| Author |
Message |
    
Golden
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 5:45 pm: |     |
What astounds me about this whole reval process is that there was not one member of the TC who stood up to vote in opposition of accepting CV's numbers. One of the "experts" who spoke on Wednesday said the only way we will know if the CV numbers are correct is to wait and look at the first 6 months sales for 2001. Why not wait the 6 months to make sure the numbers are right.
Like it or not this reval played out as homeowner vs. TC. Any positives were the result of TC reacting to pressure from homeowners. I cant help but think that this "one voice" position is due to the fact they all belong to the same political party, and would not take a public stance in opposition. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 6:07 pm: | |
Can anyone recall the last time there wasn't a 5-0 vote? It would have been nice to see an "abstain" or a vote against, out of deference to the pain of this process. After all the uproar this reval caused, the upshot is that there's just another unanimous vote by the TC.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[this statement is baseless; as pointed out below, there have been recent split votes among the elected officials in Maplewood. -ed.] |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 6:25 pm: | |
There's plenty of non-unanimous votes. How many votes have you paid attention to before this? |
Jennie
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 7:35 pm: | |
There's going to be lots more paying attention now I bet. This episode has provided a wonderful civics lesson (anyone think local government wasn't a big deal before this?). |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 11:07 pm: | |
Lseltzer, I take it by your response that you can't remember the last time there wasn't a unanimous vote. Maybe you could shed a little light? Call up your buddy if you need a reminder.
>>How many votes have you paid attention to before this?<< 73. |
Buddy
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 1:30 am: | |
Dytunck:
Actually the upshot of all this is that most people in town are now satisfied by the new numbers and are moving on with their lives.
That is precisely why the number of attendees at the meetings is dwindling. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 9:45 am: | |
Dytunck: I guess you have problems with english:
"There's plenty of non-unanimous votes" means there are many votes that aren't unanimous.
Two examples from recent memory: Rent control extension, 4-1. They voted 3-2 to change parking rules near Baker and Parker. I was watching for both of these.
Now, if you actually believe what you're saying, perhaps you can back up your own statements. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:26 am: | |
Buddy:
The 850 or so people who filed review forms with the assessor is a very strong indication that people are NOT satisfied with the "new numbers".
The decreased attendance is because of a number of reasons such as crowding at previous meetings, listening to the same citizens say the same thing at meeting after meeting and a growing feeling on the part of many that NOTHING that anyone is going to say is going to have ANY effect on the TC. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:41 am: | |
Larry,
Keep your insults to yourself. You are making a fool of yourself here. Clearly it's YOU that cannot follow a simple English sentence.
1: The word English is always capitalized.
2: "There's plenty of votes..." Should be "There ARE plenty of votes." Votes is plural.
3: Follow the thread:
Q) "Can anyone remember the last time ...?"
A) "There's plenty of votes..."
That didn't exactly say when the last time was, did it Larry?
Follow up: "So I guess you can't recall"
"You have a problem with english"
HUH???????
Notice I answered your question directly? You still haven't said whether you know WHEN the last time there wasn't a unanimous vote.
I have a problem following your poor logic and bad grammar. |
Golden
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 12:04 pm: | |
Lseltzer, et al,
Why do you feel the need to enter a personal attack against someone who has a different point of view concerning the reval? If you are happy with the actions of CV and the TC thats fine.
Many homeowners (over 850) are not so pleased. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 12:07 pm: | |
Because Maplewood is so full of tolerant people, at least until you disagree with them. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 1:05 pm: | |
The vote on the parking (that was actually Burr and Parker, sorry for that mistake) was 12/19/00 and I believe the rent control vote was within a week of that.
Since this obviously means so much to you, I'll look into other recent votes.
Will the outcome mean anything to you either way? |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 1:36 pm: | |
We know that there are 825 property owners who filed for reviews locally. There are many others who missed the deadlines, were out of the loop, etc. who will file for county appeals. Then there are the groups who are meeting to begin class action suits. Then there are the groups who don't want to deal with it at all and are putting their homes on the market (have you driven around town lately?). So where do you get the idea that people are over this?
We have actually gotten a lot accomplished although, in the end, we did not sway the T.C. to postphone the certifications. A lot of this credit goes to the Fairtax Committee and others of similar names and very active folks individually, who persued so many issues and came to Every T.C. meeting and spoke up for us. They achieved a lot for us - extensions of certification, further reviews by the town assessor, and an initial across the board reduction (in some neighborhoods). We all have wonderful neighbors/community in this town. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 7:44 pm: | |
>>Can anyone recall the last time there wasn't a 5-0 vote?
The night before the reval vote, after the regular Tuesday TC meeting, the TC convened for a budget workshop. There were several 3-2 and 4-1 votes on budgetary matters. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2001 - 10:49 pm: | |
Larry, why are you doing other people's homework for them?
Dytunck, you still sound like you're thinking of making a run for TC. No problem with that, but it would be good to get your facts straight before making these baseless accusations concerning unanimous votes. I guess you don't really follow the votes and issues at TC meetings all that closely. What IS your motive, then?
Bacata |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 9:08 am: | |
Bobk, you eliminated two reason that many people have filed for a review: 1) people are dissatisfied with paying high taxes, even though the numbers are accurate, 2) since so many people have made it known they're appealing, those of us that feel the reval is accurate are forced to appeal so that our assessments are not out-of-line with the adjusted numbers. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 9:49 am: | |
Yeah, I used to think the TC was a bunch of Bozos who really didn't affect my life at all. Who's the Bozo now?! |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 9:58 am: | |
Njjoseph:
Maybe, maybe not. At the Wednesday night meeting last week even the experts hired to review CVs work admitted there was room for discussion on individual properties:
My issues are basically:
1/ The housing stock on the Westside is diverse. The methods of a mass reval don't take that into consideration. Drive up and down say Mountain or Clinton and you will see what I mean.
2/ Virtually the whole Westside between Ridgewood and Wyoming is considered one neighborhood. The streets on the ends, again Mountain, Clinton and Ridgewood Tr. and maybe Claremont on the other end are very different than those in Rossevelt Park. A RE broker I talked with said that the pricing difference is usually in the $50k to $100k range.
Neither of the above factors were really reflected in the mass reval.
I am sure that some people are filing for the reasons you mentioned, but a lot of us really believe that we are being overassessed by very significant amounts. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 10:36 am: | |
Well, there goes Bacata again coming to the defense of Larry who was coming to the defense of our elected officials. And once again, Bacata's M.O. is to challenge other people to run for public office. I guess we're not entitled to an opinion without running for the Township Committee. That has never stopped you, has it Bacata?
Larry's memory of the last non-unanimous vote is very telling. The last one was after Tuesday's meeting (at which there were several 5-0 votes) had adjourned? The meeting that had only one person in attendance? How DO you recall this trivia? My dictionary's definition of "sycophant" hasn't changed. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 26, 2001 - 10:46 am: | |
Bobk -- what did you mean by the $50K to $100K pricing difference? That all houses in your neighborhood are marketable within $100K of each other?
I assume that the assessment in that neighborhood doesn't reflect this. But what will happen if we find 6 months down the road that it really is on the higher side? Will the houses at the lower end of your range be adjusted upward, or will they then be "underpaying?" |