| Author |
Message |
    
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:59 am: |     |
Mtierney,
I did read the Milburn rejects thread. And I even asked you a question about it there.
Also, check out the Who is Fairtax? thread.
I don't have any problem with the questions your asking, but I truly doubt you are going to get an unbiased answer from Fairtax.
Here's what Tracks posted in the Who is Fairtax thread:
"I may not agree with Jerry Ryan or how he always does everything, but I think it is unfair to say he has not always been available to answer questions. He has been responding to questions on this board and gave information as soon as Certified had given it to the village. A lot of the questions that "fairtax" has been asking for the past month or two were answered when the process started. Just way back then nobody cared until they found out they might be getting a significant increase in taxes. True Monday morning quarterbacks. Despite all the screaming it appears that Certified's numbers are in line with the real values, which is not to say that there were not any mistakes made, just not enough to redo the reval. Everyone who does not like there new assesment can appeal."
And Yvette wrote:
"If it weren't for Fairtax leaving flyers at the train station I would not have known about the tax situation and I thank them for that. However, the impression I received was that everybody's taxes were going up substantially and we had to reject and redo the revaluations. But now we know, this was just not true! So no (in the beginning) the TC didn't give much info nor did Fairtax."
So I think the history is unclear. I do recommend working with the TC, not viewing it as a "battle" and think fairtax should drop the insult approach. |
Yvette
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 12:09 pm: | |
Applause, Applause, Applause to Townie!!!! |
Franny
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 12:20 pm: | |
Townie - I don't know if people are now largely OK with their assessments--I just know I am. I still have a lot of questions that I don't know will ever be answered. The questions I asked Certified V. in December were brushed aside and CV told me that only a handful of people questioned their revals and they were mighty rude to me too. I thought I was an isolated case of a missassessment. I figured from the letter that we got from Mr. Galante that it wouldn't be so bad. I called Galante's office and the secretary told me that it wasn't unusual for a house to increase 50% in value in 1 year(!) and because the rate would go down my taxes would probably stay about the same. I believed them -- I didn't even think about the Township Committee's responsiblity to the assessment process because all the letters and my phone call with Galante's office lulled me into thinking it wasn't a big deal. I'm glad that some people formed a group and got everyone in town talking, and now we're hearing lots of information from the Township Commitee and loads of people got new assessments that are closer to reality.
Maybe the Township commitee DID "reject and redo" - that's the only explanation I can figure for the hundreds of BIG readjustments that have been made. I'm glad that a group was formed that collected enough voices to make a difference. I don't think that the TC was paying attention and now they are and that's great. The Township Commitee made mistakes, and so has Fairtax, but both of them have done something valuable for Maplewood. I think that Fairtax has contributed something very constructive for Maplewood and until this letter they have not taken a bullying tone.
As far as lawsuits go - I think they just asked if anyone wanted information - I never asked for info so I don't know what they provided. They never said they were supporting a lawsuit (I don't think). Maybe before these reductions were made there was cause for a lawsuit -- that I don't know. |
Nan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 1:01 pm: | |
jnl,
Townie's reluctance to give his real name is understandable (these days we are all just one step away from being discussed on the Jerry Springer show) and irrelevant to the logic of his arguments.
Even if it somehow turned out that he is really "out-of-Townie" or part of a "Midland Boulevard/Hilton Area grassy Knoll Cabal conspiracy" his questions and examination of Fairtax are the kind of inquiry any intelligent person would consider appropriate. He asks the kind of questions Fairtax should not be afraid to answer. Over all he seems to have a respectable "big picture" of this revaluation and his reflections and comments on it are all within the standard conventions of discussion.
Fairtax, on the other hand, seems to have a kind of Leona Helsmsly-type PR situation on its hands. I do not have a problem with people doubting their individual assessments (we certainly screamed when our handyman's special was given a higher appraisal than the larger Martha Stewart memorial next door), but somehow I have acquired the perception that Fairtax is composed primarly of rich people who want to get away without paying their fair share.
Knowing Townie's real name would only aid someone who wanted to release a plague of frogs in his basement. Knowing who Fairtax is would go a long why in making their arguments more legitimate. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 1:18 pm: | |
What is the definition of "rich" in Maplewood? Rich people just aren't as nice as poor people. But if they try by working charitible causes and thanking God everyday for their good fortune and their ability to pay high taxes to support the educations of the local children, then we'll let'em stay. But in general rich people just want to get over on us, I mean isn't that how they got rich in the first place? 
PS I am not rich!!! |
Jln
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 1:34 pm: | |
Townie,
The reason I have focused on you is because you implied - incorrectly - that I am the owner of the fairtax01 email address and that I am the creator of fairtax. You have commented on passages attributed to me which I did not author (although you were correct in one case.)
I repeat what I wrote yesterday:
1. I am not the owner of the fairtax mailbox.
2. I am associated with the fairtax group as are many, others, and I am in general agreement with the positions which that group has taken.
3. The only words which you or anyone else may attribute directly to me are those which go out under my name.
As for your anonymity . . . res ipse locitur ("it speaks for itself.") If you're insulted by my views about that, so be it. Others have no reason to be insulted because I haven't addressed them. They may disagree, but they have no reason to be insulted.
jlnathenson |
Damellon
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 1:38 pm: | |
Let's all face it, the reason why we are in this mess is that the "TC" did a sloppy job with the reval. Apparently, it was nobody's job to oversee the process. This is unacceptable representation. And the way that the assessments went out after election day was like a page right out of our sleeze-ball President Clinton's handbook. How the members of the TC can go around all puffed up and full of themselves the way that they do is beyond me. I want them - out of my house, out of the pool, out of the library, out of the school district (especially!!!) - and out of town hall!!! I urge everyone to please consider taking a closer look at the other candidates that may represent us more appropriately during the next election! Based on other discussions on this board it looks like Millburn was able to secure a logical thinking group of township people. I'm sure we can too. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 4:07 pm: | |
You're right on the mark with this one, Damellon! Sniff, sniff - I smell a TC member - "townie" (?) |
Franny
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 4:17 pm: | |
Nan - Rich people who don't want to pay their taxes hire lawyers to take care of it and don't involve the rest of the town and therefore push up the mill rate. Or they move out of Essex county, which is not exactly a haven for rich tax-avoiding types. |
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 7:40 pm: | |
JLN
All I ever said about you in post was that you were a ponderous writer and that I received e-mails directly from you and that Fairtax had forwared things you had written to me through Fairtax01.
I never said you were the owner of the fairtax e-mail adrdress.
I did say that I assumed fairtax endorsed your views because they sent me your writing. They later denied that fairtax had anything to do with the "Revaluation and Beyond" e-mail you wrote, and indeed, when I checked what you sent me, your e-mail address was on it, not fairtax's.
But I don't know how you got my e-mail address if you didn't get it through fairtax.
I think the real issue you and fairtax are facing on these boards, and the town is facing, is whether we want town bullies dictating terms. We're saying no. I'm not giving you my name, no matter how much you bully. The TC isn't being bullied into doing what you want. (And no, Teach66, your nose is wrong. Recheck its location.)
The people on this board are telling you they won't put up with bullying. If you want to work together to solve problems, fine. The letter that started this whole thread is the wrong way to go. If you have influence with fairtax, pass it along. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:25 pm: | |
Damellon: You obviously haven't read much of this board. If you had, you would know the following: 1) It is not the TC's fault--the buck stopped at Certified and they left town with it 2) Everyone (except you apparently and you are in the minority so who cares) in the town is quite pleased with their assessment. Disregard the malcontents you saw on tv at the TC meeting--they were beamed down from Mars as part of a vast right wing (scratch that, it's Maplewood) a conspiracy unleashed by that secretive and downright mean group Fairtax whose sole purpose is to ruin the town by writing unsigned letters to this board (should be called unfairtax). 3) Unlike you, the TC is being helpful and constructive by providing exhaustive information as to just how much more in taxes you will in fact be paying. 4) If you are selfish and have little regard for the good of the community and want to contest your assessment even though you know in your heart your house is worth a king's ransom, just follow the simple tips outlined so thoughtfully by the TC for fighting the government on many levels. Start by rechecking your assessment by completely redoing Certified's work. You'll need to research sales data for a decade or so and educate yourself in all applicable statutes, regulations and case law, as well as the science of appraising residential real estate (good luck finding out Certified's methodology--I think it's in a lock box somewhere). Better talk to local realtors and hire an appraiser and lawyer just to be safe and compile all your documentation in a neat package. Only after you have taken these simple steps, do you have a right to complain about the assessment. Everyone but you is happy with this fair and equitable process. 5) Don't believe for a minute that house prices really will decline in this weakening economy. Luckily home purchasers here have no knowledge of the laws of economics and will happily pay the same or more for a house here even after the taxes increase 40-50% 6) If anyone is to blame for this mess, it is probably the Republicans if there are any around here or maybe John Ashcroft or Fairtax, I'm not sure. And the taxpayers of Millburn should be jealous of us because they did not get to see their artifically high assessment numbers, while we get to not only see our unsustainable numbers, but to use them as well. These are some of the many things I have learned from the prolific anonymous posters who no doubt are really who they say they are and have no hidden agendas ;-) And one other thing, on this board it is ok to remain anonymous while trying to "out" others. If you are called on it, call the objectors "bullies". And if you disagree with the other posters, you are not being constructive and should probably be quiet and are probably also a bully. Here in Maplewood, we love diversity (unless you're a Republican) and tolerance (as long as you agree with us). Hope this post was constructive.
PS I'm surprised by the reference to the Clinton playbook. Let's see, claim the moral high ground (fairness), vilify critics (unfair, secretive, mean), keep telling the people what they think (everyone is happy with this), deflect responsibility (don't blame us, Certified did it), blame Republicans (Christy Whitman's fault really)--can't see any similarities. |
Golden
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 10:05 pm: | |
Damellon,
You might be interested in reading several postings on the thread "Reval:Can You Hear It?"
dated 1/30. I voiced my personal opinion on the way the mayor and some members of the TC handled the reval process. The response from the mayor was suprising, and is representative of what I think is flawed in this whole process. I am sure you too will get a personal reply to your posting from the mayor telling you how thoughtless you are for questioning our town leaders. I stand by my original position - the TC is only taking a reactive stance due to pressure from the residents. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 10:47 pm: | |
Jennie,
Not only well said, but very, very well said!!!! |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:24 am: | |
Jennie: That is the current Maplewood Mantra in a nutshell! You should write for Sat. Night Live! |
Townie
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:31 am: | |
Jennie,
I've never asked any one to reveal themselves on these boards. Not once.
I call people bullies when they act like bullies, not when they disagree with me. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 1:58 pm: | |
My problem with Fairtax is that they claim they are fighting for the cause and only wants was is fair. I wonder if everyone whose name appears on the Fairtax list was really overassessed? How many people in that group just didn't like the fact that their increase was so high? How many members knew that their assessment was correct but figured if they joined together they could get the whole reval thrown out and avoid paying a higher tax? If Fairtax really wants what is best for the whole town they wouldn't have asked for the reval to be thrown out or postponed for another year. Would that be fair to those who have been overpaying? Are they not part of this town that FairTax represents?
What happens to everyones taxes when a certain group cries and has adjustments made that shouldn't have been made? And yes I do beleive that it happened, i.e. block ajustments or neighborhood adjustments.
FairTax, you shouldn't give the impression that you speak for everyone whose taxes are going up!!!
That is the impression so many of us get from your group.
I have written in awhile because I have been giving a lot of thought to the whole reval issue and now see things from both points of view and I have changed my views to a degree. I still think that the people who were overpaying should get the decrease, I also feel that there were mistakes made on the other side of town and they should be corrected even if it means I don't get as much of a decrease. But, most of all I have learned that FairTax only represents a few unhappy people and not everyone whose taxes are going up.
I know that you (FairTax) are going to say that you don't control what everyone (members of FairTax) says or writes but, you have to take some responsiblity for it, afterall you wanted the numbers behind you to fight. You have to take the good with the bad!!! |
Ffof
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 4:29 pm: | |
Eb1153- I think that those who were "overpaying" should stay the same (50 some % of all homes?) and the rest should have slight increases. This way the tax burden is shifted AND we get rid of the budget problem!! Oh well, too late. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 7:35 pm: | |
too late?
try 'illegal'.
we don't get to make up the rules of property taxes as we go along. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 9:41 pm: | |
FFof:
>>I think that those who were "overpaying" should stay the same...
In other words you think they should continue to overpay in order to subsidize tax breaks for those who have been underpaying. Thank goodness views like this don't dominate our local government. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:28 pm: | |
Thanks, ffof, and will you come and personally sign the checks for the home improvements I'll still be unable to make if my taxes stay the same? Otherwise my house will deteriorate in value further and you'll end up paying more while my neighborhood begins to look like what most people fear about Irvington and Newark. Is this really what we want for Maplewood? (Aside from questions of basic legality and fairness, that is.) AGAIN, WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR REPARATIONS OF PAST OVERPAYMENT. WE JUST WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REST OF THE TOWN. Why does this continue to be so hard to understand? IT IS NOT MY JOB TO MAKE YOU MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT YOUR TAXES. It is my job to pay MY FAIR SHARE and no more. It is your job to pay your fair share under the laws as written. Do you really need to start this whole discussion all over again?? And no, my house was not underassessed. A bit over, but not under by any means.
Bacata |
|