| Author |
Message |
    
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 1:42 pm: |     |
Njjoseph- I'm fine with mine too. Doesn't mean that everyone else is. If you knew your reval was low, comparable to other homes just like yours in your area, would you report it? |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 1:49 pm: | |
Maybe Townie will come back under a different name. But we'll all recognize his/her M.O. - frequent and content rich (i.e. long) messages.  |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 1:55 pm: | |
If everyone's assessment is correct then we don't have any influence on "outing" assessments anyhow. If I go and point out 9 comps that seem underassessed then I'm doing the job of the tax assessor. If someone fell below the assessment radar one time, maybe in two years the mistake would show up. When asssessments are brought up to date regularly it's just a matter of putting in a few stats, it's not as if they have to go door to door again.
If someone is fine with an underassessment, OK, but it would probably be corrected soon. Same goes for over assessments. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:02 pm: | |
Nil, I only meant to comment that just because you don't want to throw out the reval doesn't mean you're underassessed.
However, as far as reporting yourself if you are underassed: it's a tough question, Nil, that I'm sure a lot of people are struggling with. However, I think that we ALL need to report the facts correctly. I have made sure that the important info on my property card is accurate, and I hope I would have done so even if it meant an increase in taxes.
However, most of the features of our houses are on the record, especially if all work was done with permits. Mine falls into this category.
In my situation, I'm listed with a modern kitchen, even though the appliances are over 15 years old, and the cabinets are 50 years old. They were refaced several years ago, so they look nice, but the counter is probably 10 years old or more. Therefore, I think I have an average kitchen.
In addition, I have an area which is listed as an open porch. It's not. It's simply the area in front of the garage where the roof overhangs a bit. The garage is also listed as attached, when it is detached.
I could have these items corrected, and have my playhouse removed. I have no children, and have no intention of using it. However, if all these items were corrected, my tax benefit would be about $50/year. So you see, I'm overassessed (albeit slightly), and I'm not complaining, even though my taxes are going up based on the 2.75%.
And I'm not trying to be noble, either. But I'm not the type to nitpick with such minutiae. I think the house was valued what it's worth, even though some of the cost analysis doesn't work out quite right. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:11 pm: | |
Townie, don't go!!! We love yah, opionated nature and all. Of course I am not opionated....
To get off the personal stuff, this thread is bringing up two issues, both of them somewhat moral in nature:
1/ With a flawed process, a lot of houses have been undervalued a long with a lot of overvalued cases. I know of situations where the inspector missed whole floors!!! Should these people come forward and 'fess up?
2/ Back when this whole mess started and before he had to go into semi-seclusion Ed Gallante made a comment that it will end up with people "ratting out there neighbors". This seemes to be coming to the forefront now. What if I use a house as a comp and it turns out that it was underassessd and their assessment is raised? |
Ffof
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:28 pm: | |
Bobk- I believe your "opion" is getting in the way of your "opinion"! |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 2:34 pm: | |
Townie- I'll never say your posts are too long again!!! |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 3:01 pm: | |
I think I need to step back in here and correct a misimpression that maybe Nilmeister especially has. I appreciate Lydia's clarification very much, but let me clarify a bit further.
Please everybody: get it far out of your minds that the houses that were used as hypotheticals in Lydia's recent postings are ones Lydia has carefully examined for assessment irregularities and that's why she talked about them, believing I must be living in an underassessed house or why else would Townie oppose redoing the reval? I don't care what anyone thinks about me, I just don't want you thinking that the homes discussed yesterday must be such houses because it was suggested they might be mine. The fact that one or two house assessments were momentarily bandied as questionable was just Lydia thinking she was getting a swipe at me. It was only a reflection of her anger at me, not the data on those houses. I'm not sure why those houses came up, no one else is and Lydia, please don't explain!
Lydia: I appreciate your coming forward to make amends. On my own behalf, I certainly accept the apology. Thanks. I tried to write the above in a way that you'd basically have no problem with. I think you too have tried to make it clear that these recent postings really shouldn't be interpreted as cause to wonder about individual assessments.
To everybody else, thanks for the overwhelming sentiments. Nothing anybody has said about me on these boards is causing me to stop posting, including Lydia. If I have something I feel I want to say on these boards I will. Otherwise, I figure we all really do live in Maplewood, so I'll see you around. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 3:23 pm: | |
Fairtax and Townie,
Hey, wait a minute! Just before Dave cut off that other incredibly long thread, I had prepared a post in which I took you both to task for behaving in a schoolyard "He hit me first!" -"Did not!" - "Did to!" manner. Talk about flames! Then Dave closed that thread and I had to go away and make a living.
Now I come back and its all over! Say it ain't so! |
Bobk
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 3:38 pm: | |
Someday I really have to do something about my spelling. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 3:40 pm: | |
In his note to Fairtax above, Dave asserts that Fairtax was "treading on thin ice" in their/her attempts to "out" Townie. This brings up a question (actually several questions, but one thing at a time!)...
The Internet is a wonderful medium for exchanging information, opinions, etc. Anonymity is available when and if desired, which often contributes to openess and frankness.
But in the Fairtax-Townie exchange one of the points of contention seemed to be the referral to actual specific addressess and their tax valuations. My question is this (and Dave, chime in if you wish-make a new thread?): that information is all a matter of public record (as Lseltzer perhaps unintentionally pointed out in his post, which listed several addresses and some information-but not names), as is the names of the residents of those specific addressess. Where is it written, where does it say that it is improper to use them on this or any other public forum? Information that is a matter of public record is accessible by anyone, is it not? And while as of this moment in time, one might have to go to a bricks-and-mortar place to access, it will inevitably be available online. Will the convenience of online accessibility affect how one feels about the usage of this data?
Note that I'm not taking a position here one way or the other, just posing the question for discussion! Respondents to this question will probably be tempted to refer to the Fairtax-Townie case, but lets please try to talk about the principles involved, not what one may or may not have tried to do to the other! |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 3:41 pm: | |
I really do feel I want to add, just to be plain, that my above post to Lydia really isn't meant to take a subtle swipe in any way about her feelings or her abilities. I realized after posting it might be interpreted that way. I'm only trying to dot the last "i" and cross the last "t," about making sure people understand that the hypothetical examples used yesterday really shouldn't be taken as examples of anything untoward about the homeowners or their assessments. I feel like I owe it everybody on my block to make that clear. I don't know if Lydia will be revisiting this thread, but I think she was also trying to make it plain that individual assessments weren't the issue here |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 3:52 pm: | |
>>My question is this (and Dave, chime in if you wish-make a new thread?): that information is all a matter of public record (as Lseltzer perhaps unintentionally pointed out in his post, which listed several addresses and some information-but not names), as is the names of the residents of those specific addressess.
Is that what all this stuff is about? Like Wayne says, like it or not, this is all public data. |
Dave
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 4:05 pm: | |
Wayne,
You can go and lookup a tax block number and an assessed value and tax info. You might even get the owner's name - I don't know. That's public information.
My concern is that people don't really know who others on this board are but they sometimes *think* they do. So when attacking, they are missing their target and hitting an innocent third party (Drive-by-Postings). If it's a one on one "I guess you are_____" and the other poster says, "yes, that's me," that's another thing entirely.
I've got to stop thinking about this stuff.... talk amongst yourselves, please. self-moderate. |
Yvette
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 3:02 pm: | |
I haven't read these posts all weekend - until today and too much has happened that I missed: Townie and Lydia had it out and now Townie is not posting anymore. I don't get it....
Townie: just recently I started reading these threads and after reading your posts I felt I had to start posting...you inspired me...don't stop posting, it seems to come natural for you to express yourself....... |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 3:47 pm: | |
Dave,
Thanks for adding to the list of the world's greatest oxymorons: "self-moderate". This ranks right up there with "military intelligence", and "non-working mothers", not to mention "airline food" and more to the point, "temporary tax increase"! |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page