| Author |
Message |
    
Aruba18
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 12:27 am: |     |
Nilmiester-
You have a very interesting idea of "rich" people. Not being one myself,I joined Fairtax because ANYONE who felt that their assessment was way out of bounds was, and is, welcome. Even you!
I can tell you that as a member of Fairtax, its name is exactly what it stands for-FAIR TAXES!!
Damellon-you are 100% on target-now all we need is a logical thinking group to run our town!
Eb1154-Your take on Fairtax is interesting, but wrong.Fairtax NEVER gave the impression that they speak for everyone whose taxes are going up, rather, they are realists who, like myself, realize that taxes are here to stay, and are necessary, unfortunately.I don't mind paying my fair share, the problem is that the reval has allocated an extremely UNFAIR SHARE to many residents, who, incidentally, are certainly not "rich".I think that the people who are taking pot-shots at Fairtax are those who: 1)didn't join (that's their fault), 2)are either happy because they are getting a decrease, which they could have gotten before by appealing, or are unhappy because they never took the time to find out what Fairtax is all about, and now feel like outsiders. While Fairtax is trying to represent the interests of the ENTIRE town, it is rather hard when people like you are ignorant of their hard work and efforts and continually decry their efforts. Instead of being so negative about Fairtax, why not join and see if their efforts help you too. If you benefit from their efforts, then I am sure that you will not complain about them anymore. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 8:04 am: | |
Wow, you guys got so ANGRY after my post! There were exclamation points!!!!! for goodness sake! That means that I truly do not think that that would be a legal alternative - it was posted with complete sarcasm and I guess I'll have to stop that since it was obvious you guys weren't able to stop and chuckle. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 8:19 am: | |
HOWEVER, the one underlying point in the post is that we DO all share services, and I am just lamenting that this reval was done based purely on real estate values (I know i know it's the freaking law) without a nod toward the fact that this IS one town and we DO share services and maybe there should have been an underlying "shared base", if you will, and then go from there. |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 10:09 am: | |
Aruba,
What hard work is Fairtax doing? You don't have to say, but I'd be curious to know how you think they've helped your situation?
Ffof: I think I'm going to put up a whole separate post about "shared services." I'd like to know if they were the basis of the last reval, but also I think they are very regressive, and I wonder why others don't see them that way. |
Mwood
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 3:01 pm: | |
Aruba - do you read what you write? I hope you're not in charge of pr for Fairtax... I for one am getting an increase and although I'm not thrilled about it I understand it. I'm highly suspicious of someone who was unable to arrange an interview with CV after 3 calls - that seems awfully convenient for your cause. Frankly everyone I know personally was able to get interview without a problem. The fact that you don't even have a copy of your property card makes me wonder how worried you are about your taxes and certainly proves that you should spend your time taking care of your own business and a little less time at the keyboard. You don't even seem to understand the basics of what has been posted here time and again. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 5:39 pm: | |
Townie,
You asked Aruba how he/she thought Fairtax has helped her situation. I'm not Aruba, but permit me to answer as if the question were directed at me.
It appears to me that Fairtax contributed to raising the overall level of public awareness of the revaluation and its implications. It is an arguable point, no doubt, about how much Fairtax raised the level of public awareness, but speaking strictly for myself, they performed a service. Largely as a result of their initial fliers and messages, I, for one, became aware of many more issues concerning the reval than I would have otherwise.
Rightly or wrongly, it certainly appears to me that the TC was ill-prepared to deal with, and was indeed surprised by, the results of the revaluation and perhaps even more surprised by the intensity of the public outcry. That very same public outcry was helped along by Fairtax; that outcry seems to have helped move the TC to take the constructive steps that they have recently undertaken.
Did Fairtax do it with methods and positions that I always and consistently agree(d) with? No, of course not. Would I, personally, have chosen somewhat different language in certain instances (e.g., "in their faces")? I'd like to think so, but I wonder if it would have been as effective. Would I like to see Fairtax's cloak of anonymity lifted even more? Absolutely. Do I want Fairtax go away? Not hardly (no more than I'd like to see Townie go away!). In short, I'd like to see Fairtax mature as an organization.
All of the posters to this board (including Harold)play an important role: continuing the dialog, exchanging points of view, sharing information and knowledge. It would be very strange indeed, and prettty dull, if we all agreed on everything!
Disagree if you must; agree if you wish. But whichever the case, post it! |
Franny
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 9:50 pm: | |
Waynecaviness - Well stated! |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 10:40 pm: | |
(long post warning, read at your own risk)
Waynecaviness,
I never tried to silence Fairtax. And I almost never agree with anybody about anything! Diversity is among the top 3 reasons I moved here.
My own experience of becoming aware of these issues and Fairtax has been different. When I got my assessment, I called Certified and got a meeting, and I called Ed Gallante to talk with him about the likely tax bill. I got satifactory responses from both. I thought it was unfortunate that my house had been assessed at its highest market value, but since my neighbors all agreed their assessments were in line with the market prices we'd been seeing, I prepared to pay.
When the News-Record published that the TC felt that it appeared that were mistakes on Euclid and Durand (I live on Durand), I felt I needed to make sure my house wasn't overassessed relative to similar houses on Roosevelt or Hickory, etc. At that point, among other things, I put myself on Fairtax's e-mail list. They sent me meeting notifications, which I already knew about.
I enjoyed the rowdy scene at the first Town meeting, up to a point. I actually left after the township committees statement because I heard what I needed to hear: The formulaic mistake made by Certified could be corrected administratively by the tax assessor. It was.
There was a point when my spouse and I decided early on that since suspicion and anger about the whole reval seemed so strong, it should be redone just to satisfy people. But then I realized what that would mean to other people all across town, especially those who had been ovepaying, and all the possible costs to the town. I also realized what a small group of people it was, relative to the size of the whole town, who were wildly angry or needed individual adjustments beyond the ones made by Ed Gallante and Certified in bubble market neighborhoods.
By the time of the second meeting at the school, I came hoping to hear answers about the assessment process. When Gallante was booed down, and when people got up to make insulting speeches, I left. I felt the mob was counterproductive (people on these boards are still trying to figure out what Gallante could have told them that night.) In the meantime, the e-mails I received from Fairtax and people that piggy-backed onto their e-mail list were insisting on a rejection and redoing of the whole reval, despite the fact that even these people now recognized their assessments are fair -- and I mean fair -- market value. I also received e-mails that indicated to me that Fairtax members were interested in using this reval controversy for further budget cutting, etc. Whether Fairtax will permit itself to be used this way remains to be seen.
I'm all for grassroots organizing and community participation. I believe in accountability for elected officials and watchdog groups. Fairtax isn't my cup of tea at all, and I think their emotional agenda about the reval will hurt the town, especially if it comes to class action lawsuits, which they continually drop hints about, including in the letter posted by "Citizen" on these boards. And, needless to say, having people who identify themselves with Fairtax or who can be reached through Fairtax call me gutless, lacking integrity, and try to bully me into doing what they wanted (as they do the TC) didn't make me think they were best thing that ever happened to Maplewood.
The values I most care about in Maplewood aren't property values. Seriously. And apart from Fairtax's tactics and tone (despite the puppy dog voice that finally appeared on these boards, instead of the growling dogs), I don't think the Fairtax people are offering anything realistic anymore. Maplewood can't go as it has been. Postponing the inevitable only steals from our neighbors.
Could the part-time TC have done it all better? I don't know. But I do know that if the TC had given out one-tenth as much bad information and evasive answers as Fairtax, I dare not think what would have happened to those five people.
WayneCaviness, I strongly agree these boards are a highly useful place to discuss the reval and other issues. Especially since physical neighbors by necessity tend to avoid disagreeing. The boards are the place to be honest with one another all across town. I got plenty mad at Fairtax's rather dumb "Citizen" letter, and their singling me out as their big target, but it would be better if they visited these boards more often. This is the real grassroots org in the town. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 11:08 pm: | |
Our of curiosity Townie, how long have you lived here? |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:02 am: | |
Townie,
Thanks for providing more perspective on your personal experiences through the reval process. It does help understand some of your positions. Its purely conjecture on my part, of course, but I get the feeling that since you didn't personally suffer the slings and arrows of an outrageous CV factual valuation error, and hence became comfortable with the assessed valuation assigned to your home, that it has been easier to maintain your very rational outlook.
One thing about your post concerns me: your initial sentence says that you "never tried to silence Fairtax". I hope you didn't get any inference from my post to that effect, because I certainly did not intend to say anything at all like that. Quite the contrary. Your rejoinders to their jabs have been, IMHO, quite thoughtful but nonetheless pointed.
I must say that had the TC not taken the very constructive steps that it has (independent review of CV's work, assessors office review, etc), in place of the earlier indications that those with grievances were to be simply shuffled off the county, I probably would have leaned very much toward the "reject and redo" camp.
I admit that I'm disappointed that you seem to minimize the concerns of those whose valuations appear still in need of correction as a "small group...relative to the size of the whole town...[who]needed adjustments" . The exact size of that group is as yet undetermined; we simply don't know.
Will those that are satisfied that their assessments are essentially correct and those whose taxes are anticipated to decline, bother to verify the details in their assessment? Some will and some won't. Would not all be doing the township a service by doing so? We, as taxpayers, paid CV approximately 400k for this work. We need to know if we got what we paid for. Yes, the independent appraiser is going to check CV's work. Each of us checking the details of our assessments and bringing any factual errors to the attention of the assessors office should assist the township in getting an idea of the efficacy of CV's work.
The remaining task is to see this thing through to a fair and equitable conclusion for all. |
Aruba18
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 6:44 am: | |
Waynecaviness- your response to Townie was right on the mark. Thank you! |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 8:43 am: | |
Nilmeister,
Ordinarily (and even last week) I would have told you, no problem. But some people made such a big, nasty deal out of trying to find out who I am (while they pore over the assessments database, address by address?) I've become reluctant to say much. A person shouldn't need to first declare all their assets, tax problems and life history (not that you were asking, Nil) to state an opinion about Maplewood's reval.;-]
Maybe I'll change my board name to ManfrmMars (or Venus).;-0 |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 9:45 am: | |
Townie - Here's an example of a house on "the hill" that was purchased in Nov. 1995 for $374,900. Nice big house with 10 rooms, 6 bedrooms, 3.1 baths, nice piece of property, walking distance to the train, on one of the more desirable streets, etc. This house is now assessed at $488,000. Sounds like this homeowner will be paying his "fair share", right? Around $13,400/yr. Here's the problem: The houses that sold in 2000 on this street that were similar (actually SMALLER) sold for well over $600,000. As a matter of fact, nothing on this street sold in 2000 for less than a half mil. The smaller "handyman special" that sold next door to this particular house sold for $500,000 in the year 2000.
Do you think this homeowner is going to seek to be fairly assessed (up)? Do you think it's fair that this house "on the hill" among smaller houses selling $100,000 MORE than his assessment allows the rest of the town to absorb this underassessment? What would you do Townie?
That's the silent side of the flawed assessment. There are still huge errors that are spread out to each and every taxpayer to absorb.That's not fair taxes by a long shot. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 9:51 am: | |
Waynecaviness,
I think my perspective really was formed by this: Where I live, above the village, people got their assessments and really said next to nothing about them, other than: Too bad they used the top of the market. And that was it. It wasn't until they heard what they'd be paying in TAXES that they jumped out of their chairs. Now, that's perfectly understandable. But I'd like to point out: This argument for most people never started out as being about assessments.
For a few, yes, probably including the small group that ultimately formed Fairtax. I heard that about 10 people on Roosevelt Road arranged to meet to discuss their assessments, and by the time the space was found, some 200 people came to the meeting. Did Fairtax organize that? I don't know. (Do you?) I had the impression it was independent of Fairtax. What I'm trying to say is: If Fairtax never existed, 500 people would have shown up at that TC meeting anyway once the mil rate figure was released. Many of them never heard of Fairtax and still don't know who they are.
There used to be about 150 e-mail boxes listed on the address line of Fairtax's e-mails. I'd be surprised if all those households considered themselves "members" of Fairtax. Many just signed up to get whatever info they could. The few people who write Fairtax's public protests make it seem they represent the groundswell. They may even believe it. But I get the impression all of Fairtax fits into a living room, which is why their letters just appear out of nowhere, and provoke surprise and disagreement even from their supporters.
But don't get me wrong, Waynecaviness: When I got my assessment, I called Certified and made an appointment just to go over the property card with them. I'm surprised people didn't do that just as routine thing. (Admittedly, I'm self-employed, so it's easier.) I really DON'T trust government processes. They almost always make mistakes. It's just a question of: How big this time?
And I actually lost sleep about the reval, even though I can afford the increase (after deductions). I thought the anger it stirred was bad for the community; I was worried about my elderly neighbors; I couldn't tell if CV's errors warranted a redo or whether the process could be handled administratively. The only reason I came to these boards was to discuss those questions.
I agree no one knows how many individual homes have been mis-assessed. But if there are any remaining whole neighborhoods wrongly assessed, I don't know which ones they are and I no longer hear talk like that. When I talk about a "small number relative to the size of the town" I'm only going by my sense of what's happening in my neck of Maplewood, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate how nerve-wracking and aggravating it must be to believe your house is overassessed by tens of thousands, and to feel you'll have to fight alone to get it right.
But listening to my friends and neighbors talk, it becomes apparent to me that many don't understand what their house means in terms of an assessment. Essentially CV was interested in the size and basic livability of the structure (a working kitchen? how many baths?), and looks at a house (like an insurance company) more like an assortment of generic building materials. If CV counted 4 instead of 3 bedrooms, even a corrected assessment isn't going to reduce the taxes much.
For me, the question of going after CV for compensation for errors is finally just a cost-benefit analysis. I don't need my pound of flesh from CV if it's going to cost the town $60,000 to take it to trial. I say: Bye bye.
And when people calm down (?) maybe we can have a rational discussion about how the TC became aware of the mistakes and if they should have known earlier. I'll add this to the pot: Since so few of us with high assessments were complaining in December and early January, I'm not surprised the TC wasn't in crisis-mode. The numbers were believable given recent history. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 10:06 am: | |
Fairtax01,
How much is the other house assessed for? "Handyman" has less to do with houses on the hill than land value. And what are the other houses on the street assessed for that are similiar in landsize? You're putting too much emphasis on "house" and not enough on land.
Also, the law says that houses can't be assessed on the basis of a peak or bubble. I think everyone agrees that Oct 2000 represented that. So how much did the $500,000 come down in assessment?
Are people in the hills aware that you all are poring over their individual house assessments trying to get them adjusted upwards? Have you e-mailed them about that?
Waynecaviness, Aruba: Are you sure you want to hang out with these people? |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 10:36 am: | |
PS, Fairtax:
Did you ask the homeowners if they wanted their assessments discussed publicly before posting them? Or are they your own personal assessments? I don't think you should discuss individual situations in detail on these boards unless its your own personal situation, even though all assessments are a matter of public record.
So in answering my question, please don't reveal anymore about individual homeowners in Maplewood. The short answer to your question is: If the market for such houses in Oct 2000 was $500,000, a reduction of $12,000 to adjust for the bubble is warranted. I wouldn't advise any such homeowner to appeal. Their assessment sounds legal, which is what is required. Fair is a matter of perception, and it's the law that matters, not how people feel about it. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 10:47 am: | |
Fairtax, I'm wondering about the $488K house. Is it on the market? If so, the buyers are going to have a rude awakening in a year or so. Since houses will be revalued annually or biannually from now on (if the reval is certified), a house that sells should take on the sale price as its assessment.
I think potential buyers in Maplewood should find out their assessments, and not just the tax amount. For example, the $488K house selling for $550K is bound to raise taxes over 10% if all other houses in the neighborhood sell at or near their current valuations.
Townie, I agree -- I think that it doesn't make ANY difference whether 3 or 4 bedrooms in terms of the valuation. My valuation appears to be based on square footage and number and quality of bathrooms, type of heat, and porches or patios. So you're right -- the valuation is not going to be different.
The other thing you pointed out is the land. It's all about location. Houses in Maplewood are valued at the same rates for things that are equal. In fact, I'm not sure plaster walls and sheetrock makes any difference in the rates. Thinks like moldings, marble fireplaces, etc. don't seem to factor in. The biggest difference is the location. The closer you are to the train station, the higher the price. And Wyoming is much closer to it than Springfield. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 10:53 am: | |
Townie,
I'm not trying to get homeowner's assessments to reflect anything other than the fair market value.
Townie - what would you do if this house was your house? Would you try to correct the error? Would you question a $488,000 assessment in a neighborhood where not one house sold under 500,000? The house most similar to this house in question - on the same street(except SMALLER house/property)sold for 650K in July 2000.
I don't think it matters what the rest of Durand is assessed for if it's not the fair market value. It's conceivable that entire streets are underassessed. What about the people who have been overpaying for years? Why should their tax relief be reduced because other homes are now undervalued? |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 11:16 am: | |
Njjoseph - (you guys are fast!) This house is not on the market. If it went on the market today I had 1 Realtor tell me it could go for close to $700,000 - easy. The owner of this house is saving thousands a year by the underassessment. The rest of the town will pay for this homeowner's "windfall". |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 11:36 am: | |
Townie,
To reply to your last question first: I can't speak for Aruba, so speaking strictly for myself, yes, I do want to "hang out" (at least metaphorically) with those people, as long as I can hang out with Townie, Nakaille/Bacata, Njjoseph, Melidere, Aruba, et al at the same time!
And no, I don't know anything about the origins of Fairtax at all. I initially became aware of them as a result of fliers at the train station and overhearing snippets of conversation on the train.
And yes, of course,if the cost of pursuing redress exceeds any possible benefit, chalk it up to a lesson learned. But we don't know that yet, do we? I am under the impression that steps are being taken by the TC to find out. I hope so.
You may be wondering why I seem to continue to bring up this matter of redress. Heres why: as a consultant for many years, I can tell you that if I had made as many factual errors in an engagement as CV appears to have made in this one, I would have been in front of lawyers, giving depositions, long before now! |
|