Archive through January 26, 2001

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Author Message   Gerardryan Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 12:56 am:        The following is an interesting summary report off of the reval spreadsheet. The database contains "most recent sales" information for each property, which comes from the registration of deeds in the county. It is not actually complete all the way back in time but if the most recent sale happened within the last several years, it is associated with the property. Also if a property sold multiple times in the period you are looking at, you wouldn't know, since you'd only have the most recent sale. I extracted any records that had most-recent-sales in 1998, 1999, or 2000. I subtotalled and sorted some things. The file itself is available on http://members.aol.com/revalinfo07040 as sales-011901.xls. You can use it to find sales in your neighborhood or block. Also the records with most recent sales info have a ratio field which shows the ratio of the new assessment to the sale price. You can see from the summary, below, the following: 1998 sales : 499 1999 sales : 454 2000 sales : 405 Avg sale price across town: 1998: $201,301 1999: $217,760 2000: $283,839 Avg ratio to sale price for these homes: 1998: 139.73 1999: 126.82 2000: 101.52 The table breaks all this out by neighborhood and follows this posting. Jerry   Gerardryan Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 1:02 am:        year vcs Data 1998 1999 2000 Wyoming, Upper Wyoming AC01 Count of vcs 22 17 21 Average of sale prc $361,091 $476,618 $532,502 Average of ratio 146.05 116.35 96.90 Claremont Ave, below Wyoming, Ridgewood, Maple Terr AC02 Count of vcs 26 16 16 Average of sale prc $331,415 $467,642 $527,019 Average of ratio 155.73 112.81 101.31 Hemlock, Claremont Dr AC03 Count of vcs 2 4 5 Average of sale prc $322,500 $414,000 $491,800 Average of ratio 148.50 109.75 94.20 Kendall, below Wyoming, Collinwood, Cedar AC04 Count of vcs 35 25 24 Average of sale prc $260,803 $312,848 $382,969 Average of ratio 135.37 118.36 92.42 Washington Park AC05 Count of vcs 2 1 2 Average of sale prc $302,500 $405,000 $510,100 Average of ratio 136.00 113.00 88.00 East Cedar AC06 Count of vcs 3 3 3 Average of sale prc $228,667 $205,667 $250,000 Average of ratio 122.33 120.67 101.00 Below Ridgewood, Woodland, Maplewood Ave, Walton AC07 Count of vcs 14 8 8 Average of sale prc $299,905 $354,313 $553,113 Average of ratio 147.29 120.63 88.88 Winthrop, Baker, Lenox AC08 Count of vcs 4 1 4 Average of sale prc $198,750 $390,000 $452,250 Average of ratio 193.50 107.00 91.50 Carleton Ct AC09 Count of vcs 4 1 Average of sale prc $267,000 $310,000 Average of ratio 123.50 99.00 Burnet, Salter AC10 Count of vcs 7 10 9 Average of sale prc $239,643 $234,150 $361,244 Average of ratio 144.29 279.00 95.00 Dunnell Rd AC11 Count of vcs 5 1 Average of sale prc $205,280 $221,500 Average of ratio 143.00 105.00 Elmwood, Kensington, Midland Blvd AC12 Count of vcs 58 48 46 Average of sale prc $200,879 $240,377 $295,263 Average of ratio 149.12 159.90 99.52 Burr, Berkshire, Burroughs AC13 Count of vcs 12 6 6 Average of sale prc $195,167 $229,750 $320,983 Average of ratio 127.83 110.33 92.00 South 4th, Essex, Hudson AC14 Count of vcs 10 26 12 Average of sale prc $143,490 $148,694 $161,500 Average of ratio 123.80 110.81 93.92 Elberta, Midland Blvd, Ball Terr AC15 Count of vcs 43 27 24 Average of sale prc $172,456 $192,594 $220,743 Average of ratio 133.63 112.37 102.75 Orchard, Meadowbrook, Hillcrest AC16 Count of vcs 32 31 24 Average of sale prc $157,034 $140,893 $167,700 Average of ratio 119.53 116.68 104.92 Jennifer Lane AC17 Count of vcs 2 1 Average of sale prc $377,500 $445,000 Average of ratio 111.50 99.00 Oakland, Park, Oakview (W of Prospect) AC18 Count of vcs 4 3 9 Average of sale prc $254,250 $245,833 $329,333 Average of ratio 132.00 124.00 96.56 North Crescent AC19 Count of vcs 3 2 2 Average of sale prc $352,333 $419,509 $472,500 Average of ratio 139.67 110.50 123.00 Prospect St AC20 Count of vcs 2 3 6 Average of sale prc $310,000 $421,667 $487,333 Average of ratio 170.00 106.67 118.67 Courter, Oakland, Plymouth AC21 Count of vcs 29 18 29 Average of sale prc $204,459 $257,529 $314,828 Average of ratio 148.03 120.94 99.69 Boyden Parkway AC22 Count of vcs 1 4 4 Average of sale prc $113,500 $169,500 $189,000 Average of ratio 138.00 97.25 101.50 Park Ave, Harvard, Tuscan AC23 Count of vcs 34 41 29 Average of sale prc $203,587 $249,182 $296,531 Average of ratio 175.12 118.80 99.14 So Pierson, Broadview AC24 Count of vcs 7 6 6 Average of sale prc $145,714 $188,417 $197,067 Average of ratio 135.71 110.17 101.17 Rynda Rd AC25 Count of vcs 14 9 8 Average of sale prc $141,779 $167,422 $175,225 Average of ratio 127.36 114.56 98.00 Hilton Section AC26 Count of vcs 44 44 29 Average of sale prc $120,608 $134,665 $149,617 Average of ratio 141.32 113.73 98.21 Jacoby, Van Ness, Newark Way AC27 Count of vcs 29 46 41 Average of sale prc $125,883 $134,562 $159,324 Average of ratio 126.00 113.54 101.80 Lee Ct, Troy Ct AC28 Count of vcs 8 16 1 Average of sale prc $186,438 $179,875 $149,900 Average of ratio 111.63 213.88 97.00 Condominiums - Irvington Ave AC29 Count of vcs 3 2 Average of sale prc $71,500 $75,500 Average of ratio 108.33 108.50 Condominiums - Irvington Ave AC30 Count of vcs 5 2 Average of sale prc $96,800 $120,500 Average of ratio 112.20 89.50 Condominiums - Hausmann Ct AC31 Count of vcs 1 Average of sale prc $75,000 Average of ratio 113.00 Condominiums - Burnett Ave AC32 Count of vcs 6 2 1 Average of sale prc $71,333 $70,000 $88,000 Average of ratio 122.17 125.00 96.00 Condominiums - Boyden Ave AC33 Count of vcs 2 2 Average of sale prc $55,250 $80,750 Average of ratio 120.50 94.00 Condominiums - Ridgewood Rd AC34 Count of vcs 1 1 Average of sale prc $225,000 $292,000 Average of ratio 142.00 101.00 Condominiums - Highland Pl AC35 Count of vcs 2 1 1 Average of sale prc $171,000 $207,500 $232,000 Average of ratio 136.00 115.00 97.00 Condominiums - Valley St AC36 Count of vcs 3 3 3 Average of sale prc $79,833 $75,667 $115,667 Average of ratio 114.33 117.00 94.00 Condominiums - Meadowbrook AC37 Count of vcs 9 15 9 Average of sale prc $58,683 $57,709 $66,761 Average of ratio 124.44 108.67 104.00 Condominiums - Ostwood Terr AC38 Count of vcs 2 1 Average of sale prc $114,000 $150,000 Average of ratio 123.50 100.00 The Top AC39 Count of vcs 7 6 4 Average of sale prc $326,704 $284,000 $532,500 Average of ratio 123.57 107.00 99.25 Rosedale, Cypress AC40 Count of vcs 3 3 3 Average of sale prc $126,367 $210,833 $166,500 Average of ratio 152.67 106.00 122.00 Raymond Terr AC41 Count of vcs 2 Average of sale prc $32,000 Average of ratio 525.50 Buckingham, End of Maplewood Ave AC42 Count of vcs 5 3 3 Average of sale prc $236,400 $228,000 $269,633 Average of ratio 121.60 171.33 99.00 Total Count of vcs 499 454 405 Total Average of sale prc $201,301 $217,760 $283,839 Total Average of ratio 139.73 126.82 101.52   Bobk Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 5:46 am:        Mr. Ryan Thanks for this information. A couple of questions and comments: For us liberal arts types I would appreciate it if you would go into more detail on the methodology on the "Total Average of Ratio" calculation. Does this involve the assessment? Very quickly reviewing this information it appears that the unprecedented runup on house prices is spreading. I note that sales in the strip between Ridgewood and Maplewood Ave. are very strong, as are sales in the Golf Island area, Tuscan and "Midland Park". Hopefully, with the more equitable tax structure that will come out of the current debate sales in Hilton, and nearer the Newark/Irvington border will strengthen as well. This doesn't mean that I am happy with the assessment process, which I still feel is horribly flawed, but simply a reflection on poiticial reality and equity.   Gerardryan Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 7:14 am:        The totals rows at the bottom are total sales, average sale price, and average ratio of assessment to sale price. The report was automatically generated, so the labels on those rows "total average of ratio" came out of Excel -- not a place noted for liberal arts :-) It is interesting to look at run-up of prices, rate of run-up in different parts of town, and overall sales volume in different places.   Townie Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 8:22 am:        Jerry, Thanks for this very much. As another liberal arts type, I'm not sure I "get" all the information, but it sort of looks like 1999 was the "leap" year for most of Maplewood, and that houses closest to the station, including quite close to the tracks, jumped higher than anyone probably could have predicted. Also true in any place with a real "neighborhood" look and feel: Golf Course Island, Washington Park, Crescent, Midland. This not only gives a picture of house sales, but of the psychological sketch of Maplewood's new residents. It also looks like wherever the market was tight, house prices got an extra boost.   Gerardryan Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 8:31 am:        Townie: agreed. It is also interesting to cluster the information by block number and compare recent sales in that block to the appraisal one received. It doesn't look like the sales info is the only info that one can use but the data are instructive. The tight market boosting prices (and causing bidding wars) is probably to be expected economically.   Chris Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 9:27 am:        Jerry, you are the JOHNNY THUNDERS of numbers, dude!   Bobk Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 10:44 am:        I wouldn't be awfully surprised if Certified factored in "walking distance to the RR" as a factor. Yeah I do have a suspicious nature.   Waynecaviness Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:01 am:        Jerry, At first glance, the sales data tends to confirm the suspicions of many that undue weight was given to the sales prices observed during the "bubble" period in 2000. The average ratio of new assessments to sales prices of 101.52 for 2000 as compared to 126.82 and 139.73 for 1999 and 1998 respectively tend to strongly support the proposition that, contrary to the provisions of the assessor's manual, the determination of "fair market value" did not reflect in any significant sense, sales data from other, possibly more normal (e.g., "non-bubble") nearby periods. One might make the argument that the so-called "bubble" period is the new norm, not an aberration. Unfortunately, that can only be known in hindsight. Indeed, we have seen other "bubble" periods come and go, and there seem to be indications already that the prices seen during 2000 may be a market top, albeit perhaps temporary. But we cannot know that until some time has passed. Consequently, the weight given to sales data for 2000 appears inappropriate. I continue to believe that Maplewood residents do not object to paying their fair tax. But they must be confident that their tax is indeed fair and was determined in a fair and equitable manner. My initial perusal of your data does not make me more comfortable with the assessment process nor its results. You are to be commended for your responsiveness to the concerns of our taxpayers. You seem to be the only one on the TC capable of an adequate public response.   Bkkp Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 1:09 pm:        CHAPTER 123 RATIO Does any one know what Maplewoods Chapter 123 ratio is? Bill   Townie Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 2:22 pm:        Bobk, I don't want to get into the arguments with all my friends at the foundry about what does and doesn't count in an assessor's amazing bag of factors, but "walk to train" shows up in real estate ads as much as anything, and it definitely was a "factor" in our willingness to pay more for one house than another in Maplewood. So is it unholy to count that in an assessment? I'm NOT saying Certified did. Anyway, why does it matter? House value in Maplewood as listed by Jerry's numbers certainly seem to go up for houses convenient to mass transit (true all over the metro area), so the effect can be derived from looking at house sales alone. PS Waynecaviness: Most Maplewood residents know their assessments are fair and accurate, because when they look at the price stated as the value of their property, most of them know they would not be thrilled to accept that price, but would in a slow market. I think most of us recognize that there are many different routes to arriving at identical results. Most of us are confident a different route would get us the same result, and what would be unfair is undoing this result to satisfy people who already know they got an accurate assessment but are -- what? I just don't get it. If people were saying that they had no confidence in the appeals process for the minority who now must establish their assessment is wrong, I could see doing something about that. But why this fixation on the past "process"? If you look at the streets and the house numbers, and know the neighborhoods and houses, Jerry's data shows that the most recent adjustments resulted in assessments reflective of a fair price in a fair market, not a bubble market. Once the schools issue was settled in Maplewood and the train was a well-advertised established fact, houses prices went up here and in South Orange, and the adjusted assessments look likely to hold even in a slower marke, as much as anybody can predict markets. Galante explained why he couldn't ignore the 2000 figures, and said the bubbles were adjusted for. I still maintain the only truly sane way to look at this is whether one's own assessment is correct, and if it is, to ask oneself what good it does the town to search for some other mathematical formula that would begin reducing assessments to below real market values. That would only raise the mil rate on everybody. Once again middle class Maplewood would be subsidizing the big property owners.   Bobk Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 2:45 pm:        Townie: Us foundry guys was wondering 'bout the increases in the strip between Ridgewood and Maplewood Avenue, that's all. You are right, I guess being walking distance to the train is a selling point. I have kind of a moral issue here, however. Should I tell prospective buyers about the Rottweiller on the route and the people who don't shovel their walks?   Njjoseph Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 2:58 pm:        Definitely tell them about the people who don't shovel their walks. I'm still walking on icy sidewalks!   Jonnyb120 Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 3:11 pm:        Mr Ryan-- Thank you for the detailed excel sheets. One question: should the "new price" equal the amount on the letter from Certified?   Waynecaviness Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 4:25 pm:        Townie: I think most folks in town do believe that their assessments are now reasonably fair, following the most recent adjustments. But look, the necessity for those adjustments and the fact that they took place is prima facie evidence of a flawed process. The result of the attendance and volume of protests at the recent town meetings is prima facie evidence of people "saying that they had no confidence in the appeals process", to use your words. The numbers, as presented by Jerry Ryan, speak for themselves. And they contradict what we've been told is the specification in the assessors manual, even after the adjustments. These are homes, not tech stocks or tulip bulbs. It appears that Galante took the 2000 data into account, as he should have, but the weightings given to the 2000 sales data appears to have been excessive. And while the majority may be now somewhat more assured that their assessments bear a more acceptable semblance to reality, there are still many who feel that there are significant factual errors influencing their valuations. The tone of your remarks suggests that you would advise them to forget about the due process that is their right. The hiring of additional assessors to assist in coping with the appeals is an appropriate response. Shuffling folks off to the county, as the initial response seemed to be, was not, IMHO, an appropriate response. Look, don't misunderstand. As I stated before, I believe that most feel that the reassessment is long overdue and necessary. Its only fair and right. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone objects to paying their fair tax, but they need to be confident that the tax they are being asked to pay is indeed fair and properly determined. The apparently large number of factual errors and valuation contradictions resulting from Certified's assessment have simply not provided that confidence. It now falls to the TC to put into place the mechanisms by which that confidence can be provided. Useful steps have been taken. More may be necessary.   Mfpark Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 5:27 pm:        Regarding weighting sales for 2000, I am not sure everyone's assumptions are correct as to how this occurred. Typically, appraisers adjust comaprable sales to the date of the appraisal. To do this, they look at market changes leading up to the date of the appraisal--if prices are trending upwards, then they adjust older sales UP; if prices are trending downwards, they adjust older sales DOWN. Before he was shouted down, I think Mr. Galante was saying that sales in 1998 and 1999 were adjusted UPWARDS towards the peak of the bubble. This does not give weighting to 1998 and 1999--rather, it adjusts everything up. Is this what happened? Did others hear it this way? Either way, I wonder if the solution is to have every property revalued every year or two--the assessor should be able to do this in-house now that we have a complete data base and inventory. The inventory would have to be updated everytime someone pulls a building permit, but that is not hard, either. A more frequent reval would allow for quicker adjustments to the market, although it will also make taxes more variable for property owners. Of course, this assumes that Certified gave the data to the Town in a machine readable format--was this part of the contract, or is that proprietary data also? Vic or Gerry or anyone else--is any of this possible or preferable?   Lseltzer Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 5:57 pm:        Mfpark: yes, as has been mentioned several times on the board already, part of Certified's job was to create a database and install software in the assessor's office so that he can adjust assessments on an ongoing basis.   Lseltzer Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 5:58 pm:        Another point: Obviously Certified gave data to the town in electronic format. Do you think Jerry actually typed all those numbers in himself?   Townie Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 6:51 pm:        Waynecaviness, We do see the recent history a bit differently and I view these message boards as a way of airing differing perceptions as a kind of public service, so we all get some insight into each others thoughts. Thanks for responding and I hope you won't take it amiss or mistake me for merely being argumentative if I continue to reveal my thoughts a bit more. In my neighborhood (the hills above the village) the biggest disturbance about the revaluation came when the News-Record published a story saying that homes on Euclid and Durand had been erroneously assessed. Then people had to wonder about their valuations. They felt it necessary to show up at town hall to find out what was going on. Not all of us there were there to complain. In fact, it was tremendously disappointing that so many people came to both meetings determined to make speeches rather than engage in information gathering. Now that the adjustments have been made, people recognize that any further adjustments downward would put their assessment at below market value. That might be personally good for us, but not good for the whole town. We can't see where there is anything to be gained in concrete terms by refusing to accept that the initial mistakes were fully corrected. Another valuation using a different methodology runs the risk of creating its own errors. Our valuations are correct, it's our perception checking Jerry's database that townwide they appear correct, and most of us won't understand how they were arrived at if the green eyeshade folk talk til we all turn blue anyway. My perception is that it is only a minority of Maplewood residents at the town meetings (already a minority of the town) who feel they can't now accept the results of a initially flawed process even though their own valuations are correct and a system is in place for individual appeals. I think the rest of us don't expect a perfect process, and imaagine that redoing the process will result in errors as well that need correction. We just didn't get there early enough to sign the speaker's sheet. Of course, I am only talking here about the perceptions of people with a CORRECT valuation. I've always felt that any homeowner anywhere in Maplewood who feels they have a wrong assessement absolutely has the right to appeal it and get it right to their satisfaction, and to marshall all the evidence they need to show the assessor, including information about any mathematical errors they believe were made in calculating the value of their home. I hope that the process in place for individual homeowner appeals is a good one, but if it turns out to be inadequate, I'll support paying for all additional steps taken to make it so. I also support re-doing the entire reval if that's absolutely necessary to get tax equity in this town. But it's also true that I do feel that people who know they already have valuations that reflect a real world assessment of their house should consider the well-being of the whole town before asserting that since the process was flawed in the beginning it is unacceptably suspect, and that the methodology that eventually arrived at these correct townwide assessments must be made transparent to us all. It's like a pragmatic thing. I don't think it matters how a correct result was gotten townwide, especially when no one is saying they've got a better process that would change the basic outcome in some way that was better for the whole town. If people are worried that their assessment isn't a plausible selling price for their home, instead of poring over the methodology, isn't asking some local real estate professionals an easier way to find out what you need to know?   Gerardryan Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 9:27 pm:        Waynecaviness: I don't interpret the statistics as saying anything about weighting. All the report does is show information about homes that sold in 1998, 1999, or 2000 and how they were assessed. The fact that homes with 2000 sales, on average, ended up with an assessment pretty close to their sale price (the 101.52 factor) is just a statement that on average those home appraisals were pretty close to sale price. It doesn't say anything about any other sales than the ones in the database. The 1999 and 1998 numbers show that the appraisals on homes sold in those years reflect some appreciation in value; again it doesn't say anything else about anyone else's numbers. Everyone keeps looking for "weightings" because CV said that they assigned more weight to 2000 than 1999 and 1998. I'm not sure that I understand that to mean that there was a strict mathematical ("60% on 2000, 30% on 1999 ... for example) kind of weighting. There's just not enough data points for identical homes to take a strict mathematical average for comparison and have it be valid. (Or are we talking past each other here?). Bkkp: ok, I'll bite. What's a Chapter 123 ratio? Jonnyb120: if you received a second letter from CV, that number should be reflected in the database. Mark: yes the info is machine readable and is in a system that allows for easy adjustment to reflect market conditions going forward. Chris: I hope I don't go the way Johnny went. I still miss him....