| Author | Message | ||
     Dave23 |
I recall that a couple of months ago, someone posted a message saying they heard that Certified was basing all valuations on lots being worth $1 million per acre. Jerry posted a message vociferously denying it. My whopping 1/4 acre was valued at $250,000. Color me confused. | ||
| Njjoseph |
And my half-acre is $131,000. Dave23, you may have two line items for property on your card, as well as a site charge. Although the 1/4 acre may cost you $250K, the acreage is charged at $350K/acre for a minimum amount, and then $100K for acreage over that minimum. The only way for you to have such a high amount per acreage cost is that the site charge is included. Although there is a fine line between saying your property of 1/4 acre costs you $250K, or 1M/acre, and the actual cost of the acreage. It's been discussed on this boards many times; maybe you can find it in the archives. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Certified put different land values on different parts of town. Presumably if there are four quarter acre lots next to each other and each was valued at $250,000 (land value) then that particular acre would be worth 1 million dollars (land value). As I recall, 1 million dollars an acre was the highest value given by Certified. | ||
| Bobk |
In the strip between Ridgewood and Wyoming from Claremont through Maple Terrace land is valued at $350,000 an acre plus a $175,000 site charge. Most significantly is that while this area is in a R-1-7 zone, meaning a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet the reduced rate on land isn't being used unless the lot is well over 10,000 square feet, while in other parts of town the excess (and reduced) rate kicks in for all lots OVER THE ZONING MINIMUM. I don't have the exact number where the excess rate kicks in as this was mentioned very briefly by the Mayor during the meeting with Householter and DeMartin. I imagine this is going to be part of the class action suit that Maplewood Tax is soliciting funds to file since it is obviously unfair and discriminatory to handle different areas of town using different standards. They have obtained Donald Micelli of Roseland to represent tax payers in this suit and are soliciting funds to cover the $25,000 cost of this suit. | ||
| Lisat |
Our lot is .16 of an acre and is $227,000. So, we're up there with you. (I think this may be even more than $1 million.) | ||
| Snowmom |
Who is organizing the suit? How do I contact them? | ||
| Overtaxdalready |
Their email address is maplewoodtax@aol.com | ||
| Dytunck |
[ I posted this message on the IMPORTANT INFO ON LAND VALUES thread, but it bears repeating here. For neighborhood formulas, see my posting there.] I have read the DeMartin Schwartz report carefully, and only now do I understand how the land values were calculated. I will explain below, because judging by this thread there is a lot of confusion. Wouldn't it have saved a lot of grief if someone stepped up and explained this carefully before? READ CAREFULLY First, CVI broke down Maplewood into 42 distinct "neighborhoods" or VCSs. It's actually 25, but I'll explain that later. They applied the formulas on a neighborhood basis to the LAND VALUE portion of your property card. Your improvements (structures) are itemized separately. Two properties located within the same VCS that have the exact lot size will have the same exact LAND VALUE, as a rule. Exceptions might exist for easements or some other such thing, but assume this as the rule. Therefore, what differentiates property values on identical lots is the improvement itself. Example: Two homes in the same VCS on R-1-7 lots each have 7,000 sq. feet of land. They are assessed $20,000 apart. Therefore, one property has improvements totaling $20,000 more. Since the assessment is based on a starting estimate and land is extracted from the cost of the structure, and since the land is equal in this example, the assessors had to come up with a $20,000 difference in the IMPROVEMENT portion. This is done by counting square footage, living space, etc, assigning a quality rating, determining a depreciation rate, calculating replacement costs, etc. Whatever math works to come up with the $20,000 difference is what is done. If they needed to finagle the depreciation to make the numbers work, they did. If they needed to futz with the quality rating, which drives the 1975 multipliers, they did. Now back to the LAND VALUE FORMULAS. The 42 VCSs were assigned LAND VALUES according to the following formula: Site Value + Acreage Cost for a determined cutoff size, plus any land in excess of the cutoff. NOTE: The cutoff is NOT the same as the minimum lot size as was stated by the Assessor and Mayor at the Property Card Workshop. This is where the confusion arises. Let's look at an actual VCS formula: Neighborhood #1 or VCS# "AC01" is Wyoming and Upper Wyoming Avenues. There are 261 parcels within AC01. All the LAND was calculated using the formula: (Site) $ 170,000 + (Acreage) $350,000 per acre times % of an acre, (which is 43,560 square feet). The cutoff lot size is .4 acres. Anything over .4 acres is $100,000 per acre. Three parcels in this VCS for example: The Smiths live on R-1-7 with the minimum 7,000 square feet. They have (7,000 divided by 43,560) .16 acre. Their Land Value is $170,000 + ($350,000 * .16) ~equals~ 170K + $56K ~equals~ $226,000. The Wollenskis live on R-1-7, but have 12,560 square feet. They have 5,560 feet in excess of the minimum lot size in the zone. THEIR land value is 170K plus (350K times .29 acre) ~equals~ $170,000 plus $101,500, or $271,500. The entire lot is multiplied by 350K per acre because while exceeding the minimum lot size for the zoning, it did NOT exceed the cutoff assigned by Certified, which is .4 acre or 17,424 square feet. The Lugers live on R-1-7 with 21,000 square feet. Lucky them. They have 14,000 square feet in excess of the zoning lot size, but only 3,576 square feet in excess of the cutoff. Those 3,576 sq. ft. are multiplied by $100,000 per acre. 3,576 is .08 acre. Their land value is 170K plus (350K times .4) plus (100K times .08) ~ or 170K plus 140K plus 8K, equaling $318,000. Still with me? Anyone? Bueller? The 42 VCSs have formulas assigned to them, but there are only 25 different formulas. For example, AC01 and AC02 have identical formulas, so even though CVI assigned them as different neighborhoods, they are assigning land values in AC01 the same way as in AC02, which makes them the same neighborhood. Does this clear up the confusion from this thread? Dytunck | ||
| Napes |
Dytunck, loved the Bueller reference. I think you've just dated yourself (and me) as those who must have come of age in the mid 80s.  | ||
| Snowmom |
Overtaxalready - I was unable to contact "Maplewoodtax@aol.com"- could it be because I don't subscribe to AOL? I really want to contact these folks, please suggest another route. Many thanks! | ||
| Interalia |
Snowmom: It shouldn't make a difference what internet service provider you use and that is the correct e-mail address. Try it again and see what happens. On another note, (and on another thread!), thank you for responding to Ihateice. I found 'ice's' posting so audacious that I was afraid to respond myself, fearing I would spew too hot! | ||
| Overtaxdalready |
Snowmom...post here again if you're having trouble contacting that address. | ||
| Snowmom |
I think I got through this time, thanks for asking | ||
| Martc |
I lived in Jersey City during that City's reval in 1987-88. It got very ugly. We raised money, sued the city and when all was said and done, two years later, we lost. It was a noble act, carried out in total and painful futility. To this day, hearing the word 'reval' makes my stomach turn. | ||
| Townie |
Martc: Why did you lose? (If you don't want to think about it anymore for the sake of your stomach, understood) kathleen |
