| Author |
Message |
    
Eb1154
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 12:54 pm: |     |
Dytunk,
I'm glad to hear that you didn't buy in to that conspiracy theory.
Why is it a "rubber stamp" if the new assessors "certify" Certified. How can it be proven to you that the reval wasn't as flawed as you think? You can't expect the TC to allow citizens to review the reval. Every citizen would have some bias opinion to how it effected them personally, don't you think?
My other question to everyone who wants the reval done over and are so sure that the eastside was underassessed...what happens when the numbers come out the same or worse? And that is a good possibility. I know my new assessment was a little high and many of the people in my neighborhood feel the same way. No, it's not their opinion it is based on what the houses near us have sold for recently(if they sold at all.) My point being that you may have been overassessed and so may have I. Where does that leave us? Right back where we are now. As I have stated certified did a horrible job with the P.R. but I think everyone got the same methodology used on their home. Bottom line a new company comes in and lowers everyones reval then the TC is forced to raise the tax rate. A few people may benefit and a few may lose but for the most part we stay the same.
EB |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 1:49 pm: | |
EB,
Can't we have this conversation over a beer at the Maplewood Publick House or the (hmmm...any good pubs in town? That's another issue altogether.)
I think citizens should be involved. And I think you may be right, there might be involved citizens who are in it only for themselves.
I don't think the TC is only in it for themselves. De Luca's taxes are going down, but that is not why this reval is being done. Ryan's are going up. Surely he is not acting on his own behalf. I think we can get some pretty talented people together from all over town to act as a steering committee. The ones that are only in it for themselves will be pretty easy to spot.
You're not in it only for yourself. So now we have two volunteers.
Dytunck |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 2:25 pm: | |
Dytunck,
The beer idea sounds great but I have to keep my identity a secret, what with me being the "Cape Crusader" of the eastside. I'm sure you understand. Seriously, I would like to meet with you and discuss this over a beer but my schedule is a little busy right now but I am sure we will be able to get together eventually.
I don't know that I would feel comfortable being on a steering committee that decides the outcome of someone else's money. I know that makes me appear like a hypocrite but there is a difference between stating opinions and facts and actually making the decisions. However I would be more than willing to point out the views of those whose taxes are being decreased. I have quite a bit of input on that subject. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 3:54 pm: | |
Octofoil: when this discussion began I felt and behaved in a much more civilized manner (my usual style, actually.) I spent time trying to explain to those panicked about their taxes what the situation has been over time for myself and many of my neighbors. I'm sorry. People might really have to delay buying a new car for a couple of years. I really don't have sympathy for that. I do that kind of budgeting all the time. (Ooops, there goes the sarcasm again.)
I have grown more angry and less tolerant over time as it becomes clearer and clearer that a significant portion of the most vocal critics of the process are not, in fact, concerned with fairness. The people I'm writing of know who they are. They are not people like Townie or Jerry Ryan, who've been hit hard but kept a level head and looked at the big picture. The big picture includes a very large number of families like mine. Shocked to learn how much we had lost already. Shocked to learn that some of our wealthier neighbors (there's really no getting around that) thought we should continue to pay disproportionately. Then there was the dawning realization that THAT was where our dwindling resources had gone. Not that we'd been poor money managers. Actually we did okay to hold on to our homes (those that did) during this period.
So, over time, I've become more sarcastic, less patient and just more overtly pissed off. Sorry if it offends you. Being polite just doesn't cut it in the face of all this. I'm sure I'll go back to being my nice self when this blows over. But it's not over yet, is it?
The lawsuit discussion was not a threat or a bullying tactic. Just a straightforward statement of what I think will have to happen if the inequities continue. And I do know that we will win. There is legal precedent on top of the obvious question of basic justice. In this situation, legal counsel may be the only sound investment to make, and not just for those whose taxes are rising. We are not jumping the gun the way people who have not bothered with or exhausted the appeal process are doing. As I've said repeatedly, harm has already occurred. To allow it to continue once everyone knows about it is reprehensible. We are not the town's doormats.
I'm tired of playing nice. It will cost me my home and community if I don't fight back. There is no cheaper side of town for me to move to. I'm there.
Bacata |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 4:58 pm: | |
As our former leader was wont to say: "I can feel your pain." And that's not sarcasm either. I drive a 1990 Honda and evidentally will have to continue to do so (I had hoped that this year would be the year to get new wheels). I am recently retired. I face a $4000 tax hike (on top of $11G). I bought my house 27 years ago for a price we could afford then - a whopping $65000! Dumb luck, now I have people telling me my house has gone up 5 times in value from my 1981 reval. My income hasn't followed suit, however. Sure, you'll say, take the money and run. But, as I have stated previously, I don't want to move. I'am, thankfully not ready to go to an assisted living facility (ugh!) nor ready for that condo. May I not have a choice?
What we need to do - together we might succeed - is to fight property taxed based education.. We can do it. Let's put our heads together - and our hearts too. |
Jem
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 5:21 pm: | |
As long as we're not fighting the schools but rather fighting the state's policy for the way we fund our schools, I'm with you, MTierney. Bacata, I understand exactly what you've been saying all along.
The problem, as many have said along the way, is our dependence on property tax. I hope that we can quickly organize a strong community group that can make its voice heard, and effectively, in Trenton. |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 7:14 pm: | |
Bacata,
Now thats more like it. A reasoned presentation of opinion without any threats of broken kneecaps.Way to go.
Just so you'll know where I'm coming from (now that I find myself moving from "lurker" to "poster" status) and might be better able to put whatever my remarks might be into context:
> 20+ year residents of Maplewood, 15+ years in the present home (on the "west side" of town);
> new-found wealth (a $600,000 home, according to CV/Galante);
> income that has definitely not grown to match the increase in the value of the home suggested by CV/Galante;
> if the CV/Galante valuation stands, it definitely means a loan - or moving;
> we do have two cars (in reference to your little dig), which is often considered a sign of affluence. However, both of our vehicles
have over 200,000 miles on them and there isn't even any thought of doing anything about that.
At one of the recent TC meetings, JL Nathenson said that he was fortunate in that he could afford to pay the increased taxes. My guess is that the majority of those getting tax increases can do likewise. I tend to picture it as a more-or-less normal distribution (in a statistical sense): a few folks at the right end of the distribution that got decreases (so no cash flow worries there), a whole bunch of folks in the middle of the histogram that got increases/decreases that are not significant relative to their cash flow (the JL Nathenson group, if you will), and few unlucky souls way to the left end of the distribution to whom the tax increases/cash flow pressures spell potential doom.
Its those folks over on the left side of that distribution that I identify with, because thats exactly where I find myself. If the CV/Galante assessed valuation stands, that is. Consequently, we have to avail ourselves of the appeal process. As it sounds like you should have done, years ago.
Just as you apparently have no sympathy (though I don't recall anyone asking you for any), I, for one, have no sympathy (likewise, I doubt you were asking for any) for those who were overpaying and didn't appeal. The appeal process, as someone noted on another thread, has been there all along, for all to utilize. Why didn't you?
One last comment on the legal thing: there are precedents and then there are precedents. It is not in your best interest to be so confident that you would prevail in litigation of this type. Every situation is different, kinda like comparables in revaluations. There apparently are tax lawyers lining up, itching to get into this thing on both sides of the fence. All are confident that they can prevail. Obviously not all can. Don't make the classic mistake of underestimating your opponent, should it come to that.
And folks, yes, the long-term solution is a change in the way in which we fund our schools. But this reval is here and now. And this problem won't wait.
(Note to JL Nathenson: if I have quoted you incorrectly, please correct.) |
Aruba18
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 8:52 pm: | |
Octofoil and Bacata: You are both on the right track, as are many that are dissatisfied with the entire reval situation. Personally, yes, I do live on the "west" side (I hate labels, no matter where one lives), and my increase is over $7,000.00.This spells doom for our family,and the really sad part is that this home has been a family homestead since 1908.We don't take vacations,we don't have a second home (how could we?),we drive vehicles that are seven or more years old, etc. We both work extremely hard,and have restored our home gradually over the past 24 years. So, even though we "should" be comfortable with our increase and be able to pay it, it just isn't so. Our TC is determined to ram this reval down our throats, even with a five year plan. Oh well, maybe I should go back and count all of our overhanging eaves..... |
Aruba18
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 8:56 pm: | |
Vic:one quick question: why does the TC repeatedly hire people who are not familiar with our area? Certified, the new real estate appraiser, and the new tax attorney, are all from different areas of the state. What is the big attraction? Do you honestly feel that we have no tax attorneys or real estate appraisers from our own are who are qualified? |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 7:56 am: | |
Octofoil: I'd like to ask, one more time, on what basis I should have appealed my taxes? My house was valued at 57K in 1981. Should I have gone to the assessor to say, "Gee, Mr. Assessor, I really don't think it's worth that or that I could get that for it?" I paid 126K nine years ago. I knew the taxes were high. Everyone in Maplewood has high taxes. I believed, apparently naively, that everyone was paying the same, proportionally, as is mandated by law. Why would I think otherwise? I am not a tax expert. I am not a real estate broker. I don't have an accountant. People outside of NJ think we're all insane to pay these kind of taxes.
And I still don't see any interest from those being hit hard by this reval (whose home values increased 4 or 5 times) in thinking about moving to another part of town? Why is that? Really? Aruba? Octofoil?
Jem, thanks. I know you do. I really do appreciate folks like yourself.
Mtierney - let's do it. How should we get started on this insane school funding formula? Jem? Anyone? Specific ideas? It really would be nice to work on something constructive for a change. Who knows. Maybe Fairtax and her friends could offer some of their energy.
Bacata |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 8:36 am: | |
I can think of lots of reasons why people wouldn't move to less expensive houses so that they can stay in Maplewood despite the tax increase. If I didn't have children in the schools, I would simply cut my losses and leave Essex County. Add if I were retired, depending on the location of my extended family, I might just quit New Jersey for warmer climes. Additionally, I think that some people (maybe most people) fear downward mobility and switching to a less expensive house in maybe could be seen as evidence of downward mobility. Finally, some people want to live as far from Newark and Irvington as possible. |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 8:45 am: | |
Bacata, What was your basis for an appeal? Perhaps no basis - I think you would have had to file a lawsuit built around the observation that property values in different neighborhoods had grown at different rates in different neighborhoods. Nowadays, this information is readily available, by you have to start with the assumption of an imbalance or you would even have looked. With some exceptions, I don't think any of us in Maplewood appreciated the magnitude of the imbalance. I new that property values were out of control on my street and I casually wondered about other neighborhoods, but I certainly never got statistical about it.
Still, one wonders how the TC was blindsided by this. I guess both CV and the tax assessor were asleep at the wheel. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 9:03 am: | |
I agree, Euclidean. Probably very few knew of the imbalances or their magnitude. Which is why I would not now seek redress for past inequities. I do, however, think it would be unconscionable (Spelling???) to allow those imbalances to continue. I don't want new imbalances in the other direction. So I certainly support people appealing assessments they think are out of line. I strongly recommended to some of my friends that they appeal theirs, even knowing if they win, my decrease will lessen. I just want it to be fair from here on out. And delaying or phasing in is not fair. A nice gesture, if you can afford it and want to make it, but not fair. My neighbors and I cannot afford it. The town cannot afford it, from either a legal or civic standpoint.
There are lots of reasons why people will not even consider moving a few blocks east of their present location. You presented some of the more common but unstated reasons. That's their choice to make. But then I would appreciate it if they would stop whining about how they can't afford to stay in Maplewood or they're being taxed out of their beloved community. They can afford to stay. But they might choose not to. That's okay. I just don't want to pay for other people's choices about what part of town to live in.
Bacata |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 9:11 am: | |
Bacata, It sounds like we agree pretty completely. My only request is that all of us keep discontinue using the word "fair" when discussing the property tax situation. I prefer using more clinical language such as "accurate valuation and taxation according to the law".
The question of fairness is such an open-ended idea that we can't do much more than upset each other when we discuss it on this board. |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 10:40 am: | |
May I take a crack at trying to answer the question: Why didn't over-assessed homeowners appeal their assessment prior to this reval?
Take two fictional homeowners who bought houses in Maplewood in 1994: One bought on Midland for $150,000, with a 1981 property assessment of $60,000. One bought on Wyoming for $300,000, with a 1981 property assessment of $90,000.
If the homeowner on Midland appeals, his home will be reassessed at market value, which we know is around $150,000. His house is now assessed at a value MORE than the Wyoming house! He will pay more taxes every year than the homeowner on Wyoming until a town-wide revaluation is done.
But let's say this Midland owner (wisely) didn't appeal.
When the reval was done in 2000, the home on Midland was found to now have a market value of $225,000. The home on Wyoming was found to have a market value of $600,000. Because the rate of appreciation in real estate was slower on Midland than Wyoming, the Midland homeowner naturally gets a decrease in taxes, but he gets an unusually large decrease because when he bought his home it was already overvalued relative to the house(s) on Wyoming. To offset the decreases in Midland's taxes, the Wyoming homeowners are saddled with unexpectedly large increases.
There is nothing "fair" about this. Property taxes, in my view, are inherently unfair. It always puts some of us in the position of supporting others regardless of ability to pay. But the law can only be rewritten in Trenton. Any accurate assessment of the Maplewood real estate market will reveal that houses in the walk-to-train areas recently appreciated in value much faster than those that aren't, and that homes closer to the borders of Newark and Irvington continue to appreciate at a slower rate than those closer to South Mountain Reservation and Millburn.
It is my understanding that Certified Valuations began its work at Town Hall and worked in a spiral outwards. If that's true, it was only at the end of the process that it was clear how dramatic the gap was going to be between house prices all over Maplewood. |
Jfb
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 10:42 am: | |
Nakaille,
You could have moved, or pursued an appeal. I lived on the east side of town for nine years. I knew that I paid more for taxes in proportion to the west side.
I could have appealed but did not. I sold the house and moved.
I'm not complaining about all those years of tax overpayment. That was the deal. Now it's different with the new assessments.
As far as moving to the east side. Done that, been there. West side is better, hence the higher prices and higher assessments.
What people don't realize is that it's not just a little better, but MUCH better.
You should have appealed. Surely you look in the paper and see what houses are selling for.. do a little research. |
Fairtax01
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 12:03 pm: | |
Bacata - re: 7:56
I agree that the real tax issue is with Trenton - and if we're going to talk about east/west issues..as far as the state of NJ goes, counties like Essex, Hudson and Camden are the "east" sides and the rest of the state is the "west". There are groups from Maplewood, S.O. and Montclair that are ready to approach Trenton and I support and would like to participate in that effort. With the new governer in power and likely wanting to win an election I think the time is ripe to move on to the real problem with our property tax/income tax structure in NJ.
But first things first, and I hope that the reval situation in Maplewood woke up people to where the real battle must be fought. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 12:46 pm: | |
Nakaille, FairtaxO1 - How do we start? Perhaps urging our TC to accept the free state help would be a beginning. See article in today's Ledger. Before CV started, there was no east side or west side as Mr. McNany is quoted saying. We know the reasons why the TC is rejecting state help - such questions as the pool financing and police director issues will be examined. For the TC to reject out of hand (a father knows best approach) any help out of this situation is hard to stomach. They have also insisted that once the assessment ball got rolling, there was no stopping it. I wonder about that? Let's get our heads together on the same page.
On another note about a conspiracy theory: Has anyone else been bumped off on line because they have been inactive? Happened several times in last 3 days. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 2:53 pm: | |
Jfb: I could have moved? What could I have bought in your new neighborhood for what I could get for my house? Moved??? Where to, Irvington? My wages are as stagnant as my housing value. Sorry, picked the wrong profession. No lottery winnings or inheritances, either, thank goodness. Houses don't sell very well in my neighborhood, as I have posted ad nauseum. The house 2 doors away has been vacant for 3 years. The house 3 doors away has been on the market more than 6 months. The house down the block couldn't be given away for 63K last year and still has a for sale sign. These are not aberrations. Just facts. No bidding wars and slow, slow sales.
The house I bought had been on the market for nearly 2 years. I bought it when the asking price dropped another 10K. (It had previously dropped 20K.) I negotiated it a little further down. It was not in terrible shape, just hadn't been updated and had only one bathroom. 3 BR colonial on a good size piece of land, pretty wood moldings, you know the type. So I thought I did pretty well.
What made you suspect that others were not paying proportional taxes? Sale prices would not tell you that. Most people, until now, would not have casually revealed their tax payments. Did you have a friend in real estate or tax law? How did you realize the tax inequities? Because you were actively looking to buy something elsewhere and so pored over the details? As Euclidean pointed out, unless you had access to the data, there would have been no reason to think it was inequitable.
So you don't want to move back to Hilton/Orchard? I don't blame you. I just don't want to hear people pretending they can't stay in Maplewood because of their tax increases. There are state abatement options for limited income seniors and disabled folks. You made a choice to move, you had the resources to do it, and you did. That's fine. Not everyone has that option. No biggie. I like Maplewood, even over here on the "East Side." I'm just looking to get out from under the inequitable tax distribution NOW rather than one year or five years from now. Why is that too much to ask?
Bacata |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 7:08 pm: | |
Bacata,
It is not too much to ask. A revaluation that is fair and correct under the law is the fair and correct thing to do. And my reading of your messages suggests that we part company there. Here is how I read your attitude-tell me if I'm right or wrong...
Faced with the prospect of getting some additional dollars today versus some additional dollars tomorrow, well, who can argue with that logic? Opportunistic perhaps, but logical nonetheless. If one is entitled to it under the law, then by all means, go for it, defend it unto death (so to speak)! And, according to Bacata, the rest of you guys can go suck eggs, 'cause I've got mine!
The TC appears to be moving to make more bearable, at least in the short run, the pressure on that relatively small group of people that face serious disruption in their lives because of the revaluation. You, on the other hand, seem to want that group of folks to pick up and move, if necessary, just so you can get a few more dollars today rather than tomorrow.
You insist that its the law. Laws are made everyday. Existing statutes are sometimes replaced entirely. They sometimes take a little time but they are made everyday. If it was the law that this revaluation be phased in according to the procedure and timetable being discussed by the TC and which might very well become the law, how would you feel? It would be the law, after all.
Would you really prefer to have even one of your neighbors (perhaps you don't consider them as neighbors because they might live alongside the wealthier folk on the "west side")forced to disrupt their lives and leave the homes in which they raised families just so you get a few more dollars this year?
Lets be clear about this: do you really advocate forcing even a single family out of their homes just so you can pick up a few dollars? One would hope not, but your messages suggest otherwise. |
|