| Author |
Message |
    
Eb1154
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 7:06 pm: |     |
Bacata,
This time I think you said it perfectly!!! If they don't get it now they never will. I also agree that it is sometimes hard to play nice when the other kids on the block don't play nice.
EB |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 7:58 pm: | |
It would be improper to state that anyone has been over paying or underpaying taxes based on the preliminary results of the Certified valuations because the rules governing the 1981 and 2001 assessments are very different.
These differences in treatment of property values based on lot size, application of depreciation formulas, use of different quality class factors, etc. have had as much or more of an impact on the revaluations than differences in housing sales in different parts of town. Mr. Galante has stated that these factors are (a) highly subjective and (b) applied differently than in 1981
Therefore, it seems obvious to me that most of us have not been overpaying or underpaying our taxes. The criteria used in making these assessments have simply been shifted to favor a different group of tax payers. |
Alidah
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 10:15 pm: | |
bacata and EB: If I lived in the Hilton/Orchard area I would be sorely disappointed with the way this reval has been handled. With every blanket reduction the tax rate is going up. Your reduction is decreasing. This is crazy. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 1:38 pm: | |
Bacata - Why do you continue to put words in people's mouths? Look - So what about the 81 reval. Just cause you don't like the underlying assumptions that went into account then doesn't make it illegal. I continue to point out to you that I'm not in disagreement with the idea behind the current reassessment. I never said that my new $16,000 tax bill is innacurate or not my "fair share". I DID SAY that in no way have you ever subsidized me or anyone else. The assessments from '81 were what they were whether you like it or not. We all paid taxes based on a LEGAL system (whether you agreed with the underlying methodology or not does not apply here. The assessment at the time got approved and put into law). Joancrystal summarized this same point above in different words. Do you get it now?
As for what I'm advocating, I'd like a properly handled reassessment process as I think you do. The difference is that you seem to get all hot and bothered if anyone mentions a phase-in. Just because you don't like that idea doesn't mean it has no merit. Let's look toward the future. If we're stuck with property taxes, why not start now with a system of phase-ins and reassessments every 5 years - maybe something like that would prevent the crazy tax distribution swings that we're now experiencing. In the meantime, YOU HAVE NEVER SUBSIDIZED ME!!!
Ffof |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 1:48 pm: | |
Does Las Vegas have a line on Ffof vs. Bacata? I heard a while back that they were laying odds on Townie vs. Fairtax01 but then Dave put and end to that one. |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 1:59 pm: | |
I realize that "overpaying" and "underpaying" have become fighting words, but maybe this will help defuse (or maybe it will inflame?) the situation:
When I got my first Certified letter, I called Ed Gallante to ask him if my taxes would go up. He said they probably would, by between $3,000 to $4,000. When I expressed surprise, he said: "But you have to understand, you've actually been underpaying for years."
Now that I understand what a revaluation is, I think that's a simple but, as others have pointed out, technically insufficient way of understanding the situation.
We all subsidize the overall quality of Maplewood. All taxes are contributed to the common good. All homeowners benefit, not only from quality services, but property values rose in Maplewood because of the attractive appearance of the town as a whole. Some property values did not rise as much as others, even though some of those homeowners, we now know, were sometimes paying a disproportionate share of the taxes. It doesn't surprise me that some of these same homeowners regard those with increased property values as being the larger beneficiaries of the system, and wonder why they should be asked to continue to support that system when the law doesn't require them to. |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 2:06 pm: | |
Euclidean,
Thanks for reminding me: Dave put an end to that one because of implications that I was somebody I wasn't. To clear things up this time, I'll sign my posts Kathleen so that other Durandians don't inadvertantly get labeled as Townie.
It's too bad, because I like to be able to post arguments for people to consider without people possibly being affected by their ideas about women, whites, the Irish, where I live, etc. But I feel I owe it to others not to get them mixed up with me.
Kathleen |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 10:01 am: | |
Welcome back, Kathleen! |
Yvette
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 10:28 am: | |
Dytuck,
"You are a victim of a campaign of complicated data to confuse people with the
facts."
All my facts came from Vic and Gerry. |
Yvette
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 10:29 am: | |
I am glad to see your back -- Kathleen!! |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 11:01 am: | |
Yvette:
"All my facts came from Vic and Gerry" - You just proved my point!
Dytunck |
Yvette
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 11:55 am: | |
So are you saying they are spreading false information? |
Yvette
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 12:04 pm: | |
Just to add to the information bit -- I did get information from my neighbors who did a little research --- and I have several spreadsheets of info to back up whatever I post out here.
I do agree that the process of this entire reval could have been handled differently. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 12:45 pm: | |
Yvette:
I didn't necessarily say the information *they* were spreading was false. I said you were a victim of a campaign of "complicated data to confuse..." which in your case it apparently has.
The data posted by Jerry Ryan was not false. Your reading of it was. Your statement about only 25.2% of the town was gettting an increase was false. Then you said that you got the info from Vic and Jerry. But YOU got it wrong.
Now either YOU are spreading false information intentionally (I do NOT think this is the case!) or you were confused by the complicated tables and charts, as are many many people.
Which brings me back to my point, Yvette. I even did the bloody math right on my post for you, but you still think only 25.2% are getting an increase.
As far as the TC spreading false information, I believe that there have been some misstatements based on the very complicated and confusing data. Much as the way you misstated. I personally addressed the TC at the last meeting about this. They are not doing it intentionally any more than you are, but coming from them, misstatements can be taken as gospel.
Townie, it is nice to see you back in true form. Hope you didn't mind my good-natured jabs a while back.
Dytunck |
Yvette
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 1:08 pm: | |
You may be right about me misinterpreting the #s.
But I can assure you that I do understand the tax problems quite clearly.
And you are right - my intent (and I believe the TC's as well) is not to spread false information. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 3:37 pm: | |
Dytunck,
No. Sorry if anything I said got you deleted. That wasn't my intention.
Does it matter how many are getting an increase and how many aren't? It seems to me that all that legally counts is that individual homeowners are assessed correctly, and then taxed on the basis of that assessment.
Not to set you off, Dytunck, but I feel the report of the Independent auditor ought to be the last word on this. If he says these current numbers don't fly, we'll do what we have to get them in line with the law. But if he says it was a valid process, I don't want to have to pay for more reviews.
Kathleen |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 4:06 pm: | |
Townie/Kathleen,
Apologies for interjecting in here, but I cant help add that not only do we not want to pay for any more reviews, we would rather have not had to pay for this one either.
I do think that all any of us have ever wanted out of this thing was to have some confidence that the darned thing was done fairly and correctly. Early on, it became very difficult for many to have that confidence.
But, we've been all over that ground. It will be very helpful, in a putting this thing behind us sense, if the indendent assessor (it may not be technically correct to refer to him as an "auditor") can be definitive, one way or the other. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 4:20 pm: | |
Octofoil,
Once I saw the neighborhood results that were made available by Gerry Ryan, I felt I saw all I needed to know to proceed with the reval. But I think the TC did the right thing to order the review to bring the thing to closure. I think what everybody needs to consider, however, is that the current numbers, townwide, are market value or very close to it. If another reval is legally required, people should be prepared to see the same tax bill. I'm sure if the many people who've been looking for large flaws in this reval could point to a grossly underassessed area of Maplewood, they would have by now.
kathleen |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 4:28 pm: | |
Kathleen, I think Dytunck has been pointing out a grossly underassessed area of Maplewood, and it seems to be on the west side! I may have misunderstood, but he told us the other day that homes in that area had sales prices in 2000 way over the assessed value. |
Townie
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 4:43 pm: | |
Njjoseph,
I guess I must have missed that post. Well, I think I still wouldn't advise my neighbors to go on a spending spree thinking their next tax bill will be the same as their last.
k. |
|