| Author |
Message |
    
Dytunck
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 5:56 pm: |     |
Jerry,
You said above, "It is absolutely amazing to me that there is not at least one person in Millburn demanding to see the facts about the assessment done in that town, as a justification for their action!"
Hell, you've got the entire town of Maplewood demanding to see the facts about the assessment! Where has that gotten us? The facts are too slow in coming. Only today did Vic DeLuca explained the Property Cards (on another thread). That's 10 days past the original deadline for submission to the county.
In two Township meetings, 120 people spoke. (Let's see... 120 times three minutes each is 360 divided by 60 is 6 hours... wait, that Eugene McNany exceeded his time... twice... well anyway)
The response from the first meeting:
One resolution seeking an extension and one seeking an ajournment due to the late hour. At the next meeting, there was a map of Maplewood colored in by zone that meant nothing more than Maplewood was divided up into zones.
Honestly, Mr. Galante's presentation was poor. I know he was cut off by the crowd, but his message was ill-prepared. I cornered him at the break, and my questions seemed to catch him completely off-guard.
Six hours of comments and questions, and very little response from the TC.
That's not to take away from the work you have done on this board. You've been far and away the most participatory.
But not everyone in town reads or has access to this message board. Apparently, Liebman, Davenport, King and Galante do not.
There are plenty of questions from Maplewood citizens. How about some answers in public now?
I have suggested some solutions on the Property Card thread.
Dytunck |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 6:53 pm: | |
Well, Dytunck, in the context of the Millburn discussion and comparing the two processes, I would say that "too slow" is better than no information at all. In Maplewood people had information ahead of the assessment, had numbers, discussions at meetings, handouts, etc. If I were a Millburn property owner I would be questioning what my assessment was, not how to interpret the property record cards (to use this example).
In Maplewood, I don't think that it's worth debating the "too slow" point with you.
We're getting information out as fast as we can as soon as we get it. I think every member of the township committee's been answering phone calls, letters, and emails, and talking about this everywhere we each go. Several people are very happy with the level of information... and some will not be satisfied no matter what any of us say.
Jerry Ryan |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 8:12 pm: | |
Jerry,
Thanks for your response. Would you care to respond to my message on the "Property Card Definitions" thread?
If you'd like me to retype it here I can. I'll check both threads for your reply.
Dy |
Kep
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 7:49 pm: | |
With all the discussion of the issues and facts, and questions of fairness and ability to pay, I think there is an important point that has been overlooked. There seems to be agreement that Certified made serious errors in their assessments of homes in Maplewood. Most of the discussion has been about homes overassessed on the high end of the value scale. Isn't it logical to assume that there were homes underassessed on the low end of the value scale as well? Are we sure that the entire town was overvalued? Is it possible that the assessors just didn't do a good job in general, and took a very biased view of every part of town?
We have already seen the town assessor correct entire neighborhoods downward due to these errors. Perhaps the assessor should also be examining the low assessments to see if they need correction upward. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 9:01 pm: | |
Can anyone point me to an online version of the NJ Assessor's Manual? Does such a thing exist? Alternatively, where would one be able to purchase a hard copy?
Those sections dealing with descriptions and definitions of "market value" are of particular interest. I've heard them quoted by various folks at the TC meetings, but would like to see for myself.
Also, if someone could provide a citation to the part of that NJ code that deals with revaluations?
Thanks in advance. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 9:26 pm: | |
NJ Statutes on line are at
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/html/statutes.htm |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 9:35 pm: | |
The statutes aren't the assessor's manual, which is not online.
What the relevant site (http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/fieldin7.htm#manual) says about the manual is:
The Real Property Appraisal Manual for New Jersey Assessors (Vol. I and II) is one of the tools used by assessors in the appraisal process to determine assessed value.
If you would like to purchase this manual, please call (609) 292-7237.
The general page for Local Property Tax info is http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/lpt/localtax.htm |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 10:36 pm: | |
Jerry and Lseltzer,
Thanks very much for the prompt reply!
Is this what its finally come down to? We're now spending Sat nites responding to these things? What has happened to our lives? At least the social parts...I think I remember something like once upon a time...
:-) |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 10:46 pm: | |
I have children. And there is no battle of the bands tonite. And I have a Macintosh.
Therefore I have no life... |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:03 pm: | |
With no battle of the bands tonite, does that mean that the Ryan taxi service has the nite off, therefore you get to spend more time with your Mac? My wife complains that I spend more time in front of the computer than with her. Sadly, she's right.
:-) |
Aruba18
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:21 pm: | |
Jerry-
If you truly believe that the TC is "getting the information out as fast as we get it", then either the entire TC still has no idea of how CV arrived at their skewed numbers, or else you are all definitely cut out for political careers and are practicing your act on the residents of Maplewood. Either way, we need answers,and they are not forthcoming. By the way, just remember-- you and your cohorts are the ones who decided to do this reval early, and you all picked CV.Somehow, if I was interviewing a company that was going to be paid $395,000.00 of the taxpayers money,it would raise my antenna when they had no jobs lined up for the future! And we are to believe that they were supposed to start in the spring, but got delayed because they needed new maps? Come on, Jerry - you can do better than that. So they got a late start, which meant they had to really rush-why couldn't the TC, at that point,ease up on the time frame and plan on using their numbers for 2001? As it is,the TC has now used up one month because of this mess, and we are no closer to solving the problem than we were one month ago. THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS FLAWED!! Let's put it this way-you are having an addition built on your home, and you find out that there were critical errors made in the foundation-do you try to patch it up and hope that it will hold the whole structure for another 50 years, or do you go back, tear it down, and rebuild it properly? I think you know the answer to that one,and the reval is no different. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:48 pm: | |
Jerry and Lseltzer,
Since you guys were helpful earlier, lets try one more!
The language quoted above in Lseltzer's post and found in the site to which he referred me is couched in terms of "one of the tools" and, on balance, seems to leave considerable leeway for interpretation by individual assessors. Which leads one to suspect that case law might have to be the source to which one will have to turn to get working definitions of "market value" in the context of property assessments.
Are you aware of a summary of legal opinions on this topic that I might find useful? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here? If so, any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:56 pm: | |
Aruba18, what is EARLY about a reval that is at least 9 years overdue? I'm glad they had the guts to do it!! Now I finally know why I have nothing left over with which to improve my home after I pay my mortgage and taxes. When the bank and mortgage company calculated what I could afford in mortgage (and thus what they would loan me) they did not assume I would overpay taxes for nearly a decade. Nor did I.
Bacata |
Lisat
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 2:18 am: | |
Bacata
When you say you overpaid for a decade, how are you arriving at that length of time? What was the discrepancy between the values of homes ten years ago? The real estate boom lasted 3 years old. What was the real estate picture in the town before that? |
Bobk
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 2:19 am: | |
For the record a copy of the Assessors Manual is available at the Baker Street Library.
Also available are microfilm copies of the News Record going back to the ice age. However, there is no index for the newspaper so finding anything is tough. Someone with a lot of time could find information on previous revals there. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 8:30 am: | |
Waynecaviness: I'm not a lawyer. I have no access to case law, and have no legal summaries about what courts have dictated market value to be here in hand.
If we are to be adversaries in a law suit then I think I need to stop this conversation :-) |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 8:57 am: | |
Kep,
There's a thread on these boards called "More on sales data and the bubble". If I understand your question correctly, that thread addresses it. |
Kestrel
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 10:43 am: | |
I'm goin' Up...
I'm goin' down...
Goin' Up - Down - Down - Up...
Any way you want me to babe...
Baby, wha-cha wanna me to do? |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 4:36 pm: | |
Jerry,
Unless there is a lot more going on here than is thus far apparent to me, IMHO, the only law suit in which we should have commonality of involvement is the township v. Certified!
:-) |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 3:38 pm: | |
Lisat: I accidentally posted my response to your question on another thread (below). So I'm re-posting here:
I know I have been overpaying from the start because when I began looking in Maplewood 10 years ago I was shown no less than 50 houses in my price range, and they were all on the same side of town. I had asked to see everything below a certain figure and I was shown everything in the multiple listings. In fact, I was allowed to copy the pages right out of the book and did.
Now, there certainly are homes in other parts of the town that are no bigger in square footage and property size than mine. So why was I not shown any of those? Because their values had already far outstripped the values on the Hilton/Orchard side of town. That was the market 10 years ago.
And this was not racial steering. I am white and people assume my partner (who is Asian-American) is white also. I've seen no evidence of "gay steering" by the way. Except that, on the whole, two men living together tend to earn more money than two women living together. So, more of the guys live on the Jefferson side of town and more of the women live on the Hilton/Orchard side of town. But plenty of each probably live in the "middle", too.
Bacata |
Lisat
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 9:45 pm: | |
Bacata,
Thanks for the information. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page