| Author |
Message |
    
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 10:12 pm: |     |
C'mon..I need someone to play this game with me.
I'll go first.....
"I believe that Certified Valuations did what it thought was correct."
-Harry Haushalter, Esq.
Township Committee Mtg.
2/21/01 |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 10:31 pm: | |
"I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to support this."
-Township Committeeperson Ellen Davenport |
Bak
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:49 pm: | |
"crackle, crackle and crackle crackle crackle crackle"
-Anyone speaking via Channel 35 |
Livinwestwless
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 9:13 am: | |
"Certified did an "excellent" job" - The second speaker (the attorney).
Is this what they mean by grade inflation? What used to be known as adequate or satisfactory, is now called excellent! |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:34 am: | |
Thank you, Bak! Before I get slammed about hearing stuff at town hall as I have complained about in prior posts, thank you for confirming that my TV set isn't ready for the dump. Last night the sound over 35 sounded like the station wasn't tuned in correctly. Between the coughing of Ms. Davenport directly into her mike, the incredibly loud shuffling of papers by all concerned, it was almost impossible to hear the speakers.
Why is it that extraneous noise seems to come through loud and clear, but speach does not?
At one point I looked up the number of town hall hoping there was an after-hours number - there is, but it's the police. Since I didn't want to discuss TV sound with the desk sargeant, I didn't make the call.
Ah, well, I did hear the death rattle, however, to our reval battle.
The fact, as was mentioned by one speaker, that the experts had their backs to the audiences both in town hall and over cable did not help. Lip reading might have filled in some of the blanks.
Facial expression would have helped too! Especially when CV's work was praised! |
Rheims
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:22 am: | |
I suspect the poor sound quality was from the mikes being turned up as loud as possible so those in the back could hear over their incessant muttering and side comments. Obviously the room's sound system was not built for the Bud Lite Concert Series. Should our taxes go for improving it?
As for someone complaining she was offended by the experts having their backs to the audience, I would ask her, Where were they supposed to sit? Should they have to stand off to the side for two hours? Those giving testimony before a congressional committee have their backs to the audience; why should a TC meeting be any different? |
Mem
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:25 am: | |
"Yabbah Dabbah Doooo!"
Fred Flintstone |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:37 am: | |
Rheims, I agree with you! I felt that the meeting was between the TC and the independent reviewers. The citizens of Maplewood were invited to observe. |
Jem
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:44 am: | |
I second your agreement, Njjoseph. Should they have given their report with their backs to the people who were making the decision? I thought that Ms. Sechzer's expression of anger about that was a bit over the top. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 2:58 pm: | |
At previous town council meetings, the table in front of the platform was turned sideways so that the attorney or the town administrator could direct remarks in both directions. Ms. Sechzer's remarks were right on target. It had to do with attitude. If you were there, you would have felt what quite a few of us in the hall were feeling. We the taxpayers paid for this so called "independent review" and as such the experts' reports were as much for us as for the T.C. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 4:17 pm: | |
Gee, just a bit off topic, but since I couldn't understand the speakers due to poor TV audio, I have to vote for best post and quote on this thread.
"Lip reading might have filled in some of the blanks."
M. Tierney |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 4:37 pm: | |
Winkydink,
The table in front was changed to that position prior to the town meeting on Tuesday. I believe this was done so the TC could hear those reporting to THEM better. We were there simply as observers of the reports. The experts were requird to give their report to the TC not the public. |
Mem
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 4:50 pm: | |
"The experts had their backs to the audience so we wouldn't see them trying not to laugh."
Mem |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 5:10 pm: | |
I remember one expert stating that even though there were anomolies in the revaluations done by Certified, which the expert didn't have time to examine due to time constraints, the revaluation was done properly because it conformed to the contract provisions.
Why weren't the experts charged with uncovering anomolies, if they existed, and determining if they they pointed to inconsistancies in the revaluation process which once identified could then be corrected?
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to determine whether there were weaknesses in the contract itself than the contract compliance ?
I got the impression that the experts would have written the contract differently. I think we all assumed that Certified had complied with the word if not the spirit of the contract.
The experts also did not see a problem with 50% of the reviews by Certified resulting in adjustments. I found that the most disconcerting statement of all! |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 6:37 pm: | |
>>I think we all assumed that Certified had complied with the word if not the spirit of the contract.
Actually, there were many claims on this board that they had not (mostly having to do with their attention to sales in years before 2000). |
Alidah
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:10 pm: | |
My favorite part of these town meetings is when Vic Deluca asks people to hurry up when they are explaining something because he wants to go home. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 5:03 am: | |
The reports from the experts were pretty much what a cynic such as myself expected. After all, they were hired by the TC and human nature is to expect an expert to validate your thought process.
Things like the 50% change rate in the review process, etc. were glossed over. I especially enjoyed Mr. DeMartins answer to Ms. Davenport's question about a house that sold well below the new assessed value, "Well they got a deal".
My only suggestion is that those of us who do not get satisfaction from the Assesser review process continue on to the tax board. The cost of a private evaluation of your property is minor in comparisom to the potential savings.
Also, don't expect your tax bill to go up by the usual 5% or so for 2000. Remember our share of the school budget and the county budget will be going up considerably now that we are a $2,000,000,000 town!! Did the TC factor this in when they decided to go ahead with the reval |
Alidah
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 8:40 pm: | |
Now I know what they mean by "ignorance is bliss." |
Bix
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 6:15 pm: | |
My vote has to go to Celia King for the immortal question: "Mr. Househalter, did we do the right thing?"
Of all the self-serving.....
Did anyone get the impression that there wasn't one question asked that wasn't discussed and arranged for ahead of time?
B | >< |
Jennie
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 7:44 pm: | |
There may have been one thing the TC didn't anticipate--the appraiser's comment that Maplewood will now be paying more for county charges due to the increase in overall property value. Then he expressed the hope that other towns in the county will go ahead with their own voluntary revals (that was a good one--bet they're all on the phone to Certified right now to cancel out the tax break we gave them). |
|