| Author |
Message |
    
Jham
| | Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:24 pm: |     |
I'm with Waynecaviness, the data in jerry's spreadsheets suggests that CV probably did overly rely on 2000 sales data. Of course we really don't know what they did since they haven't shown up at either of the town meetings. What's more the person I met with at CV stated he didn't know what the firm's methodology was and all he could do was review my property report card with me.....this is crucial to the issue, after all these weeks we still don't know what CV did, we need to get the facts!!
At any rate my concern is that 2000 was a bubble year and this serves as the basis for my tax assessment. I belive a fair method would be to ensure that 3 years of comps are factored into the methodology -- not undue reliance on a single incredible bubble year -- just look where the NASDAQ is now. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 1:04 pm: | |
At my meeting with Certified, I was shown a list of the 7 comparables used to come up with my assessment--6 from 2000 and 1 from 1999. I was told that the one from 1999 was not given much weight and that prior years are used only if there are not enough sales to look at from the current year. BTW, one of the comparables sold for $675,000 in 2000 and $310,000 in 1999--the same house. I think that is a great illustration of why people are questioning the near total reliance on 2000 amounts to determine "true value". |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 10:11 pm: | |
But it DOES mean something that the value (fair market) DOUBLED in one year. Perhaps some improvements were made. Perhaps it was the bidding wars. That is still the fair market value. If there had been 5 years of declining prices and then the "bubble", you could say there was undue weight given to the last year. But if the market is in a rising trend (wasn't that what Mr. Galante was trying to say), then that's the trend you have to deal with. One could argue that minus the reval, the trend would have continued even further, making the current prices too low rather quickly.
Bacata |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 11:07 am: | |
I think the problem here is believing that the assessor's job was to apply a set of rules fixed by some governing body and then give us the results, whether those results refelected the current market value of our homes or not. Were that the case, it would make sense to insist on certain formulas. But the assessor's job is only to ascertain the likely selling price of my home today, its market value. The most accurate way to do that, I suppose, would be to put a sign on my lawn and see what happens. But obviously that's impossible, so they use statistical models that try to capture a picture of the current real estate market in Maplewood. There are guidelines to be sure, but the validity (and legality) of the model is determined by whether it produced the correct result. If you look at Jerry's database, the assessments appear to be quite in line with homes are selling for in Maplewood. Individual homeowners may need to take their individual case to the assessor, because any reval is likely to produce individual mistakes, but re-doing the reval so that it produces below market values wouldn't be legally acceptable, I suspect. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 4:35 pm: | |
Bacata: I agree that $675,000 was the market value by definition at that time (must have been some swell renovations!). But the question is what is the "true" value for assessment purposes? Is it a "gotcha" number at the peak of the market? I think it is supposed to reflect a value that will endure over time. Will the $675,000 endure? I'm sure lots of people hope so, but it seems unlikely. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 8:40 pm: | |
Jerry Ryan: Seems to me that your statements rather make the same point that I was trying to make: on average the appraisals were pretty close to the sales price. Sales prices observed in 2000, that is, apparently at the top of a highly charged market. And that is not in keeping with the spirit or intent of the assessor's manual (at least as it has been represented to the attendees of the last two meetings). (Perhaps someone with more "appraiser knowledge" could make a contribution here?)
Townie: the assessor's job, as I understand it, is definitely not to ascertain the "likely selling price of my home today, its market value".
That is exactly why the description in the assessor's manual is couched in terms of investment, not speculation. The language is couched in terms of long-term sustaining value, not a roaring bull market nor a bottom-falling-out bear market, but a value that bears some semblance to long-term reality. You speak of trends: try plotting the sales data for that last several years and see what you get. An extrapolation of the last three years sales data suggests an exponential growth in values, virtually to infinity but certainly to absurd values. If you are happy with your taxes now, look at this trend and try thinking about what they would be under the kind of scenario you're talking about! Permit me to reiterate: we're talking homes here, not tech stocks nor tulip bulbs.
Almost by definition, there should be many who feel that there homes are valued correctly. Those folks (approximately 57%, isn't it?) whose assessments have produced no significant change in their taxes probably don't feel the same motivation to examine their assessments as closely as those whose taxes have significantly increased. But they should examine them nonetheless. Once again, to reiterate, Certified has apparently made a significant number of factual errors. To wit: even if you're taxes are expected to decline, they may not be declining as much as you're due.
By the way, I'm definitely not in favor of redoing this assessment. I am in favor of everyone who feels that their assessment is erroneous, being able to avail themselves of an appeal process. To their credit, the TC has begun to put into place that mechanism. I am also in favor of the TC obtaining legal advice as to the possibility of obtaining redress against Certified for what appears to be an error-filled performance. |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 10:40 pm: | |
Hi Waynecaviness,
My taxes are scheduled to go up (never happy about that) but I feel that the current assessment is not at the market peak or the bubble, but bears quite a bit of semblance to long term reality, and I'm not thinking wishfully. It's merely a fair market price, that is actually quite a bit below what I would hope to get, but certainly what I would settle for. And when I look at the assessments on Jerry's database for the hills above the village, I think the numbers by and large look right. They don't look absurd. The Midtown Direct has added a lot to the longterm marketability of Maplewood's homes. |
Aruba18
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 3:58 am: | |
Jerry-thanks for the info. Unfortunately, it only served to reinforce our suspicion that the entire process is totally flawed! We live on Curtiss, right next to your street. Using your table above, it shows that in 2000 the average price of a home in town was $283,839.00. In our area, in 2000, the average price of a home was $527,019.00. Assuming these figures are correct, please explain how our valuation is $750,800.00? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 7:41 am: | |
Aruba18: I don't know where you live, which house is yours, what improvements you might have made, etc. and I am not an appraiser, so I can't explain your house.
Since the database shows that there is NO HOUSE on Curtiss that is appraised at $750,800, now I am REALLY not sure. If, however, you are the house appraised at $700,800, then I guess I do know where you live and who you are, though.
If I am right, here are some facts from the database:
It looks like you bought your house for about the same amount as I bought mine, and in about the same time frame. It also looks like your sale in 1998 was 120K below the next highest sale on Curtis in that year, and 180K below the other sale on Curtis. It also looks like yours WAS the third highest appraisal on Curtis before the reval and is NOW the highest after the reval. The highest-appraised house (pre reval) on Curtis sold in 2000 for 625K.
Do these facts reinforce your position that the "entire process was totally flawed"?
Did you meet with Certified? [my guess is no since i gather you did not receive a letter from them with a revised assessment].
Have you applied to have the Assessor check your assessment? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 7:58 am: | |
>>Assuming these figures are correct, please explain how our valuation is $750,800.00?
According to my latest version of the spreadsheet, the highest valuation on Curtiss is $700,800.00 and the average assessment is $534,940.63. The sale prices aren't very useful because the most recent one is July 96 (for $625,000). |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 8:01 am: | |
My mistake (or maybe Excel's or Jerry's) about the dates. There are recent sale dates on Curtis, as Jerry says. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 8:04 am: | |
No there are recent ones on that street. |
Nicky
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:00 am: | |
Jerry:
If the highest sale in 2000 was 750k, how is a house assessed around 900k( no it's not the Frank Lloyd Wright house)?
It seems highly optimistic for Maplewood. |
Newurbanist
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:09 am: | |
Nicky,
Where's the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed house? |
Nicky
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:17 am: | |
Newurbanist:
I believe it's on Tower Drive. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:20 am: | |
As I said before I am not an appraiser and have no basis to offer any opinion on any particular home.
I would, however, offer you the following information from the database:
The highest sale in 2000 was $1.1M (not 750). The next highest was $732K. The top 17 sales in 2000 were $600K and above The top 40 sales in 2000 were $500K and above.
There are 4 homes in Maplewood appraised at over $1M.
There are a total of 7 appraised over $900K
15 appraised over $800K
22 over $700K
110 over $600K |
Nicky
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:38 am: | |
Jerry:
Thanks for your response.
But the 1.1m was a condo from the Top(correct me if I'm wrong. I was looking more for information on 1 family residences(which you provided).
I see there are quite a few residences assessed around the same level and more.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to believe my house is worth that much. But I'm also a realist. At that price and above, other nearby neighborhoods become more appealing due to their academic reputation. Have we reached a ceiling? What do you think? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:47 am: | |
There are a bunch of high-end units in the Top, but also a bunch of high-end single family homes here.
I don't know if we have reached a ceiling. Quite frankly, neither does anyone else! |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:16 am: | |
Something's been bothering me about sale dates in looking at the spreadsheets. From what I can observe on my street (Woodside Road) many of them are off by several years, mine included. Sale prices are right, I think, but dates are not. This would seem to be the easiest info to get correct since there is no judgement or professional opinion or factors involved. Just a date from the town clerk's office? Or the county clerk?
Also, what house on Orchard could possibly be over 800K????? It was assessed in '81 at about the same as mine and believe me, there are no upscale houses on Orchard. Not a one. Is there another Orchard that I don't know about?
Bacata |
Nicky
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:21 am: | |
Jerry:
Sorry for getting you excited with that last question. I justed wanted your take.
You see, I have a friend who pulled out of a bidding war on a house on Hickory only because he felt at those dollars he could do better elsewhere. Subsequently, he found a lovely house in Milburn that backs the reservation. He feels he got to stay in the neighborhood(sort of) for a 100k less.
That's why I raised the issue about a ceiling. |
|