| Author |
Message |
    
Melidere
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 8:01 pm: |     |
The same can be asked of you. Over and over it has been repeatedly explained that seniors have been forced to move from their homes already from the burden of paying 6-7-8,000 a year in tax on homes worth less than 150,000. They could not handle that tax burden on fixed incomes, and when they left they didn't have a big wad of equity to ease the transition.
I know a young family recently forced to sell their house and move to a rental. They could have afforded the payments that would exist after this reval went through.
They just couldn't hold on long enough for them to arrive.
Why don't they count?
Please explain to me exactly why they don't count? |
Mck
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 7:06 am: | |
I'll join in with my new allies, Melidere and Bacata, to say that I will fight every which way to prevent a phase-in of the reval. See you in court, if I have to. This is a bald faced attempt to save the political hide of at least one of the TC members, the one up for reelection this year. But realistically, it'll never happen. How much clout does Ron Rice have in Trenton? Why would the Republicans be willing to bail out Maplewood Democrats? |
Jfb
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 8:56 am: | |
Nakaille,
I'm not contesting your right to lower taxes. You have that and deserve it. However, to say that you "overpaid" all these years and did not know it is a bit much.
I learned by simply going to an open house once in a while. It's a Maplewood tradition to go to open houses in pretty houses. The ones that are interesting. It's the only way to check them out. I went just because I wanted to see what the inside looked like! Along the way I noticed that the tax burden was higher, but not much higher than my house near Maplecrest Park.
With all due respect, I hope that with your lower taxes your neighborhood will rebound.
Regards.. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 8:56 am: | |
Let's look at one of those families, octofoil.
They bought a house close to boyden in about 1985 for about 129,000. Their mortgage is about 1000 a month. Their taxes, currently, are about 655 a month.
With the reval, their taxes would go down about 300 a month.
The primary breadwinner is a teacher. Take home pay is about 2,000 a month. Teaching has nice benefits, so they can actually afford to live on about 630 a month.
But no one can feed their family and buy clothes for the kids on 300 a month.
So that 300 is the difference between holding on to their home and not.
At this point they probably have about 75,000 in equity in their home, but where do you buy a house with a good school district for 200,000? You don't. They took out a second mortgage 5 years ago to pay for improvements, cover some of the tax. Now their equity is shot and they still can't cover the payments out of cash flow. They want to keep their kids in this district with their friends and in the neighborhoods they know...so the house has been sold and they are paying 1100 a month for a rental.
They had to get rid of most of the furniture at garage-sale prices...there was no room for it in the new place. There wasn't much in the way of closet space, either. There wasn't a garage for the kids' bikes. There isn't much of a yard.
If the reval had been done last year, it would have been in time to allow them to stay in their home. They sold it in august. They knew that relief was coming..the 4x number was already floating around, and if you were paying attention, you knew that meant a sizeable reduction in their tax payment.
But holding on a year was $3600 they just didn't have.
Why aren't we concerned about them?
These 'new' young families you are talking about paid somewhere between 350,000 and 400,000 for the house on the west side (minimum). That is a mortgage payment of something like 3,000 or 4,000 a month. That means they have incomes of somewhere between 108,000 and 150,000 a year.
In the last couple of years they have a windfall of at least 100,000 to 150,000 in equity.
They have a ton of options.
Why are they the source of your concern?
The seniors we keep worrying about in the reval will have somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 in equity in their homes. They can buy a whole house in the 'middle' section of town, for CASH, and put money (tax free) in the bank.
They can stay in their town.
They can keep their furniture.
They can afford to retire.
Why are we weeping for them? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 9:03 am: | |
(Sorry about the multiple posts...the article in the star ledger has finally gotten me angry).
You want to change the way we fund education? Want to move it to income taxes? Actually, i suspect that wouldn't be a good deal for the bulk of the homeowners who have been pushing up our property prices and moving into our town.
I'm dying to see the statistics from the census, but i suspect when we get a look at median income in this town, we are going to find that a 5% increase in income taxes would hit the wallets in this town a LOT harder than this property tax increase. |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 10:04 am: | |
Melidere,
First, I'm not talking about the "new young families". Nobody is "weeping" for them that I am aware of. Apparently you read this board pretty regularly. If so, then you may recall that I previously described certain aspects of the reval situation in a statistical sense as having a few families way out in the left tail of the distribution that were being faced with a combination of revaluation-induced tax increases that have far outstripped their ability to pay. Hopefully there aren't many, but it appears that there are some. Certainly your "new young families" as you describe them do not fall into this category. To repeat: I have no problem at all with the principle of the reval; it is the right thing to do under the current law. Furthermore, I have no problem at all with the situation in which the the majority of taxpayers facing an increase find themselves: they generally have the resources to contend with the reval. But to not recognize that some (perhaps only a few) may be severely hurt by this and to not be willing to assist them in some manner, well, that smacks of a lack of compassion.
Second, what makes you think that I'm not concerned about the young family you've described? In one way or another, this reval is going to happen. It is indeed unfortunate that it did not happen in time to provide any assistance to the folks that you've described. We can't help them now, but maybe the reval will help others from being put in the same situation. To repeat: the reval is the right and proper thing to do under the current law. But look here, compassion is a two way street: it works on the east side of town the same way that it works on the west side of town. At least, one would like to think that it does.
Thirdly, your're reference to seniors. I get a sense of contradiction here. On the one hand, you weep and moan about a family that was unable to keep their house. You're saying that they were forced to sell because they couldn't hold on long enough to benefit from the coming tax cut. (And BTW, when reading your post, I get the sense that what your family really needed was assistance with planning a budget. As you've described it, it sounds more like they simply took on more than they could handle. But I do recognize the intent of your description.)
Regardless, then you say its okay for another family to be forced to sell out and pick up and move because of the flip side of the reval. Why is it okay for one to stay in their neighborhood and not the other? Is compassion a one way street with you? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 10:12 am: | |
No,
compassion is not a one-way street with me, thank you for asking.
I'm not nearly as concerned however, with the consequences of picking up and moving a half a mile to a new home that is probably even larger and in the same town.
picking up and moving from a lifestyle of residential housing to a 2 bedroom rental is 'moving' of a different order.
Wouldn't you agree? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 11:08 am: | |
I agree with Mel. I see no reason why senior citizens who have lived here most of their lives, who raised kids and put them through the schools, and who retired in their current house should feel they need to stay in those houses. So what if their entire lives and memories are associated with that house! It's just a physical structure after all, no different than the one Mel will find for them in the middle section of town. They can't afford a 25% increase in property taxes on a fixed pension? Then move! It's so simple. Better yet, take out some debt to pay the increase. Then take some more debt the next year, and the year after that. What's the big deal? And as for those folks who bought those big, expensive houses on the west side of town? I just bet you those folks were silly enough when they were making the purchase decision to determine what they could afford to pay and take on as a mortgage given the then-current property taxes, with the expectation of reasonable increases in those taxes going forward. So they got their mortgages, paid their taxes..and when the anticipated tax increases came through they paid them too. Now, faced with tax hikes ranging from 25-60%, they have the gall to cry "unfair"! I agree with Mel here too..they have lots of options....they can pull their kids from private schools, or get a second job, or take out a home equity loan to pay the increase, or better yet, move. Individual circumstances be damned. It's really all so simple. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 11:13 am: | |
You know, life is long and many things will happen. Along the way, you have to re-evaluate your circumstances and choices. The scenario describing the hardship of the family mentioned is sad. But these setbacks are part of life. Many of us have been there or in similar circumstances. If I were them, (or if they were my children or friends), I would say that we have to re-examine our budgeting system to determine what happened to bring us to the point where we are renting for $1,100 a month. Living somewhere nice in New Jersey is expensive, period. |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 11:17 am: | |
Melidere,
Yes, but it is also irrelevant (certainly not to either of the families involved, but to the issue). The larger principle is that they are both forced moves, dictated by circumstances beyond one's control. At the whims of politicians, all in the name of fairness and equity. Seems like every time you hear a politician talking fairness and equity, you know right away that somebody is about get the shaft.
You know, as I re-read our respective posts, I don't think you and I have any real disagreement about principles here. About implementation or how to go about getting it done, yes, but perhaps not the underlying principles. |
Yvette
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 11:52 am: | |
Bacata/Mtierney - I agree, let's focus this energy into some good and work on the school issues.
Next board meeting is the 19th (I believe). |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 12:45 pm: | |
Overtaxd:
Do I detect a note of irony in your post? According to Dave the emoticon for irony is:
:-\ |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 12:48 pm: | |
Thanks! Still getting used to the "emotion symbols" |
Melidere
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 2:01 pm: | |
Octofoil,
i don't think we have any large areas of disagreement myself. If anything there is a question of tone, and i can certainly understand how bacata is getting frustrated.
For some reason, the example i've already given of seniors who are already being taxed out of their homes on the east side...WITHOUT the benefit of that large equity stake...are not overtaxed's concern.
But then, arguing their case doesn't help overtaxdalready.
Which is at the heart of the matter, i suspect. We are all for hiding behind the seniors if it will lighten our load...but not worried about them if they are on the east side of town, forced to leave the houses THEY have lived in all their lives. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 2:06 pm: | |
. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 9:22 pm: | |
As long as we put this on a basis of who's hurting the most, we are all going to go under. This kind of hateful comparisons will destroy this town faster than any other possible catastrophe could. BTW, I live in the "middle" and believe me, it does not offer any happier choices for finding a less expensive place to live. My taxes will be at $16G if this reval goes through! Who moves from one house directly into another without incurring huge expenses - moving, painting, fixing up, etc etc. This conversation will defeat us all. Please let's think about constructive ways to save Maplewood. |
Mck
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 6:51 am: | |
I regret the intemperate language of my post yesterday (saving political hides, etc.), but i am flabbergasted at the TC. I grant that they have human concerns about the hardships some people will face paying steep tax increases, but to delay tax relief for the east side? To try to get Trenton to delay tax relief for us who have been overpaying for a long time? Jerry, Vic, say it ain't so. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 8:54 pm: | |
What makes you think that this hypothetical Senior couple will be able to sell their house at a price close to what it was appraised for?
Where are they going to find this affordable bargain house in the middle of town when taxes on many of those homes are going up by a similar amount to those in the western section? |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:19 pm: | |
Joan, I don't think that taxes are going up on 'many' of those homes by a similar amount to those in the western section. Prospect and the Crescent seem to have commanded some pretty high prices...but the housing stock in the 'middle' is still around $300,000 for a typical house.
So maybe you sell the house assessed at 500 for 400 (not that i think it's so) ....You still own the new home free and clear with money in the bank.
The lowest reasonable tax they could have been paying on the west side was about $7,000 (wayyy on the low side), so the hundred grand would bankroll the extra 1000 for a hundred years.
How senior are we talking, anyway?
(grins) |
Bobk
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 8:21 am: | |
The middle spreads pretty far to the east. We use to own a home just off Elmwood about half way between Prospect and Boyden. Taxes on that house are going up $1,400 plus. Ouch!!! for Maplewood in the middle. |
|