Archive through February 8, 2001

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

Author Message   Teach66 Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 7:30 pm:        Jennie, finally someone is making sense!! So there were comparables used to make up the "neighborhoods"?? And, "nj", you are saying that if my measly house is thrown into a neighborhood where the comparables are high, then I may have been given a "number" - such as 18 - when I really didn't deserve it, and that's what I should be running to town hall about!(?) Sure there's lots of things that we can do - and that's the whole problem. I feel that the less time I have to spend at town hall, the better the job my representatives are doing... Oh yeah, "nj", I wasn't complaining about what I was at because I didn't know if it was good or bad. Now I am extremely frightened. I get the feeling that because there is one big number that is being "backed into" that everytime someone gets an adjustment down - someone else is getting an adjustment up!! Like I said, it's all about who is squeeking the loudest. Everyone that I know of who has contested has gotten some sort of relief. I'm getting the feeling that because I have been foolishly trusting this "system" all along that I am in for a big-time surprise!!!   Commonsense Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 8:02 pm:        Again, this is why the process must be done fairly from step one and why the entire revaluation process needs to be done over. the reductions (in land value) are leading to the many reductions.Certified is not addressing people complaints about mislabeling parts of houses, bad use of comparables, three years worth of data, or the inside condition of many homes. A flawed process has the now become one that is completely mistrusted and will only serve to bankrupt the town in the long run.   Kap Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 8:05 pm:        Jerry, You must admit that the perception of "fair" very much depends on whether your taxes are going up, down or staying the same. If up, any relief will be considered more "fair". However, if your taxes are going down, and you are forced to continue to bear the burden of paying more than your pro rated share of taxes, then fair it is not; regardless of the magnitude of the incremental overpayment.   Eb1154 Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 8:18 pm:        Jerry, "More fair than the old act" seems to prove the point. It is not fair to those whose taxes should be going down. These people are being asked to pay a portion of someone else's taxes. Before everyone jumps on me ask yourself...Would I be willing to give up some of my money to help someone else in town? I know everyone would like to think they would, but I don't think they would. The assessments show that these people were overpaying so the question is how long will they have to continue to overpay? And it's not just those whose taxes are being decreased effected by this those who are in the middle will be hit harder. If this bill is passed or EG continues to give adjustments to everyone complaining the tax rate will go higher and so will the actual amount of taxes these people pay. The gentlemen from Kendal who spoke the other night at the TC meeting didn't think anyone's taxes should go down by more than 5%, many others on this board suggest pretty much the same theory. So, am I correct in assuming that these people feel that if you were being robbed you should continue to be robbed, just not as much!!! That's one hell of a theory!!! I'm glad we are still "one Maplewood"!!!   Teach66 Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 8:39 pm:        Boy am I confused again! I added up "Gerardryan's" numbers and this is what I got: 52.9% are getting increases of a few dollars to over $4,000, 55.9% are staying the same (or decreasing a few dollars) and, 61% are decreasing from $1,000 to over $3,000. Now, like I said I'm having trouble with the math, so it looks like we're talking about how this all affects 168.8% of the people (?) I guess there must be some overlapping or something in these numbers (?) I just don't get it. I've had some screwy ideas of my own: Okay, let's imagine that the written decreases were never handed out. Do you think everyone would have been happy had they broken up the "neighborhoods" and said: section 1 = 10% decrease, section 2 = 20% decrease, section 3 & 4 = stay the same, section 5 = 15% increase, section 6 = 25% increase. I know, once somebody's been given something it's impossible to take it back, but just let's imagine. Was it even possible that the reval could have been worked this way? Wouldn't something like this have made everyone happy - and ended up with more than the budgeted amount for the town in the long run??? And, at least people would have been able to understand the math. I've got to get off this crazy board, I'm just getting more and more confused - or is that the whole intent?   Waynecaviness Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 8:53 pm:        Eb1154, Lets pose a hypothetical: suppose that the phase-in plan being discussed by the TC had, in fact, been the plan from day one. That is, the TC knew that there were to be substantial tax increases and substantial tax decreases resulting from the revaluation. Consequently, they planned -from the very first- on a, say, three year phase-in. The folks getting an increase get their increase in three increments, as do the folks getting a decrease. The folks enjoying a decrease still get money in their pockets (just not as much at one time), while those getting an increase still have to shell it out (just not as much at one time). The total tax "take" remains the same. What would be your/the township's reaction then? The significant difference between the hypothetical and the present situation is that one was anticipated and planned for; the other a result of unexpected and unanticipated results. Admittedly, all opinions on this are purely conjecture. But interesting conjecture, nonetheless!   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:04 pm:        Kap and Eb: excellent points; clearly there are two sides -- at least -- to these various options. Again I stress that we're having a conversation about a theoretical application of an as-yet-nonexistant law based on numbers I made up to illustrate a scenario. I do agree with Eb's point about D's presentation with the map. Its premise was that any change of more than 5% either way was unfair, the map supported his premise, and there were certainly folks in the room that agreed with him. The map looks different if you say "changes of more than 10% either way" or "changes of more than $2000 either way" for example, and such scenarios can argue someone else's definition of fair. A lot of the discussion on this topic does seem to boil down to a subjective interpretation of what is "fair" in this circumstance. No matter what happens and what is done in the next several months, there will be some group of folks that believe that their own personal definition of "fair" has been violated. I am looking forward to the independant evaluation of the process. That should provide an open and objective analysis of the correctness of the process for all to see. Of course I am sure that there are some who are already prepared to say that that evaluation isn't fair either... Jerry   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:13 pm:        Teach66: the numbers overlap. For example I said: 3.5% of residential properties are going up by $4000 or more 10.7% are going up by $2500 a year or more The first set of folks (going up by more than $4000) is included in the second group (going up by $2500 a year or more). It isn't my intent to confuse. My intent is to make facts available so that we can have a fact-based discussion on these issues. It is not possible for the reval to have worked the way you propose. The reval is supposed to establish the assessments. There was not, is not, and cannot be any notion of "let's raise/lower this neighborhood's taxes by such-and-such a percent". Jerry   Eliz Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:23 pm:        Dave - Since Dytunck won't share can we have a "workshop" on how to do cool formatting things on the board???   Ffof Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:46 pm:        I got it!   Teach66 Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:48 pm:        Gerardryan, could you possibly break it down to show the percentage of how many are getting $1 - $1,000 increase, $1001 - $2000 increase, 2001 - 3000 increase, etc. and likewise the decreases??? I think it would clear things up and would be really helpful. With the overlapping it's not very clear. Thank you!   Dave Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:56 pm:        Eliz: http://66.33.27.70/discus/board-formatting.html   Dytunck Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:58 pm:        To eb1154 and Gerardryan, Let me rephrase my presentation from Tuesday, since you have both missed my point. My point was not that taxes weren't supposed to go down 5%. I would ask you to listen carefully, not just to the points you have issues with. I said that for the past 6 years, as long as I have lived here, the taxes have increased each year, and at an average of just under 5%. Jerry, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there. So that is why I used 5% as the expected tax burden. We don't WANT a tax increase, but we have all come to accept it as the cost of living here. eb, are you still with me here? So if the TC were to give a town-wide tax hike of say, 12% for 2001, we would as a community be up in arms at such a SIGNIFICANT increase. Wouldn't you, eb? Because we were accustomed to 5%. Having clarified that, I pointed out that there were very FEW people getting a 5% decrease. Or for that matter a 5% increase - the usually expected increase. My point was that there were far too many extremes. I did say that no one should expect a 25% or 30% or 35% decrease. I'll try to speak louder next time so everyone can hear me. Along with that point was that there were far too many extreme increases. The map showed the cumulative taxes paid for all taxable properties in each of the 281 blocks in Maplewood as a function of this reval. The 5% areas (where we have been budgeting our tax increase for what 20 years?) were negligible. 8% of the map fell into the plus or minus 5% bracket. This map illustrated that the talk track we are hearing from our elected officials is erroneous or misleading and confusing. I cite Teach's message above as an example. She is confused by Jerry Ryan's statistics. I cite Ellen Davenport's quote from Tuesday. She said for the record that the "majority of the town had no change." There is in fact a tremendous amount of change - over and above the usual expectations. More than usual change is to be expected in a revaluation, for that's what it is all about. But this is far too extreme. THAT WAS THE POINT!!!! eb, I also pointed out at the meeting, you may recall, that I thought that there was an improper tax burden in the town. I feel there is the need for a fair and proper revaluation to correct any imbalances. Do you remember that? I was using simply 5% increments as bands. Jerry is right. 10% bands would have looked different. Or how about two colors? Up or down. What would that map look like? You can guess, right? I feel 5% reductions in taxes are absolutely appropriate. I feel certain situations call for more drastic reductions of 10, 15 or even 20%. I know this. But we are seeing individuals and establishments with 25%, 30% 40%, 50% 60% reductions. Some more than 60% And to that I do object. As for being robbed, eb, I am not robbing you. No one is robbing you. As for the assessment proving you were overpaying, I believe that you (if you live on a block that I shaded in dark blue) were taxed disproportionally. But this CVI revaluation has you convinced that you were overpaying by 25% or more. That's because they overvalued the entire town. I look forward to open discussion with you, eb or Jerry, or anyone else. But at least don't start misrepresenting what I was saying. EB, read further up the string at my previous postings. Jerry, read up further also. I think you an an analytical thinker will see that I'm starting to make some sense. Dytunck   Kap Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:04 pm:        Waynecaviness, We have to, dare I say it, call a spade a spade. Regardless of presentation, the fact remains that under the phase-in plan under discussion, those that have been overpaying will continue to overpay and those that have been benefitting from the current assessments will continue to benefit.   Ffof Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:16 pm:        Waynecaviness - Your logic is good! Eb1154- Could you kindly stop the patronizing attitude of "these people are being asked to pay a portion of someone else's taxes"? Bottom line -I've ALREADY BEEN paying big tax bucks per year; most likely 60%, 70%, 80% more than those who are getting the big reductions. Now I'll be paying $4,500 more on top of that. So, please, could you weather the storm just a little more? Thanks.   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:17 pm:        D: I heard you and understood you, even without your snideness :-) Your premise was to compare estimated tax changes as a result of the reval to changes from annual budgets (about 5% a year, sounds in the right ballpark), and to suggest that changes outside that range were not fair. That's what you said (in person and in your posting)... and that's what I said you said! No misrepresenting there... I think you'd agree that someone else might have a difference of opinion with you about your definition of fair-or-unfair. Others might argue that your premise in comparing revaluation changes to annual budget changes is itself flawed since the two happen for different reasons. Jerry   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:20 pm:        This is a REPOST OF % change ranges. It's from the 1/19 data I posted then (and summarized in a posting above). new% range RES LAND COML RES RUNNING TOTALS RES RUNNING TOTALS -70% 1 4 3 1 0.01% 6840 100.00% -70% -60% 3 2 5 4 0.06% 6839 99.99% -60% -50% 6 3 31 10 0.15% 6836 99.94% -50% -40% 127 6 50 137 2.00% 6830 99.85% -40% -30% 627 5 67 764 11.17% 6703 98.00% -30% -20% 1280 6 48 2044 29.88% 6076 88.83% -20% -10% 989 5 45 3033 44.34% 4796 70.12% -10% 0% 605 1 37 3638 53.19% 3807 55.66% 0% 10% 772 3 24 4410 64.47% 3202 46.81% 10% 20% 1105 0 22 5515 80.63% 2430 35.53% 20% 30% 676 1 9 6191 90.51% 1325 19.37% 30% 40% 346 1 9 6537 95.57% 649 9.49% 40% 50% 192 2 1 6729 98.38% 303 4.43% 50% 60% 72 1 1 6801 99.43% 111 1.62% 60% 70% 26 0 1 6827 99.81% 39 0.57% 70% 80% 9 0 1 6836 99.94% 13 0.19% 80% 90% 2 4 0 6838 99.97% 4 0.06% 90% 100% 0 0 1 6838 99.97% 2 0.03% 100% 2 13 6 6840 100.00% 2 0.03% 6840 57 361   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:21 pm:        This is a REPOST of $$ change ranges, again from the 1/19 info. change range RES LAND COML RES RUNNING TOTALS RES RUNNING TOTALS, REVERSE 0 <-8000 0 0 23 0 0.00% 6841 100.00% >=-8000 <-5000 4 0 49 4 0.06% 6841 100.00% >=-5000 <-4000 10 0 30 14 0.20% 6837 99.94% >=-4000 <-3000 62 0 38 76 1.11% 6827 99.80% >=-3000 <-2500 117 0 20 193 2.82% 6765 98.89% >=-2500 <-2000 308 0 27 501 7.32% 6648 97.18% >=-2000 <-1500 701 1 23 1202 17.57% 6340 92.68% >=-1500 <-1250 456 0 17 1658 24.24% 5639 82.43% >=-1250 <-1000 556 3 13 2214 32.36% 5183 75.76% >=-1000 <-750 565 7 9 2779 40.62% 4627 67.64% >=-750 <-500 376 8 9 3155 46.12% 4062 59.38% >=-500 <-250 263 6 18 3418 49.96% 3686 53.88% >=-250 <=0 220 7 10 3638 53.18% 3423 50.04% >0 <250 187 14 8 3825 55.91% 3203 46.82% >=250 <500 252 5 13 4077 59.60% 3016 44.09% >=500 <750 285 0 7 4362 63.76% 2764 40.40% >=750 <1000 359 0 2 4721 69.01% 2479 36.24% >=1000 <1250 398 1 3 5119 74.83% 2120 30.99% >=1250 <1500 294 1 0 5413 79.13% 1722 25.17% >=1500 <2500 695 2 10 6108 89.29% 1428 20.87% >=2500 <3500 352 2 6 6460 94.43% 733 10.71% >=3500 <4000 142 2 5 6602 96.51% 381 5.57% >=4000 <5000 154 0 4 6756 98.76% 239 3.49% >=5000 <6000 45 1 4 6801 99.42% 85 1.24% >=6000 <7000 24 0 4 6825 99.77% 40 0.58% >=7000 0 16 0 9 6841 100.00% 16 0.23% 6841 60 361   Ffof Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:25 pm:        Dytunck - Thank you for re-presenting your argument. Fickle finger of fate   Ffof Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:34 pm:        Thank you Jerry- What I see is that about 2000 homes are getting a reduction of 30% or more and about 600 homes are getting an increase of 30% or more. So you've asked a relatively small portion of your town (8 or 9%) to pick up the difference for about 30% of the town. Am I reading that right?