whether the process is fair, and given the half-assed, slipshod way it's been handled, I can't see any reason for the citizens of Maplewood to have any confidence in it. While the message of "reject and redo" may seem extreme in light of the adjustments many folks have been getting, I think a decent case can be made that we should continue to pursue it until the Township comes clean with a complete, detailed, and public disclosure of all the underlying methodologies, definitions, comparables, assumptions and results. In other words, our message to the TC is that the presumption of unfairness is still a reasonable one. . . the TC should have to prove objectively and conclusively to us that what's been done is fair, and they should have to do it NOW. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:19 pm: | |
Didn't know this but good to know....
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Re: Flyer Distribution Volunteers and Instructions
Date: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:14:21 AM
From:
To: Fairtax01
Sent on: 6.0 sub 172
Please tell your distributors NOT to put the flyers in a mailbox. It is against the law. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:22 pm: | |
1/16/2001
To everyone who's interested in pursuing this route, please send me an e-mail with the subject line "Class action" and I'll send all relevant data to you as I receive it.
Sincerely,
Lydia |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:32 pm: | |
1/12/2001:
As the owner of a local Real Estate Appraisal Company in South Orange, I'm very interested in the on-going discussions regarding the revaluation and subsequent complaints, anger and frustration with the whole process. The past 10 years of appraising homes in Maplewood have given me a good understanding of the issues that have been raised i.e. the revaluation took place during a "peak" buying time, neighborhood value differences, etc. I understand the valuation process and all its difficulties. Not every home fits into a value "formula" and each home needs to be looked at individually (not an easy task with over 6500 homes). I initially had some strong opinions that I've decided to keep to myself until this process plays itself out and the "tax" dust settles. When it does, there are always options available to every homeowner, either as a group or individually, to appeal via the tax courts, etc. I hope to be able to offer my help and expertise to homeowners in Maplewood when the time is right. It will be very satisfying to perform appraisals, file appeals, increase my business and in the process help deserving people with legitimate value issues and tax concerns.
At this point, I would advise homeowners to raise their voices and work towards an equitable solution, keeping in mind how difficult this revaluation process is and how fortunate they are to own a home in a wonderful town.
Evan S. Berke
South Mountain Appraisals, Inc.
(973) 762-5252 |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:35 pm: | |
1/15/2001:
Dear All:
Everyone must be at City Hall (Municipal Building 574 Valley St.) at 8:00 PM on Jan. 16th - Tuesday!
Here's how the Township Committee meeting will commence:
At 8:00 PM the Committee members will sit down at the front of the room, make a statement, call roll, etc. They will address a few ordinances and if the tax issue is (still) not on the agenda, they will hear us according to the rules for the good and welfare of the people.
There's a microphone toward the front of the room where people will be permitted to speak for 2 to 5 minutes. You may only speak when you have the floor -- no interrupting or shouting out comments please. There may be a sign-up sheet or you 'll wait in line by sitting at the bench in front of the microphone (on the right-hand side of the room) . When it's your turn, get up and speak, when finished, go back to your seat.
What do you want to say? It's important to consider what you want your point to be. At Fairtax01/The Maplewood Fair Taxation Committee, we agree the most important issue is the reevaluation process was conducted improperly and therefore must be rejected and redone. Certified Valuations was required to reassess under the basis of their contract which stated that Maplewood homes had to be reassessed taking into account 3 years; 1998,1999 and 2000. Certified didn't reasonably consider the 1998 and 1999 figures, only the 2000 figures. They further gave weight to "twin sales" and bidding war situations reflected in the year 2000 statistics which drove up their "comparable" figures. The result has been that assessments in some portions of town are excessive and other sections are below market value.
Here are some suggestions about speaking:
1. It may be helpful to write your comments down on note cards or write a brief speech and read it verbatim.
2. Consider commenting on the assessment as it applies to the entire town instead of focusing on personal anecdotes. It's more effective to talk about the town being unevenly assessed rather than "my house/your house." However it can be useful to use a personal story to help get your point across.
3. Get your facts straight. Be careful about reciting statistics that you aren't sure about.
4. Listen - when someone is speaking, hear what they are saying -- have they just said what you planned to say? Can you edit your comment to support the previous speaker?
5. Remember that the meeting is televised locally (CH.35). If you are uncomfortable with being on television, perhaps ask someone else to speak for you.
In sum, please attend the Township Committee meeting and participate. Show the Township Committee that we are an active citizenry keeping the tradition of Maplewood activism alive.
See everyone tomorrow!
Sincerely.
Lydia Lacey and the Maplewood Fair Taxation Committee |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:37 pm: | |
1/12/2001:
Since my last e-mail I'm already receiving lots of mail from people saying that they feel they overpaid for their homes and are somehow the cause of the overassessment.
It's the responsibility of the assessment company to research the circumstances of recent sales and not include "twin sales" and inflated sales that are the result of an overheated bidding war. The same way they disallow certain sales that are undervalued because of hardship sales or sales between family members..
It's not any homeowner's "fault" that the assessments are too high -- or too low. We certainly can't say that the residents who saw reductions are to be blamed either. The fault lies with the flawed assessment process. Period. Now it's the responsibility of the Township Committee to protect the interests of the entire town and reject the assessments. If the Township Committee doesn't fulfill their obligation than the blame will lie solely with them.
Sincerely, Lydia Lacey |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:41 pm: | |
1/11/2001:
Lydia,
In addition to notifying everyone about the Township Committee Meeting on
Tuesday night at 8:00, also let people know that Jerry Ryan and Ellen
Davenport are scheduled to hold office hours that evening between 6:30 and
7:30. This is a good opportunity to get in their faces.
[Note: this letter was originally signed by a private citizen, but I took it out and his e-mail address because I remmeber this was particularly controversial for some on this board - Lydia] |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:46 pm: | |
1/11/2001:
Hello everybody,
Thank you to everyone who has written - so many people are joining daily and asking "what can I do?". I'm going to bring everyone up to date as of 1/11/2001. Some of this may be old news but many people are still learning the basic facts.
Everyone should have received a tax assessment from Certified Valuations. If you believe the assessment on your house/property is flawed you must first contact Certified Valuations and discuss it with them. The phone number is (973)361-2700. If they won't return your phone calls -- call Ed Galante (the tax assessor) at (973)912-2207 and explain your assessment concerns. The deadlines are fast approaching, I understand that Mr. Galante will file his assessment with the county by Jan. 26th.
Fairtax01 maintains that the assessment process was fatally flawed. Certified Valuations is legally required to base its assessments on fair market value, but they based the assignments on a few sales contracts entered into at the height of the "buyers panic" in the summer of 2000.
The Maplewood Township Committee has an obligation to see that the assessment program was properly conducted and ensure that the assessment process results in fair and proper assessments for every property owner. The Township Committee has taken a fairly casual position concerning the huge increases that individual homeowners are currently facing. Because of the efforts of Fairtax01 and several new neighborhood groups scattered throughout Maplewood, the Township Committee appears to be reluctantly admitting that there is a crisis.
Everyone must consider taking legal action. I hope to have solid referrals to send to all in the coming days. I've spoken informally with several attorneys that have said we likely don't have a class action suit, but we do have legal options with individual lawsuits. If many taxpayers band together the financial hit will be lessened per person.
If your neighborhood has not received one of our "Fairtax01" flyers in your mailbox yet, please e-mail me and we'll arrange that your street is covered. I know that some of the neighborhoods above Wyoming are still waiting.
The most important action we can take as voters and taxpayers is to attend the Township Committee on Jan. 16th at the Maplewood Municipal Building - 574 Valley Street (Town hall) at 8:00 PM.
Good luck and I hope to see everyone on Tuesday!
Sincerely,
Lydia Lacey |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:50 pm: | |
1/11/2001:
Hello everyone;
I spoke to the Town clerk this morning about the "emergency" Township Commitee meeting called for Friday morning at 8:30 AM.
She told me that it was absolutely closed to the public. I pressed her and asked if they were following the rules according to the Sunshine law. The Commitee is required to have a portion of the meeting open to the public and they must then set forth the statutory reasons explaining why the meeting is not open to the public. She told me that they were going to take roll call, make the required statements and then close the meeting.
If you want to go and give the Township Commitee some pressure just by seeing an unexpected crowd, that's your decision to make. I want everyone to clearly understand that the Friday meeting will a symbolic gesture as far as I gather.
I hope that I'm not confusing people with the info on the Friday meeting. I heard that it was announced last evening at the Morrow meeting for people to attend and I want everyone to know what to expect and to have their (legal) facts straight when they are turned away.
The real meeting to attend is Jan. 16th, 8:00 PM Tuesday! Please be there and bring your neighbors!!
Sincerely,
Lydia Lacey |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:55 pm: | |
Well that's all of them - there are some early e-mails that weren't saved, if anyone has them and wants to post them, please do so.
You may not agree with everything, but I don't think they're been the hotbed of controversy that others have suggested.
Lydia |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 6:22 am: | |
12/7/01: Here's what I sent out last night: Rheims et al: Do you want me to keep posting our letters here?
Hello Everyone;
to all who have written and asked me to explain how to read the elusive property record card:
There will be a workshop conducted by Ed Galante (the Maplewood tax assessor) tomorrow -- Jan. 7th - Wednesday at 6:30 PM at Town Hall (the municipal building, 574 Valley St.). If you can't make it please watch on Ch. 35 or set your VCR. The property card is fairly specific and hard to understand -- this should clear it up.
Sincerely,
Lydia/Maplewood Fair Taxation Committee |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 7:26 am: | |
2/7/01:
Correction - I miswrote Jan instead of FEB 7th - workshop is tonight FEBRUARY 7th - so sorry for any confusion this has caused!
Lydia |
Ffof
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 8:44 pm: | |
Okay everybody - NO responses to all these Fairtax postings? I'm (practically!) speechless! So...no vileness, no bullying, no divisiveness. No thankyous?!! One extra note that I know was already posted but may have gotten lost in the sauce, so to speak... there was a time when some e-mails went out from individuals to the Fairtax e-mail list. They were asked to stop using the list for their own purposes since some of the information and opinions were not representative of Fairtax.
So, thankyou Lydia for posting all these e-mails. I know that they continue to be helpful to many - especially those who communicate by e-mail but don't habitually log on to Maplewood online! |
Rheims
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:33 am: | |
Lydia
It's not that I've been unappreciative or ungrateful. It's that I haven't had a chance to go through and digest all the info! Thanks. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:54 am: | |
2/8/01:
Panel moves to widen property tax freeze
02/06/01
BY TOM HESTER
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
With the Assembly speaker and acting Governor giving their support, lawmakers yesterday kicked off their effort to freeze property taxes for another 107,402 senior citizens and disabled people.
At the urging of Speaker Jack Collins (R-Salem), a co-sponsor of the bill, the Assembly Senior Issues and Community Services Committee approved the proposal in the morning. In the afternoon, acting Gov. Donald DiFrancesco endorsed it during his first major address as the state's new chief executive.
"When we first approved the Senior Citizens Property Tax Freeze program, I said we would consider expanding the program in the future to include more seniors," Collins said. "New Jersey's strong economic growth has provided us with a unique opportunity to help protect more low- to moderate-income senior citizens from being forced to give up their homes because they can no longer afford to pay their property taxes."
In his first address to legislators since replacing Christie Whitman last week, DiFrancesco said: "We should also consider, as part of our property tax relief plan, Speaker Collins' proposal to raise the income threshold on the senior tax freeze program."
As Senate president, DiFrancesco also can push the bill for passage in the upper house.
The bill would double the maximum amount of annual income that seniors and disabled people can have and still be eligible for the property tax freeze. Under the rules, property taxes could be frozen for single homeowners making up to $36,302 and married couples making up to $44,512. Collins told the committee that the number of property taxpayers eligible for the freeze would rise from 152,400 to 262,000.
Under the program, once an eligible homeowner signs up for the property tax freeze, the state will provide a reimbursement check for any property tax increase this year and in the future.
Assemblyman Samuel D. Thompson (R-Middlesex), the other co-sponsor, said the legislation is aimed at eliminating the financial fears that seniors and disabled persons who live on fixed incomes sometimes face.
"Senior citizens, especially those on fixed incomes, should not be taxed out of their homes," he said. "This legislation would help ease the tax burden on many seniors and enable them to spend their golden years in the comfort of their own home."
But Collins said fewer than half of the eligible property taxpayers are taking advantage of the program, which kicked off in the 1997 tax year. He said that of the 152,400 people currently eligible, only 65,000 are participating, despite state efforts to alert the public.
"That is a little disheartening," Collins said. "We conducted a widespread outreach program."
The program costs $2.9 million, and $10.2 million is set aside for the state budget that begins this July 1. Collins said that if everyone participated, the program would cost $72 million by 2004.
In addition to the income limits, applicants must be at least age 65 or disabled, a homeowner, a resident of the state for at least 10 years and have owned the property for at least three years.
Tom Hester covers state government. He can be reached at thester@starledger.com or (609) 292-0557. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:56 am: | |
1/7/2001:
Regarding the last e-mail - if you know of a family that this information might help - please copy it and share the information with them! Many people that will be radically affected by the tax increases don't know that there may be some help.
I know of one senior on our block who asked Mr. Galante if the state had any programs to help elderly or disabled residents and he said he wasn't aware of any such programs. I'm going to give her a copy of this article tomorrow.
Special thanks to Mrs. Dodd for sending this article to my attention.
Sincerely,
Lydia Lacey/FairTax |
Eliz
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:20 am: | |
Lydia - I am very happy to see that you sent this email re the Seniors program to your list. I would really like to hear that the town is doing something as well i.e. informing the staff in the office and reaching out to organizations in town that might have contact with seniors on a regular basis or sending a notice in tax related mailings. |
Franny
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 12:44 pm: | |
FairTax - The silence from your critics on this thread is deafening. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 1:08 pm: | |
Some of us are just tired of this whole thread. I personally did not go through each and every posted letter. I found it interesting, however, that here and elsewhere some posters found grounds for Townie's concerns and claims when reviewing Lydia's baiting examples. I appreciated Lydia's acknowledgement and apology. Taken together, those were pretty convincing of one of the issues that's been troubling me here.
Since Fairtax has never seriously tried to represent the needs of longstanding overpayers like me, I don't need to go through their posts with a fine-tooth comb. I do think there is some valuable info tucked in there, though, and am glad Lydia decided to share it with all of us.
The silence may just be battle fatigue.
Bacata |
Mlj
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 10:11 am: | |
I too have become weary. Just want to reiterate a point I made when this whole subject started...over the years we have been living in Maplewood, we saw many houses when making our first and second purchases. In addition, we have checked out many open houses over the years. What we found, very clearly, was that there was inequity in the tax distribution WITHIN the same area, i.e. lower taxes on homes with more baths and bedrooms than our own, or in better condition, etc. This unfairness in tax burden is not confined to one section vs. another section. I bet lots of people thought the reval would lower THEIR already high taxes. I know we did; however, we will see an increase. I am further concerned that any work we undertake in the future to improve our home will tax us right out of the town we love. And, at this point, I am not confident that the process undertaken was done correctly. I know the TC are addressing this, but it has been very draining on all of us.
Aside from myself, I am very concerned about all of my neighbors, including those with the most to pay, and those who deserve a decrease. The stability of the town as a whole is on the line. I hope we can find compromise. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 10:21 am: | |
I just kinda thought they spoke for themselves. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 11:08 am: | |
MLJ: Very interesting. I have traipsed through open houses all over town at various times during the last 15 years and found the same thing you did--disparities between similar houses in the same neighborhoods. My feeling too is that these intra-neighborhood disparities were not addressed and increases were unusually consistent (ie, take the old amount and add x). I wonder if the old tax level was somehow factored into the new equation or the new assessment was somehow tied into some other number that produced the old disparities? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page