| Author |
Message |
    
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 4:55 pm: |     |
No, actually, I think it's cause I don't have cable! So, answer me this...what's wrong with Fairtax(before it got taken over with all these phantom people!) getting out there in the beginning of January and letting people in on the big secret about the incredibly huge tax hit that was about to get passed by our TC? It seems to me that the Jan 2 meeting where the bunch of folks from Euclid ave showed up was the first time, publically, that anyone could get a grievance across to the TC after having received their letters. If they (Euclid folks) hadn't done this, the TC would have happily passed this whole re-val as it stood at that point in time. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 4:59 pm: | |
Wow you guys are quick with the posts! My last one only makes sense as a response to Lseltzer! well, at least the first line! |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 4:59 pm: | |
How could the rate have been bandied about for months when Certified was still assessing houses in October? The earliest it could have been available would have been mid to late November, at which time the total assessed base could be calculated. |
Nursie
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 5:10 pm: | |
On another thread a week or so ago either written by Jerry or Vic, I think it said that if you got an adjustment from Certified the rate will be 2.75. So much for the adjustment, puts me almost back to where I started from if this is true. Anybody remember that thread or do I have "false memory syndrome"? |
Mem
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 5:12 pm: | |
Someone please answer Nursie's question? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 5:14 pm: | |
I think the rate is 2.75 regardless if whether you got an adjustment or not. That rate will probably change again as the result of the reviews currently being conducted by the tax assessor. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 5:17 pm: | |
Sorry for the rotten grammer in that last post. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 5:18 pm: | |
If you knew about 2.66% when you got your letter, lseltzer, then it seems that you were privy to quite a nice piece of information! |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 5:22 pm: | |
Of course he was! Can't you tell who his friends are? |
Nursie
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 6:18 pm: | |
I found the thread in which Ryan states that if you had a revision by Cerified your new rate will be 2.75, mind you I could have misunderstood. The thread is titled "New Tax Rate"...25 Jan. You have to go to the archive to read his Jan. 23 statement regarding the 2.75 tax rate. Does anyone else intrepret this the way I do?
If this is true I am really back to square one!! |
Rheims
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 6:22 pm: | |
Good lord, are we back to the rate again? No one knows what it is! And no one can until the whole process is said and done. 2.66 is what it would have been. I don't know where 2.75 came from, but it's not the real rate. People have gone over this a hundred times and it may be the worst case of people arguing about something wrong.
Now can we get back to the question at hand: Why won't the leaders of Fairtax come forth publically as such? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 7:02 pm: | |
THE RATE AGAIN
Nobody knows the rate for 2001 yet. None of the three taxing authorities that comprise the property tax bill have struck a budget yet, so there is no rate for 2001.
As a point of comparison, it is possible to compute what the tax rate WOULD HAVE BEEN in 2000 IF the assessments from the reval had been in place for 2000.
Early on it was clear that the total value had increased by about a factor of four. I believe that as soon as this was known it was communicated at meetings and in conversations and (I am pretty sure) on this board. [Keyword search seems to be timing out for me so I cannot cite].
Once the letters from Certified went out, a more exact number than "a factor of four" was available. That too was communicated at meetings and on this board. That value was the basis for the 2.66% rate.
Around the 19th of January, after revisions from Certified that came out of meetings folks had with them, and neighborhood revisions from the Assessor, the revised total assessed value was communicated, and the 2.75% rate was communicated.
Downward revisions in total assessment raise that rate, and vice versa.
But I repeat, and I emphasize again, the rate is NOT the 2001 rate. It is what the 2000 rate WOULD HAVE BEEN IF the reval were in place in 2000. It provides a basis of comparison and nothing more.
Jerry Ryan |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 10:36 pm: | |
Here's the history of FairTax: On Dec. 8th Euclid Av. received property assessments from CVI. Many from Euclid had meetings with Certified and had the dreary experience that we've heard again and again. People on Euclid were told by Monique from CVI that mistakes were made and they would send out new assessors before Dec.23rd. On Dec. 26th, no one had received the promised new inspections. On Dec. 27th we called CVI and asked when the new inspectors were coming - they said never and go through a county tax appeal. That night Euclid Av. had their first tax meeting with about 20 people - it was decided we would attend the TC meeting on Jan. 2nd. No captains, officers or a chain of command, just a phone list.
About 40 Euclidians and Durandians attended and spoke at the Jan.2nd Township Committee meeting. We weren't satisfied with the Township Committee's response at that time.
After the Jan. 2nd TC meeting we drew up a flier and distributed it. The flier told the mill rate, provided a chart and our (infamous) e-mail address. We received hundreds of responses from people with huge increases that were out of line with their fair market value. More groups formed on Jefferson,Roosevelt and near the golf course. Still no designated leader of any group however there were many individuals doing different tasks; checking property records, reaching out to the TC, researching tax law etc. About 2 weeks ago the groups began to come together.
We decided we were the Maplewood Fair Taxation Committee the day before the TC meeting on Jan. 16 and introduced ourselves at that meeting. We had 4 speakers from our group and the remaining 60(?) were unplanned. After that the TC started providing more info. We said reject and redo at that time, and much of the assessment WAS rejected and redone as a direct result of the overwhelming input by concerned citizens. The assessment was still flawed, but with the new assessments many of the values are closer to reality. This doesn't mean that the assessment wasn't a flawed process, it was and still is. It just means that some of the overassessments are now accurately assessed, and in many cases, now UNDERassessed. (not fair either)
Our group has been trying to juggle this groundswell of support with our daily lives and families and jobs and we still don't have any "official" chain of command. Such is the nature of ad hoc groups.
The million dollar question, "Who is FairTax"? I can tell you who I AM, I'm Lydia Lacey, a Maplewood homeowner, Euclid avenue resident, Mom and no tax expert -- nor did I ever purport myself as one. When I got my assessment I knew something was wrong, I called my neighbors and we started talking and that's the group. Other members of the group can speak for themselves, I don't feel comfortable assigning "membership" status to anyone. Because we're a group that's open to anyone to join (taxes up, down or stay the same) we often don't agree on everything. Some of us are Democrats, others Republicans,and so on.
The Township committee deserves kudos for the way they've tried to provide information that is detailed and timely. Galante is to be praised for his willingness to extend the deadlines for appeals more than once. I STILL think the assesment was and is flawed, and many of our most vulnerable citizens won't be able to appeal because they don't know what's going on.
Reading many of the postings on this page people are understandably suspicious of a group that looks like it popped out of nowhere. We were a little group that grew quickly because there was a shared problem. We try to share BASIC information about the assessment with the e-mail list. Referring to the e-mails that offended townie, those were forwarded from members of the group when I thought it was something that might be helpful. We also sent more than one e-mail reminding people that it wasn't a neighbor-against-neighbor issue but a problem with CVI, and ultimately the TC if they accepted the reval as it was 3 weeks ago. We haven't been divisive, but the reval issue is by it's very nature a heated subject. FairTax NEVER endorsed a recall of the Township Committee and it disturbs me to read that people think we did. That's a problem with a grassroots organization -- we're not an experienced bureaucracy. We don't have a PR department, we have no money (we have to pass the hat to print out flyers) and not everyone is going to agree with us. Townie, in all fairness, instead of depicting us as sinister and hiding behind "Fairtax" -- if you're on our e-mail list you know that I always sign every letter I send out.
Our group doesn't agree on everything and I didn't agree with the tone of the letter that was posted on the other thread, but I thought the message was sound. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:38 pm: | |
Lydia Lacey a/k/a Fairtax01,
Thanks very much for your very informative post describing Fairtax and its origins and identifying yourself. I'm sure that it will not satisfy some, but thats ok. You have lifted the cloak some, and thats a good thing!
And thank you, Fairtax folks, for all your efforts. It is an arguable point as to how much difference your organization made in the TC level of response to the reval situation. But I, for one, can't help but believe that you helped prod a seemingly complacent TC into their present higher level of awareness. I recognize that the members of the TC (and others perhaps) would not regard their attitude prior to the public hue and cry as "complacent", but it certainly seemed so to me. The contrast became even more striking as certain members became much more helpful and importantly, publicly so (particularly Jerry Ryan and Vic DeLuca), and I think we all appreciate their continuing efforts. On the whole, the TC appears to have become much more effective and deserves all the assistance and support that we can provide.
Whether or not one agrees with each and every position and statement from Fairtax (I don't, btw), I believe that all Maplewood residents benefit from its existence. Throughout recorded economic history, there has been no better way to hold government accountable than through vocal, organized groups of concerned citizens.
Concerned individual citizens also have their roles to play, of course. They often provide a necessary counterbalancing calmness to the more strident voices at the fringe. Townie, in particular, through his posts on these threads, has been a consistent voice of reason, sanity and needed calmness. He has often reminded us of some 'civilities", if you will, that maybe some of us had forgotten or perhaps neglected. I must say, though, that as much as I have come to appreciate his "bring us back down to earth" reasonableness, Townie's "this too shall pass" attitude (well, it seems like that to me!) flies in the face of my sense of urgency and impatience with the process!
I find value in both Fairtax and Townie and feel that the Township is the better for having both. Those who don't agree, feel free to flame on! Those who do agree, it would be nice to hear from you, too! |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:19 am: | |
I agree. Having Fairtax is the closest thing this town will ever see to a two party system! You go girl! |
Townie
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:24 am: | |
To Lydia:
In "fairness" to me will you please notice that I have never posted in this "Who is Fairtax?" thread? Not once have I asked who any of you are on these boards and I have never posted anything accusing anyone of "hiding behind 'Fairtax.'? I've made mucho criticisms of Fairtax for sure. I'll now add another: None of you are careful enough with details to demand to be the reviewers of so complicated a town-wide process as the reval.
I took a strong position against Fairtax in the thread started by somebody named "Citizen," which posted a letter Fairtax said it had delivered to the mayor and the News Record. I felt the letter was disgraceful. I happen to be on Fairtax's e-mail list, and I never saw the letter before it was posted. I never saw any invitations to discuss writing such a letter. And yet the letter itself tries to make it seem like its a popular town organization our elected officials must negotiate with. It's nice of you, Lydia, to come forward and reveal Fairtax has no leadership. But I imagine other people will keep asking who is the "we" that decided on Jan. 15 it was the Maplewood Fair Taxation committee. And how many are you? Fairtax often appears to be counting its e-mail list as proof of the size of its support. Yet your e-mail recipients aren't given a say in forming your public statements. At least I wasn't.
It practically takes a truth squad to keep up with the misrepresentations of "Citizen" and others who associate themselves with Fairtax on these boards. Lydia, I have never depicted Fairtax as "sinister." In response to the letter Citizen posted, what I actually wrote (in various posts):
"They speak for no one but themeselves and have a privately concocted agenda."
"People who joined Fair Tax's mailing list for information should not be counted as supporters of their agenda."
"Fairtax's bullying tone is obnoxious and they are trying to portray themselves as some group endorsed by citizens that the town's elected officials must deal with. Nonsense."
"As long as Fairtax lets itself be a vehicle for circulating unbecoming innuendo and unrealistic agendas, do they really think the people of Maplewood by and large want what they are offering?"
"Fairtax itself seems to be saying in this thread it can't control who uses its e-mail list, although some of the people who sent me anti-tax agenda e-mails seemed quite closely associated with Fairtax at the town meetings. It would just be simpler if Fairtax would say who they are and who speaks for them, if other people used their e-mail list, we wouldn't have wait for the disclaimers from Fairtax."
"Fairtax has adopted a very unpleasant, very unneighborly, very divisive and bullying tone, lodging accusations against the TC and using tactics of ambush that finally made me extremely angry and I thought they deserved a taste of their own medicine. While the TC has been providing information and responding to everybody's need to be heard and the need to have an accurate assessment, what has Fairtax done in the past month? They've offered not a single solution or even bright idea. And they've tried to paint a sinister picture of what is going on in Maplewood."
"About all that is clear from this thread is that there is a lot of talk and questions about who they are and what they really want. That may be just their ineptness in communicating."
"Fairtax has not been a responsible voice in this debate, and that has nothing to do with whether the people who author its communciations sign their names to letters, flyers, e-mail or message board postings."
"I continue to be surprised that you and others in Fairtax think you can call people who disagree with you names and paint false portratis of them and believe the people in this town will embrace you or trust you or think you are doing us good."
"They keep hinting at a class action suit. Now they say they want a postponement. Why? Thus far I've not heard anything that sounds good for the whole town."
"I've listened to both Fairtax and the TC, and I think the TC has consistently proven a better, more level headed source of information about the reval than Fairtax. I think it is up to them at this point to prove they still have something constructive to contribute to Maplewood."
"If the point of Fairtax is to see the world in terms of enemies, they will surely create all the ones they need to validate their point of view. But I think they've learned a lesson from this thread."
Lydia, Townie is not your enemy. And neither are all the rest of your neighbors who posted in this thread asking Fairtax to come forward and explain itself. And the TC is not the enemy either. Your tone here is markedly different from the one in the Fairtax letter. (I see my e-mailed version is signed by the Maplewood Fair Taxation committee and others, but not you.) I would prefer Fairtax adopted your neighborly attitude.
I don't want bullies dictating terms to the town's elected officials. I don't want the civic culture to become what Fairtax exudes in that letter. You certainly haven't sounded like a bully in this posting. And yes, I've received e-mails signed by you. But what I've also found in my e-mail inbox is this from Fairtax01:
"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."
You said you passed along such e-mails to me because you thought they might be "helpful." They aren't. Not to me or Maplewood. I think Fairtax has been divisive, but most especially so with the letter it most recently circulated and the insulting language on these boards from those who have declared themselves associated with Fairtax.
You could start by no longer singling me out as your sole critic. There's a backlog of unanswered questions from other posters. |
Townie
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:59 am: | |
Waynecaviness,
Thanks! I think I'll stay in Maplewood now that I now I'm appreciated! ;-) I hope I'm appreciated as much as my house has appreciated!
I don't really have a "this too shall pass" view -- and I certainly haven't lost interest in how the process continues to work. I want to see homeowners who need adjustments in their assessments to get their concerns adequately addressed. Everyone in town is legally entitled to an accurate assessment. There are those who feel they don't yet have them and I want to see the process work for them. As for those who already have accurate assessments, I've yet to see the point of their lobbying to have their assessments (and everybody in town's) undone. I haven't totally closed my mind to the possibility, but I see more harm than good townwide trying to redo or even postpone things.
I want to move on to looking for legal and fair ways to mitigate the impact if that's possible (not in this thread but elsewhere). And btw, I got my property card and in general was surprised at how little the various parts of my house contribute to the total assessment. I think most people buy a "house" -- meaning, when they plunk down that money, they feel the $xxx,ooo is buying the house, and the land (dirt) is incidental. I think what is upsetting some people so much in this reval is that the "location" (dirt) has become worth so much. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 1:19 pm: | |
Townie - you make a lot of solid points. Can I return to your letter this evening and try to answer them?
One question, if you're on our e-mail list and you disagreed with various communications you received, why didn't you ever write back or call me? You definitely wouldn't be the first to disagree. Give me a phone call if you're uncomfortable about using your e-mail address.
I agree that letter I forwarded would have been more helpful if I'd deleted the last sentance. I've learned a lot in the last 4 weeks since this started, not the least of which is basic e-mail skills. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 1:25 pm: | |
Townie - the "dirt" is definitely a biggie!
Now, you have a lotta quotes up above, but one that sticks out that you have seemed very upset with (now and in prior posts) is the one that said "get in their faces". When I got that e-mail (which was prior to the jan 16 meeting), I did not interpret it as you did. To me, it meant "it's your chance to ask some serious, or not so serious, questions" before the actual public meeting gets started. You thought they were looking for blood(?), and I thought they were looking for answers. So you see, it's in the interpretation. There was definitely a little humor in that line albeit "Noo Yawk" style.
That's MY interpretation. But just because I, or you, interpret something a certain way, does not make it so! |
Mem
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 3:39 pm: | |
Townie,
Your posts are too long. |
|