| Author |
Message |
    
Eb1154
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:43 pm: |     |
Dytunck,
I don't think that I am misrepresenting you. I believe that you did say "for anyone to expect more than a 5% increase or decrease is ridiculous." I may be wrong so I will watch the TC meeting the next time it is aired and if I have misquoted you I will correct myself but if I am correct I will correct you again. Is that fair enough for you?
Would I be upset if everyone got a 12% increase? Sure I would but that is not he case here. People were increased because they weren't paying the proper amount not because the Township needed more tax revenue. There is a big difference. I have stated many times that I sympathize with those geting an increase as does the TC but that doesn't change the fact these numbers are the fair numbers according to today's property tax laws.
I think a lot of people are losing the sympathy they had for those getting a large increase due to the accusations they have ben made by these same people. Was the assessment done properly? I don't know. How many mistakes were actually made? How many people complained without checking their property card? How many people think that there is some kind of conspiracy by the TC? How many people are quick to jump on the TC for having a slip of the tongue (Ellen saying "the majority of the town had no change")? How many people said that the eastside was underassessed?
If they want the whole town to stick together they need to get all their facts first before they speak. And don't be so pettya s to jump on someone who made a mistake in what they said when you know that wasn't what they meant. And you know Ellen knew that the majority of the town had a change.
I never said that I believe I should get a 25% decrease nor am I geetiing one. And yes I was being robbed in plain english. If Iwas paying more than my share for years what would you call it? I hope your not going to say it was a flaw in the system.
Oh yeah, you didn't answer my question would you have given up any of your money to help someone else in town? Be honest!
I will give you credit for your work on the map it was very impressive. Do you think you could do some stats on the questions I have asked above. |
Shakespeare
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:43 pm: | |
"your town" ....? |
Kap
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:51 pm: | |
Dytunck, I believe that Jerry's point to you was that your 5% example was arbitrary. When dealing with a reassessment your past annual increases are irrelevant. The point of a revaluation is to redistribute the tax burden to ensure that property owners are paying their respective fair shares of the total fiscal requirements of the municipality. If the re-assessment is reasonably accurate (which I believe, IMHO, that the audit will determine it was, at least before these gross ((not individual)) adjustments started to be made) increases OR decreases of 5, 15, 30, 50 or 70% are not inappropriate but rather should be reflections of the market.
Not robbed? How about over-taxed? Is that supposed to make it more palatable? |
Kap
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 11:03 pm: | |
Ffoff, And what do you think is happening right now (pre-reassessment) for those 2000 and 600 homeowners, respectively? (and I don't think that the 2000 nuber is correct) Who's "picking up the difference" now? Also, we ALL pay high taxes. The reassessment deals with relative tax burdens. Why should EB, I or anyone else "weather the storm just a little more"? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 11:09 pm: | |
Ffof: Everyone whose assessment went up by more than the average change ends up paying in more, and everyone whose assessment went up by less than the average change ends up paying in less.
The result of the reval is thus that 46.82% will pay more and 53.18% will pay the same or less.
It is not correct that "2000 homes are getting a reduction of 30% or more and about 600 homes are getting an increase of 30% or more". It's actually 764 and 649, respectively. The total decrease for those 764 is $1.553M. The total increase for those 649 is $2.486M. (The 2044 number corresponds to a 20% or more decrease, or $3,43M).
I'm not sure it's fair to say (as I think you might be -- correct me if I'm wrong) that the person with the largest increase is somehow paying for or subsidizing the person with the largest decrease. Everyone pays their pro-rata share of the total based on the assessment. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 11:14 pm: | |
Jerry - is the town doing anything to reach out to seniors to let them know about the program reported recently in the Star Ledger and posted on this board?
Is the staff at Town Hall knowledgeable/informed about the program so they could steer people to the correct sources?
It would be a shame if some of our seniors meet the guidelines for this program but simply don't know about it. |
Gph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 11:34 pm: | |
If I understood the original point, the 5% figure was used as a base factor, based on the concept that this amount has been the historical type of rise in taxes to which we have all become accustomed, so that such a figure would be statistically in the realm of what could be seen as "unchanged." Regardless of what is or is not ridiculous, a subjective argument to which I will not arise, there seemed to be an indication that the notion that, "the majority of the town remained unchanged" was in question. Unchanged usually means 0 plus or minus less than ONE percent, statistically, so using the plus or minus 5% figure to indicate statistically unchanged had some historical validity and did not seem unreasonable. That the map indicated the 5% group to be such a small percentage would imply to me that the majority of the town has seen statistically significant flux, NOT that the majority has maintained status quo. You are only left to argue HOW significant is the flux. I believe that THIS observation, the unexpectedly small "fulcrum point," as it were, relative to the length of the see-saw to either side of that fulcrum point, was surprising |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 11:38 pm: | |
EB and Kap: thank you. You've said it clearly and with less of the rancor that I currently feel.
I feel obliged to repeat something I've been saying and posting. It is not my job to make those whose corrected (or always correct) assessments still mean a large increase feel better about their tax burden. It is not my job to shoulder their burden any longer. It has gone on too long already.
Those of you concerned about your SENIOR or DISABLED neighbors, please advise them of the state assistance available. No one else has any excuses. You have to deal with it just as I have been dealing with it for 9 years. The only (but significant) difference is that your taxes will actually be fair under the law. Mine were not.
I've noticed that no one is offering to renovate the homes of those who have been overpaying. Why should I subsidize anyone else's home improvements any longer? Without appropriate tax relief I will still be unable to improve mine and the value will continue its downward slide. You will pay even more and we will have a more divided Maplewood. This is ridiculous. GET A LOAN if you have to in order to make the first year adjustments. I'm not kidding. You're not paying me any interest for my money. Go borrow it from someone else.
AGAIN, WHY SHOULD I CONTINUE TO OVERPAY???
Bacata |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 11:41 pm: | |
Flof,
I know we were all paying high taxes but let's put the numbers to the test. Here are my numbers:
I am currently paying $5200. in taxes and my reval puts my house worth 135K. Something doesn't add up does it? What are your numbers?
I am not patronizing you I am simply stating facts, maybe I could word it differently but it still means the same.
Maybe I shouldn't answer everyone back. They might think I'm sleeping with Townie. Come on back Townie it's not the same with out you. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 12:03 am: | |
Bacata,
Right back at you!!! I've tried to stay off the board so not to insult anyone and to be politically correct but enough is enough already. PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!!! Where was all this concern about taxes while we were overpaying? I'll answer that for you. There was none! Yeah, I know that was my responsibility to appeal, and now it is your responsibility. If you were unfairly assessed it can be corrected with an appeal. If your taxes are going up 60 to 70% then that means your house is worth quite a bit of money and that is what your fair share is, like it or not that is the law.
Bacata, I don't think it matters how many times we spell it out for them, they are still going to complain about something. But don't give up it's a good cause your fighting for.
EB1154 |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 12:09 am: | |
Kap:
Jerry said that I thought "that changes outside that range were not fair". That's a cut and paste.
What I wrote in my post was, "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."
I am not complaining about 5% reductions!!! I never said 5% reductions were unfair. Unexpected maybe. For example, I would be surprised if the town budget went down by 5%, and thus my taxes went down 5%.
As to JR's point about comparing reval to budget increases, he's right. The Maplewood budget increase is separate from the reval budget. But I have no 2001 budget to go by. I made clear in an earlier post that these numbers were bases on the revuation based on the 2000 rate. I should have kept that caveat going.
My numbers and Jerry's spreadsheet are one and the same. The reval is a recasting of last years budget with the new tax rate based on the new valuations. Those would have been the changes if there had been no budget increase. Presumably, the town budget will go up for 2001. This will only compound the extremely high tax increase for those whose increases are well above what were normally personally budgeted.
What I mean is, my budget for taxes just went way up, even though Maplewood's didn't. NOW, let's hear about the Maplewood budget increase.
I noticed the New Budget portion of Tuesday's meeting was deferred for several weeks. That is convenient timing. ;)
eb, I hope I addressed your quote about my thinking 5% changes being ridiculous.
As for Ellen's comment, if it was a slip of the tongue, then all I did was correct her misstatement. My concern was that I have heard several "slips" lately and I wanted to reinforce Jerry's point about how just because something is repeated enough times, it doesn't make it reality.
Ffof: Darn it. The genie's out of the bottle! 
Kap: Jerry's point was that my argument may be flawed because I compared a budget increase to the reval. Not additional revenues. Zero sum Yah yah I know. I would have used the new budget if it were available. And when it is, maybe I'll do another exercize.
Let me add a grim prediction. I predict that Kap is exactly right by saying that the audit of the reval will confirm that the numbers are right. Does anyone in Maplewood think they are going to say the job CVI did doesn't look right? Is the TC prepared for such a finding? Didn't we just hire two rubber stamps?
Jerry: Sorry for the snide tone. I want to keep this cordial at all times.
eb: I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Would I have given up any of my money to help someone else in town? What do you mean?
As for doing some stats on the questions above, I could, but again I don't know what you mean. What would you like to see stats on? You mean stats on how many people complained about the process before looking at their property cards? (I personally complained that CVI would let me have a copy of my property card). Please let me know what you mean.
Respectfully always to my fellow Maplewoodians,
Dytunck |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 12:16 am: | |
Gph,
I have no idea who you are but you summed up my point beatifully. Better than I did tonight or on Tuesday.
Thanks.
Bacata: If you want long rambling messages, I have filled the void for Townie. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 7:51 am: | |
Shakespeare - Whoops! "our town"!
Jerry- sorry - I read the chart wrong.
Eb - You refuse to see my point. I was paying $11,400 and now I'll be paying $15,800. Forget about the law for a second if that's possible for you...Boatload of money before and boatload of money after. May I say that we didn't buy our house for $600,000! We've lived here for 10 years and bought the house for $300 something and our financial situation has not changed. and "give up your money to help others"? You don't use any of the services in town? Seems to me I have had more bottomline dollars going toward the town's budget than many for a long time. So like I asked before, Could you stop with the patronizing tone? Thanks!
Bacata - Subsidize my home improvements?! Are you kidding? Not everyone with a newly assessed half million dollar home lives like Martha Stewart!
Ffof |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 9:53 am: | |
Ffof, thanks...I feel exactly the same way. I'm already paying a very large amount in taxes (almost as much as your current total) prior to this reval. I completeley resent the implications that somehow that's not my "fair share". |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 9:59 am: | |
Make that "completely". |
Yvette
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 11:39 am: | |
We all buy homes that we feel we can afford and unfortunately some of us are suffering because of this new assessment, but I don't think it's right for those who have been hear longer to say that they have put more into this town than others and therefore their taxes are much too much. We all have to pay the taxes based on the value of our homes and if your value went up then your taxes went up. I don't think anybody's value went down, they are getting a decreased based on the rate. That's another thing we all right now are paying different rates. Is that fair? So when someone says they have been overpaying and why should they continue they do have a point, why should they pay more than what their house is worth? and why should one pay less than what their house is worth?
Ffof - you bought your house 10 years ago, hello, everything has jumped, your house seems to have doubled in price --- my house has tripled in price since the last assessment and my house was valued $26,000 more than I paid for it. What's your point? |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 12:50 pm: | |
Dytunck and Flof,
Dytunck in your last post you said that you would still have a problem with someone getting a 60% decrease, but what if they were paying 60% to much for years? Don't they deserve to pay their fair share and no more?
When I say "would you give up some of your money to someone else in town" I mean: What if your taxes were being decrease to the amount that was fair...would you tell the TC to keep the decrease so you could help other people pay their fair share?
As far my wanting stats about the complainers and so on... I apologize I was being a facetious.
Flof you say forget about the law for a minute but you can't forget about the law it wasn't forgotten when I was paying more than my fair share. We have to have one set of rules that apply to everyone. I do sympathize with the fact that you are getting ht pretty hard but I didn't make the rules I simply have to follow them. Afterall is what that this country is all about.
I don't mean to offend anyone whose taxes are going up substantially but those who sit here and tell that there is a conspiracy by the TC orthat the reval was flawed just aggravate me. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 12:55 pm: | |
I may be mistaken, but I believe the rate used in 2000 (approximately 10%) was the same for everyone. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 1:14 pm: | |
Yvette - "Hello"!...in case you haven't been reading along this whole thread, I've been talking about bottom line bucks, baby! (I just had to use that alliteration!!) And that was my point. And the reason I brought it up was because Jerry Ryan has been in contact with our state senator, Rice, about some new phase-in act. And, in light of these HUGE (bottom-line) amounts of taxes for some, that just maybe this act is totally worthwhile.
Eb - Saying "forget about the law for a minute" may have been the wrong way to put it. The whole point was to be made about actual out-of-pocket, bottom line bucks. I'm not out to argue the law.
Ffof |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 1:37 pm: | |
The "bottom line" is different depending on your income perspective. 10 years ago I had to scrape everything possible together to put 2 1/2 % down on a 126K home. You, at that time, were able to afford a 300K home with how much down? You are aware you get better interest rates when you can put more money down, right? And you can stop paying PMI when you hit 20%, right? Good for you. In that time period my home has increased in value 29% while my salary has increased about 10K. Your home value has increased 100% and your income has gone up by how much in that time? These are the bottom lines as far as I'm concerned.
The law says (and this is not something to be ignored just because it is inconvenient to your argument) we all pay according to the value of our homes. That has not been happening here for at least 10 years that I personally know of and apparently for far longer according to some funny math done at the time of the last assessment. Out of pocket means nothing out of context. My pocket is a heck of a lot smaller than yours and I'm paying a far greater share of my income in taxes than you are, aren't I?
Bacata |
|