| Author | Message | ||
     Buddy |
Anyone else getting constant mailings from local tax appeal lawyers? The vultures are out in force. | ||
| Bobk |
Buddy, I haven't gotten any mailing yet. But please ask them to put me on their lists. LOL  | ||
| Jennie |
Here's a good question that a vulture lawyer type might know the answer to. In the past few weeks the adjustments have been flying. The latest, for traffic, is perplexing. I understand that if no comparable sales exist on a busy street, like Jefferson, then a comparable sale on a nonbusy street would be used but adjusted upward (and why Certified would not do that as a matter of course is mystifying but not a mistake I bet). My problem is with Maplewood Ave. Presumably the values on Maplewood Ave were calculated using one or more of the year 2000 comparables for that block. Presumably, there was traffic on the block at the time the comparable sales were entered into and therefore the condition of the street is already reflected in the sales price. So to adjust the amount calculated using actual sales prices from the block seems arbitrary at best. Does this open the floodgates to other residents to outline conditions on their blocks that may result in an adjustment, regardless of the actual sales prices on their blocks? Will this difference in treatment constitute prohibited discrimination against the residents who do not get similar adjustments? | ||
| Bobk |
Jennie: The impression I got from Ed Galante's comments last night was that the values were not based on block, but on neighborhoods. This would tend to overvalue blocks with less desireable features such as traffic. | ||
| Teach66 |
Hmm... so what you're telling me now is that we really aren't using the comparables - which we told we were using all along? (But then again weren't we were supposed to be using 3 years worth all along? Oh that's right only until CV found out that there wasn't a "trend", only a 6 month spike!) And now "adjustments" are being made for things like - traffic, views, etc.? Wasn't the traffic and views there at the time the SALE was made? If a house was sold for $300,000 isn't that what it is worth? Or is it really worth less (or more) based on the number of cars, buses and trucks that pass it? What about number of street signs? What about number of cars parked on the street all day? - or should we add to those streets that don't have cars parked on it all day??? Sounds, like a lot of "adjustments" to me, a lot of mistakes, more sloppy work - just a pathetic job. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Teach -- I don't think anyone in any official position said that the assessment is based on comparables, at least not in the way you're taking it. Mfpark, another poster on this board, mentioned comps, and I know a lot of people are trying to use comps to make their points clear. However, the houses have always been appraised using the residential cost approach. Comps only come into play when you are referring to class/quality, i.e. 16 for an average-constructed wood frame house vs. 18 for a better-constructed house kept in good shape. If your house is an 18, and you think it's falling apart compared to other 18s, you should ask for a review. | ||
| Jennie |
Valued by neighborhood--but 4 out of the 6 year 2000 neighborhood comparables (and in fact the highest sales price) were Maplewood Avenue sales. | ||
| Bobk |
Sick system isn't it. This is more complicated than learning about chads. From what Mr. G said last night it appears, at least to me, that the assessors took recent sales and then used the Residential Cost Approach to determine the value of the structure. The difference between the sale price and the structure value was basically the land cost. The land cost, other than as respects special conditions, was then fixed by neighborhood. The individual house structure cost for other homes in the neighborhood was then determined on an ACV basis was by using the above mentioned RCA and that value was added to the land value including the infamous site charge. Simple, huh? Maybe, but flawed because CV and the Township Assessor really don't know Maplewood that well. They don't know which streets are really busy, which streets have lower values in a neighborhood than others, etc. Now we are at the stage where the well organized are getting whole streets revalued and the lucky few who have recent appraisals because of refinancing or purchases also appear to be getting deals. Ok, I have thrown my hissyfit and have to get back to work. | ||
| Commonsense |
A lot of the reductions from Certified are just reductions in land values-they have nothing to do with individual complaints about process-mislabeled rooms,(e.g. overhangs over outside steps being labeled as "porches"), lower comparables in the neighborhood, use of three years data, and true analysis of a house's condition. Just another example of how truly flawed the process is. The only right way to do this is to do it again- and to do it right! | ||
| Papa |
put me on there list to,.,,,,, | ||
| Njjoseph |
Commonsense, if you watched the workshop, you should have heard Mr. Galante's response that they had to classify the overhang as something, and therefore, it is an open porch. It's across the board, and homeowners will not have luck in appealing that type of thing. | ||
| Euclidean |
Lawyers thrive on fuzzy laws. Moreover, given the complexity of this whole process, if I don't like my final valuation, I may just hire a tax lawyer to figure things out. Understanding tax law should not have to be full-time occupation for those being taxed. Some of us don't have the time and some of us don't have the ability to fully understand what is happening and that is just plain WRONG. I believe that property tax laws will be drastically reformed when they start to collapse under the attack of thousands of lawsuits. Unfortunately, in the process, real people and real towns will get hurt. However, unless we have one of those rare visionary moments in Trenton politics, I don't expect the state government to be proactive in this area. | ||
| Tracks |
Lawyers write the fuzzy laws. We should sue the lawyers. And of course tax attorneys hate terms like tax reform. They thrive on confusing tax laws. | ||
| Euclidean |
Lawyers suing lawyers???? Isn't that part of Armageddon? | ||
| Tomr |
"First thing, let's kill all the lawyers". Don't agree, or disagree, unless you know the source of the quote, and understand what Will was telling us. TomR. | ||
| Melidere |
"Shakespeare's acknowledgment that the first thing any potential tyrant must do to eliminate freedom is to "kill all the lawyers" is, indeed, a classic and well-deserved compliment to our distinguished profession." Ask Jeeves This sure reads a bit differently to me after the last round of supreme court decisions. | ||
| Shakespeare |
Throughout his work, Shakespeare's lawyers are liars, tricksters, acquisitive, calculating snakes, and enemies of the common man (not a personal opinion, mind you) -- cf. Hamlet, Timon of Athens, As You Like It, Romeo and Juliet. Of course, if you go to a lawyer's web site to verify this, you'll get a new interpretation |
