| Author |
Message |
    
Mlj
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 10:02 pm: |     |
I watched the meeting on Ch. 35 and unfortunately the audio was extremely poor, making it was very difficult to understand the speakers. I did not know what phone number to call to report this. Called the town hall number, but of course, got a recording.
So, aside from the local paper report, I hope someone will post the major points covered, especially by the independent assessors and the attorney.
Thanks. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 8:55 am: | |
I noticed that too, and made a mental note that one of the 'cost-savings' that the state audit recommended in west orange was to have the local high school take care of the recordings of town meetings. (i think that is what we are currently doing).
heh
you get what you pay for.
i only listened for the shortest while last night...the audio was horrific. Someone was asleep at the wheel. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 9:50 am: | |
OK, here's my take on some of the major points.
Certified did not just do a satisfactory or good job, Certfied did an excellent job.
The proof is in the pudding. The experts looked at 200 sales in 2000 (bubble sales?) and found that the assessments were right on the mark (although the way they looked at it was a town wide average (?) of ratios of assessment to sale prices, which really would not show whether certain areas were overvalued and certain undervalued). I didn't realize that anyone was disputing that the assessments accurately reflected the year 2000 market.
It is ok for the assessor to make adjustments to reflect a "realistic" market, but an appraiser must use only sales inside the bubble, realistic or not. The three year provision in the contract was upheld because Certified looked at three years, but ignored them (still not clear if and when prior years would ever be used--I understand that sales closest to the reval date are usually the best indicators of value, but when a trend shows a peak, I can't believe that an overexuberant market would be the most reliable evidence of value).
Adjustments are at the discretion of the assessor and the presence of lots of adjustments is not indicative of a less than excellent job by Certified. The adjusted and otherwise corrected numbers were used to determine the quality of Certified's work.
Yes, it seems we were at the top of a bell curve and a look at the change in sales and ratios from 1999 to 2000 shows wild differences. But don't worry, assessments will be continuously adjusted in the future. So when you sell your house, the buyer will have lower taxes? (The experts seem to base their opinion on the availablilty of untested technology to correct assessments as time goes by, ignoring the requirement that the reval numbers be a stable indicator of value, likely to endure.)
It's wrong to get hung up on land values and other methodology. It's the overall value that counts. (I understand that the overall value is the starting point for the appraiser, but the application of the factors is what determines each individual's assessment and may not be important to the appraiser but is important to the individual).
Revals are subjective and tough and its amazing that Maplewood undertook this voluntarily because now it will be paying more for any county based charges and hopefully the other towns in the county will also do revals.
The fact that Certified did not provide property cards prior to meetings with taxpayers(rendering the meetings far from optimal and precipitating an additional review at additional taxpayer cost)did not mean that Certified's job was less than excellent. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:44 am: | |
Another "sound bite" - if schools are closed, who did man the TV coverage last night? |
Mem
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:44 am: | |
Maybe we should be grateful that the camera didn't just do a continual panning of people's feet. Oh, wait, maybe that would have been more riveting, if possible. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 2:38 pm: | |
Hey Jennie, guess it doesn't matter what the numbers are at this point. If someone said Certified did an excellent job, they must have done an excellent job! Well now I feel a lot better!! And exactly WHO was it that told us that Certified did an excellent job?!!! |
Ejt
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 3:22 pm: | |
I think it's a disgrace that those of us who couldn't attend the meeting in person were subject to whatever that was on Channel 35.
Teach66: the brainwashing has begun. I think I just saw Kevin McCarthy running down my street. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 6:35 am: | |
Ejt, didn't get that Kevin McCarthy comment. Could you explain? |
Ejt
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 8:37 am: | |
Sure Teach! Just a "very off-hand reference"(paaleease!) to the classic 50's movie "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers"! There's also the early 80's(?) re-make with Donald Sutherland. |
|