Archive through February 8, 2001

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Author Message   Njjoseph Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 1:31 pm:        Dytunck: You're right -- it's flawed! Since the law states market value as of October 1, most homes are probably underassessed, even after the reval. :-) Would everyone like to have their assessments match the sale price? No! My purchase price is a few thousand more than the assessment. I take that as a sign that 1998 and 1999 were factored in somehow. Dytunck, you still haven't said whether my interpretation could be correct, or if you are absolutely certain yours is correct. Let's hope someone (hey Vic!) can shed some light on that. However, your chart shows EXACTLY that on average, houses went up over 50% in one year. Well, not really, because maybe the higher houses went on the market in 2000, while the lower-valued ones went on in 1999. But still, it's hard to hard to ignore the rise in prices. Until 2001 data are in, we'll never know if it was a spike or a trend.   Waynecaviness Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 1:36 pm:        Dytunck, Would you explain "1999 Assessments", "1998 Assessments", etc. Prior to the current rash of craziness, the last assessment was in 1981. Source of your numbers? (I know it will be immediately obvious once you tell me; I also it won't until you do!) Thanks.   Njjoseph Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 1:41 pm:        Jennie -- you're mistaken, at least the way that many of us have interpreted remarks on this board by Jerry Ryan. Once these assessments are certified, they will be entered into a database. Each year or two, assessments will be revised based on market values of houses sold. I'm sure you can find this in the archives, and I know Euclidean made mention of it this week or last.   Njjoseph Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 1:47 pm:        Jennie, also: I reviewed the spreadsheet but didn't find ANY house in Maplewood that is assessed between $690K and $700K that sold in 2000. Where are you getting these figures? I'm trying to made head-or-tails out of your posting. I looked at the 8 sales on Walton and Maplewood, of which 6 have lower assessments than sale price, 1 is $1000 different, and the 8th is 6.7% assessment higher than sale price.   Yvette Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 2:15 pm:        Mtierney - Do you think your house is worth the 5x increase?   Dytunck Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 2:19 pm:        Wayne, Sorry for the confusion. "2000 Assessments" means the cumulative current assessments on all homes that actually sold in 2000. "1999 Assessment" means the cumulative current assessment for all properties that actually sold in 1999. I'm comparing what the actual sales were with what CVI assessed them for in 2000. The 2000 sales are under assessed by 19%. The previous years are over assessed by as much as 30% NJ: Regarding your interpretation, which I quote,"However, my take was that the formula for land was based on ACTUAL SALES. Therefore, 'X' is not subjective." My response with the chart did address your interpretaion. I demonstrated clearly that 2000 ACTUAL numbers were not used. Therefore, the numbers were subjective. Therefore, I stand by my critique. Your interpretaion is the "party line", and that's what EG will tell you, but I have disproved that. If the actual values for 2000 were to be used, why weren't they? (They were not) Why are the assessments on 2000 sales 19% below the 2000 actual values? Why are previous years assessments 32% above actual sales? Dytunck   Njjoseph Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 2:26 pm:        Then I would hate to have the revaluation redone, because things will get worse. As I said before, I thought 1998 and 1999 were taken into account. Oh well, after Ed's less-than-stellar comment on the 1998 and 1999 sales, I guess I'll have to side with you on this one. It's a shame, because they could easily have explained it using the argument that there was a calculation based on averages of 1998 and 1999 sales that may have been 10% to 20% of the assessed cost.   Waynecaviness Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 2:50 pm:        Yvette, I'm not Mtierney, but permit to answer as if the question were directed to me: Am I happy with the very large increase in the value of our house? No, I'm not. I would have been delighted, utterly and totally happy, to sell our house for $150,000 less than CV's first valuation. Except that I knew that it would have been impossible to do so. It was so far-fetched, I just couldn't believe it! The "neighborhood adjustments" lowered the valuation some, but I would still be delighted and utterly happy to sell the house for a whole lot less than the assessed valuation. It just ain't possible! Conversations with realtors/appraisers have affirmed such. It is not just my imagination. The bottom line of many of the discussions on this board and the presentations by Galante appears to be this: market value is whatever Galante says it is. As the assessor, he appears able to do whatever he wants to in order to get the numbers that he wants. It has been noted elsewhere that it seems to be the intention of the township to be able to harness good ol'computer power to update assessments on a much more regular basis. Fine. But, lets get this one right first! Dytunck: thanks for clarification. Now I get it!   Jennie Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 3:09 pm:        NJ: I looked at actual sales prices for 2000. The assessment is derived from comparable sales, not from comparable assessments.   Njjoseph Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 3:11 pm:        I misunderstood your previous posting, Jennie, sorry! I don't think comps come into play, though. Only neighborhoods.   Teach66 Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 3:38 pm:        Does anybody REALLY understand any of this???   Ffof Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 4:15 pm:        You don't have to, Teach, because it's all "bunk". They(CV? the TC? EG? TC to EG to CV?!) backed into these numbers to get the results they wanted - many people said as much in the beginning of January, but alas, time has gone by and now we have proof...we also have a big ugly mess.   Volunteer Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 4:26 pm:        Jennie - How do you know what comparables were used to value your house? I'd be interested in finding out what comparables were used for mine. Thanks in advance.   Dytunck Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 5:10 pm:        Ffof, you got that right. It cannot be fixed in the next few weeks. The TC should have enough concern for the town to do the prudent thing, and that is to defer the revaluation until it can be done properly. I happen to agree that one is needed, and it is only fair. But a bad one does more harm than good. Dytunck   Jennie Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 5:20 pm:        Volunteer: I was shown a list of the comparables used at my meeting with Certified. NJ: "Neighborhood" amounts are derived from comparable sales--exactly how isn't clear.   Ffof Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 5:27 pm:        Nice color Dytunck! Howdja do that?   Dytunck Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 5:40 pm:        Ffof, There's all sorts of stuff you can do. I only hope my message stands out enough for people to read. Dytunck   Ffof Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 5:58 pm:        Ok Dytunck - I found how to do the color (the large EDIT icon at the top of my screen) but how do i transfer it to the board? I'm such a novice and my daughter is too busy doing her homework to help me! Kids these days...   Dytunck Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 6:17 pm:        Fickle, Are you asking me to divulge my inner-most secret? Dytunck   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 7:15 pm:        Yvette: You are mostly correct on the first two points: if the bill is enacted and if the TC decides to use it, everyone's assessments will change to the new values over a period of years. Those whose taxes would have gone up will not go up as fast. Those whose taxes would have gone down won't go down as fast. Those in the middle should stay in the middle. The total valuation times the rate has to equal the amount to be raised by taxes. If the valuations are transitioned to the new numbers over time, the total valuation under a phase in will be lower, so the rate will be higher. Folks in the middle will be unchanged. Do I think it's FAIR? Well, it's more fair than the old act, which only gives a benefit to those whose taxes are going up. It's more fair to folks whose taxes are going up several thousand dollars to try and provide them some kind of relief than to not. But your question is exactly what the town will have to grapple with. Let me ask it this way: if a circumstance could be constructed where everyone getting a large tax reduction got $100-$200 less of a reduction (still a reduction, but less of one) in the first year so that folks getting large decreases could get $400-$500 less of an increase (still an increase, but less of one), would that be fair? I'd personally need to look at the entire town and see where things fall in detail before agreeing to something like this, but at least in concept it seems more fair than most alternatives I have seen. And please, again: this is not a law yet, and if it becomes law we would have to decide if anh how exactly to use it. This is all a conversation about a hypothetical circumstance. You asked me for a detailed breakdown about percentages of taxes going down, up, and remaining the same. I posted this a few weeks ago, around Jan 19 or 20, in some detail. The next time I get an updated database I will re-post the updated numbers. I refer you to that posting. Some of the summary is: 3.5% of residential properties are going up by $4000 or more 10.7% are going up by $2500 a year or more 25.2% are going up by $1250 or more 13.5% are changing by $500 or less 55.9% are unchanged or decreasing 40.6% are decreasing by $1000 or more 17.6% are decreasing by $2000 or more 2.8% are decreasing by $3000 or more This is current through January 19.