| Author |
Message |
    
Mtierney
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 11:05 am: |     |
The sound of the taxpayers rolling over? Where is the outrage of last week? When is the next special meeting to voice concerns? Some big assessments on the hill have been adjusted so the rest of us have to accept their assessments? We really can't fight this house by house. That process is burdensome and almost impossible for certain portions of the population to cope with. Without a concerted effort, we will not get this revaluation rejected.
And, by a repetition of my comments on another thread: When will the taxpayers notice the elephant in the living room? The school budget will most certainly result in increases - the BOE is already threatening to hurt our kids by removing programs sure to bring out parents who will agree to pay in order to retain what is being talked about for cutting. For example: 4th and 5th grade instrumental programs; the alternative school (after we blew a bundle of our own funds plus state money setting it in place); lunch time monitors? As the TV guy says: "Give me a break!" |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 12:03 pm: | |
I don't think most of us want to have this revaluation rejected, and are working house by house to have the problems corrected. There is little effort to doing so. Get a copy of your property card, available by going to Town Hall, and I believe you can write for it as well. Then, take 15 minutes to review it, and fill out the form and send it back. I think anyone that can't do this has NO right to complain about the tax situation.
Have you done this yet for your house? |
Tom
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 1:02 pm: | |
What makes you think that rejecting the reevaluation is going to solve anything? A new one will have problems too, just different ones. We could keep going around and around forever if you want to wait for that one, perfect, evaluation. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 1:14 pm: | |
If Mtierney is looking at a large tax increase (and from reading her prior posts I'm assuming she is) she certainly DOES have the right to complain. The type of adjustments that Certified would make to her valuation are not going to mitigate a 20 to 30% increase by much. A rise in the fair market value of her house does not translate into increased financial ability to absorb that kind of increase. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 1:14 pm: | |
I certainly agree with Njjoseph and Tom. The reval can't simply be rejected without another being done, and another reval would be costly and highly unlikely to produce a different result. As more and more people examine the final numbers, they are coming to realize that most of the assessments reflect today's selling prices for homes in Maplewood. That's why people have quieted down.
Unfortunately, NJ law mandates that such assessments be done and taxes levied based on those values. Not all houses in Maplewood have appreciated at the same rate in the 19 years since the last assessments were done in Maplewood. Also unfortunately, property taxes as structured in NJ are allowed to rise regardless of ability to pay.
There is no link between rejecting the revaluation and improving budgeting for the school. |
Golden
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 1:38 pm: | |
Notice a decrease in the number of posting concerning the reval?
Seems this happened right after Jerry provided detailed information, and the property cards were made available at town hall. I had every intention of filing an appeal with the town assesor. While I still think the land value is too high, a review of the new revals on my street and comps in the area did bring some sense that the process is basically correct. Again, individual inequities can be dealt with at the town level. While not happy, I can accept the new reval amount.
A comment for the mayor and members of the Town Council (excluding Mr. Ryan)- it's almost as if you have been in seclusion during the reval. If we saw you around town or in a store, we could get an answer to a question, but that seemed to be the extent of your involvement. Mayor - yes you have only been in this position for a short time, but you were on the TC. This is the time we expected performance and fairness of process from you - to act equally for those facing as increase in taxes as well as those with a decrease.
I do not know Jerry Ryan, and I am sure he does not know me. Yet I believe he has done more to clarify this reval procedure than the combined remainder of the TC. If the TC opted to have Jerry act as their spokesperson than that should have been made public.
A lot of the problems concerning neighbor vs. neighbor or east vs. west, could have been avoided if the town leaders acted as such. |
Yvette
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 4:25 pm: | |
Golden - I had questions regarding the assessment, so I called the Mayor, he wasn't available, I left a message and he returned my call the very next day and answered all my questions.
I do agree, more input from the TC would have avoided the town dividing. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 4:48 pm: | |
It has been mentioned several times in various threads, including this one, that revals are mandated by law to occur every ten years. It has also been mentioned that Newark hasn't done one in 40 years! Is that accurate? Does anyone know why? What is the enforcement mechanism, if any, in the law that forces reassements when a municipality is laggard? Given Newark's tardiness (if it indeed has been 40 years), why are there so many mentions on the various threads about possible legal action if Maplewood doesn't do this thing, and do it right here and right now?
Inquiring mindlets want to know!
(Disclaimer: Personally, the reval appears the right and proper thing to do. But we must be assured that it is done fairly and correctly. The prospect of both appear more likely now than they did a few weeks ago.) |
Tracks
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 5:07 pm: | |
Newark is doing this because the state stepped in and told them they had to do it. Otherwise they would have waited another 40 years. |
Vicdeluca
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 5:21 pm: | |
Golden - I have resisted responding to plenty of comments about me but no more. You are off base. Read the postings and you will see that I have put up Revaluation Updates on a regular basis. Who do you think has been working with Jerry to get the information out to you and everyone else? Who has returned every phone call from a resident, whether in favor or against the revaluation? Who went to tax court to get the extension to February 24th? Who do you think asked Mr. Galante to review the assessment numbers?
I understand and accept these resonsibilities. Sorry Golden but before you criticize me get the facts correct. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 6:16 pm: | |
Waynecaviness,
I thought that the concerns about legal action fell into two categories: one is the possibility that if the TC threw out this reval or tried to postpone its implementation, the town might have to defend itself against suits filed by town residents who had evidence they were continuing to be illegally overtaxed under the old assessments.
As for the second category: It looks like municipalities don't face much in the way of sanctions if they don't hop to a reval every 10 years, although they may run the risk of the state intervening. However, I've also gotten the impression that once the TC began the process of this reval, it had to notify the state and get its processes approved at various steps along the way -- so suddenly stopping in mid-reval wasn't possible without state involvement. HOWEVER, I am giving you what I gathered from meetings about this. I could be wrong. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 6:42 pm: | |
Tracks & Townie: Thanks very much for prompt response! I wasn't aware that Newark is actually engaged in a reassessment!
Since we're in a legal frame of mind here for the moment...one thing I'm still wondering about and have seen references to but nothing definitive: if it can be determined that Certified performed poorly under the terms of their contract, what recourse if any does the township have to attempt to recover some of the expense of the reval?
It is my impression that Certified made numerous factual errors in their work, to the extent that the township is required to hire extra assessors and incur quite a bit of extra expense (recognizing that the extra assessors are hired not only to deal with factual errors but with value-based appeals as well). Is a record being constructed of the number and magnitude of these factual errors to ascertain whether or not we have a basis for legal action? |
Golden
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 8:09 pm: | |
Mayor Deluca,
"I have resisted responding to plenty of comments about me but no more"
Obviously you have been the brunt of a lot of comment and criticism concerning the reval, and chose my posting as the place to vent.
Thank you for explaining the steps you have taken concerning the reval, such as responding to telephone calls, placing several informational postings on the message board, going to tax court, and reviewing the numbers with the town assesor.
This was your responsibiliy as an elected official (yes - I did vote for you)
But you missed the point of my posting. My statement was based on observations from both open meetings, the local paper, and this message board. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 9:05 pm: | |
Waynecaviness,
I would guess that the TC is availing itself of the services of a lawyer. My concern would be that buy going after Certified legally, it provides people (like *ahem" "Fair Tax"?") with ammunition for suing the town (i.e., you accused Certified doing something illegal but then imposed what you regarded as illegal and flawed on the town). But I may just be paranoid or have watched too much Ally McBeal. It may be that they are looking for ways to recover all or part of the cost from certified. The small number of part-time people they hired to help with the process doesn't seem very expensive. It would be interesting to know if some other town recently did a reval and had a lovely, appeal-free time of it. I think the problem for Maplewood is the unusually wide gap between houses that skyrocketed in value over 19 years and those that didn't. It's caused greater than usual resistance to the reval, I suspect, among people socked with paying a higher proportion of the town's taxes. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 9:07 pm: | |
Townie,
You might have a good point as to the township becoming more vulnerable to suit if the township were to successfully litigate against Certified. However, I would think that a successful defense of such a suit might be based on the corrective action that the township has had to undertake in response to Certified's errors. But, not being a lawyer nor an Ally McBeal fan, what do I know?
The most harmful part of this whole episode is not the actual expense of hiring extra assistance. (I believe the amount allocated is only $2,000, if I heard correctly.) Rather, the damage done in confidence in the TC, the divisiveness, and the frustration and anger are the real price. And that is impossible to quantify. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 12:23 pm: | |
Townie's statement that "concerns overlegal action fell into two categories: one is the possibility that if the TC threw out this reval or tried to postpone its implementation, the town might have to defend itself against suits filed by town residents who had evidence they were continuing to be illegally overtaxed under the old assessments." This is very interesting. Is that the reason the TC won't budge off its position that the reval must go forward? Even as it hires extra checkers; admits errors; questions the methods used by CV; and allows for many adjustments, the process goes forward.
Oh, my observation on yesterday's thread that we face another tax blow when the BOE finishes its wish list is very real. Whether or not this reval goes forward, the BOE budget and tax increases are closely related - the money for both comes out of the same pockets.
Overtaxedalready's remark "A rise in the fair market value of her house does not translate into increased financial ability to absorb that kind of increase" is right on target! Thank you! |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 12:33 pm: | |
Mtierney, yes Overtaxed's remark is right on target. But what does that have to do with a fair tax assessment? Nada. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 1:17 pm: | |
The remark was addressed at the individual who posted something to the effect that if an individual didn't appeal his/her tax assessment then that person "has NO right to complain about the tax situation". I believe that statement is a bunch of nonsense. Increases of 2,3,4 or 5 thousand dollars can't be just shrugged off, even if it now cloaked in terms of being "your fair share". Someone facing an increase like that has every right to scream...loud and long. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 1:43 pm: | |
Overtaxed, I was the one to whom you were responding, I suppose. However, you took my "half"-statement out of context. To refresh:
"I don't think most of us want to have this revaluation rejected, and are working
house by house to have the problems corrected. There is little effort to doing so.
Get a copy of your property card, available by going to Town Hall, and I believe
you can write for it as well. Then, take 15 minutes to review it, and fill out the
form and send it back. I think anyone that can't do this has NO right to complain
about the tax situation."
As you can plainly see, I did NOT say that you had to appeal the assessment in order to complain. I hope your emotions aren't getting in the way of facts. I stated that you had to do the research and go through the process of making corrections, if any, before you should complain.
In addition, taxes are a fact of life. If you don't like the taxes here, trade up/down to a different town. It's simple. Don't start making arguments about memories, senior citizens, etc. It's called LIFE. You get some bad situations, and you respond. There are people all over this country in private homes in nice neighborhoods that pay $1200/year in taxes. My parents and all my grandparents included. In addition, people move from the New York area to areas such as Florida when they retire -- lower taxes, sunnier weather, no snow, etc.
So, complain if you must to get it off your chest. But then do something productive about it. And please, don't quote me out of context again. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 1:56 pm: | |
I don't believe I quoted you out of context. If you reread what I posted, before I took your quotes I made reference to your remarks regarding appealing the current assessment. If you think I gave short shrift to your lead in then sorry about that. And please, don't patronize me with statments like "taxes are a fact of life". I'm well aware of that, thank you. |
|