| Author |
Message |
    
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 8:28 am: |     |
I didn't ask for another review, but didn't get a postcard yet, as I understood that we would all receive. I'm hoping that they're doing some sort of staggered mailing, as it concerns me that some on this board have had their letters for 2 days, and I haven't received it yet. |
Lydial
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 9:04 am: | |
Maggie - I handed in my assessment review on Feb. 13th - I got my letter Feb. 28th. I'd prefer the assessors spent more time reviewing my square footage than receiving this arbitrary figure promptly. |
Wilbur
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 9:29 am: | |
I'm confused. Back in December we got our first assessment from CVI, and it was very high. We supplied evidence to a Certified rep and the assessment was subsequently lowered by about $40K. That was still significantly more than we had just paid for the house last August. But then we missed the deadline to ask Galante for a review and figured we'd just file a county appeal....yet, yesterday we got our letter stating our final assessment, and it had been reduced by another $35K. We are now satisfied with this number and have decided not to appeal, so that's fantastic. But I'm confused about how this happened. Can anyone tell me who reduced it for us, since we hadn't spoken up? I've been a little out of it lately with regards to the reval, so I don't understand this. (I am thrilled with it, however). Did the town decide to just cut assessments across the board for certain neighborhods? |
Marie
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 9:31 am: | |
Does anyone know if there any truth to the rumor going around that a lawsuit against the TC is in the works? |
Lydial
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 10:06 am: | |
Wilbur - As far as I know, if you didn't submit an assessment review they shouldn't have reviewed your assessment following the neighborhood adjustment. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 11:10 am: | |
Lydial, I think this IS the neighborhood adjustment that Wilbur is seeing. The first adjustment was in response to a specific meeting with Certified. Have people gotten notices of neighborhood-wide adjustments in writing prior to this?
Bacata |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 11:42 am: | |
I received two mailings yesterday. One contained my new assessment - showing a $10,000 decrease from the value of my house (not lot). The other contained the letter stating that they had not yet had the opportunity to consider my appeal.
So, what's with the $10,000 cut? Was it a general neighborhood cut? I haven't have the opportunity to speak to any of my neighbors as yet.
Obviously the $10G is a drop in the bucket as my property increase five times in value since '81.
Picking up on the theory that revaluation is merely redistribution and not tax increases (repeatedly stated by those on the TC and anyone who received deductions) - who is picking up my $10G?
Has the eastside been getting increases? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 1:42 pm: | |
Your decrease will be adjusted for in the rate. |
Townie
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 3:31 pm: | |
Mtierney,
Some time ago you mentioned an article in the Millburn item about the postponement of the Millburn reassessment. Here is how Millburn's assessor (whom you expressed admiration for) described every town's reassessment process:
"A reassessment is not a means by which a governing agency raises taxes," Mr. Del Guercio said. "The only time taxes go up is when spending goes up.
"All the reassessment does is evenly distribute the burden of taxation among all types of property," he added. "A reassessment is not a means by which taxes are raised. It is only a means by which taxes are made uniform, and everyone pays their fair share."
-- So it's not a TC conspiracy or just a theory by people who got a tax decrease. And because your property assessment has just come down, my tax bite will go up, as will people's all over town. But if you are entitled to a reduction in your assessment, that's fair.
Kathleen |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 6:53 pm: | |
Bacata:
The reduction was about half what we thought it should be. Today we got a letter from Mr. Galante saying that our review request has not yet been addressed so I assume the reduction was the result of a class action petition -- probably the speed trap Maplewood PD likes to run by our house. We did not include the traffic issue in our appeal so I have no idea what the final outcome will be. It makes it more difficult to decide whether to go the County Appeal route.
Thanks for asking. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 7:55 pm: | |
Mtierney; Wilbur:
From your prior posts, I gather that we live in the same area. Some of our neighbors, maybe one or both of you included, filed a petition with Mr. Galante asking for an assessment reduction based on the high volume of traffic on part of the street.
From what both of you say in this discussion thread and my own experience, I would gather that this reduction was granted. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 8:53 pm: | |
No, but I did attend a meeting re Prospect St. traffic and land value and also attended the TC meeting at which your group's petition was presented.
I am off Propect and truly do not have to contend with much of a traffic problem.
So, why I got the $10G reduction is a mystery thus far.
Overtaxed: You mean when the 2.75 goes to 3.25, all our taxes will be going up again?
I still ask: Will those who got whopping decreases feel our pain - just a little? |
Franny
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 8:58 pm: | |
Does anyone know what's up with this class action suit? I received a notice from Maplewood Taxation Committee that they are bringing a class action suit. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 9:20 pm: | |
I hope that before anyone spends their money on bringing a class action suit, they read the brief from Harry Haushalter.
Just a suggestion. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 9:29 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan:
Has Mr. Haushalter's report been released to the public? At the meeting where he and Mr DeMartin presented the results of their review the Mayor indicated it would be released if the Township Attorney approved. Was this done?
The only thing I saw at the library last week were summary reports which were basically opinions, but no FACTS.
I don't want to jump the gun, something I have a tendancy to do, but possibly a lawsuit and the subsequent discovery process may be the only way to get this report.
And I am not a conspiracy theorist. I also support the reval in concept, it is the way it was done that I have a problem with.
"The Devil is in the Details". |
Bobk
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 9:39 pm: | |
Here is a post I made in another thread on this subject:
What I said was that not all streets in the very large "neighborhood" outlined in my earlier post are viewed the same by purchasers. The streets on the north end and especially the south end of the area are not considered as desirable as those in the Roosevelt Park area, yet were included in the same neighborhood by CVI even though similar houses on these streets sell for less ($50k to $100k) than on the more "desirable" streets.
As an example, take a ride on Clinton Ave. and then Durand Rd. Which street would you prefer to live on? Which street would you lay out $550k to live on? For the record, the average assessment on these two streets is almost identical ($494K for Clinton and $500k for Durand).
Since the TC, CVI, the assessor and the consultants never saw fit to take this into account the only avenue left open is through the review process and then through appeal to the Tax Board.
For the record, I support the reval. Many of the assessments on the westside were ridiculously low in 1981 (see my previous posts on this subject) and the increase in values in the last year make the reval the morally correct thing to do. However, as someone once said, "the devil is in the details". |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 10:06 pm: | |
Bobk: was Mr Haushalter's full report released to the public? Yes. Within 2 days of the meeting, as posted here by Mayor DeLuca. No conspiracy, sorry :-)
His report is an extensive legal brief, which IMHO constitutes free legal advice for everyone, especially those considering a class action suit.
I'll leave my opinions of the political motivations of the "Maplewood Taxation Committee" to the conspiracy theorists. By all means donate money if you feel so motivated... just understand what you are donating for (and the chances thereof), and who you are donating to. |
Interalia
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 10:42 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan:
I have read these posts for weeks now and in a very limited way participated in the on-line discussion. Cutting through all of the figures and maps and charts, etc. may I please ask you one simple question? How in good conscience can you or anyone in the position to impose the same expect a family raising children to incur an increase in their yearly budget of $3,000 to $6,000 a year.
I am not asking for more numbers from you. You obviously know your numbers. I am asking you to 'get real' with the expectations that the TC has put upon parts of this community. Have you checked out the "For Sale" signs lately? Have you listened to Alan Greenspan? How's your portfolio doing? Lot's of disposable income???
There are going to be lawsuits because families are facing the prospect of being uprooted from their homes. It isn't a conspiracy; its survival. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, March 3, 2001 - 1:47 am: | |
Interalia:
I must tell you that I love your screen name, because this should be between all of us...
I don't know how to answer you (but I will try, and will either regret this posting, or be chided for my tone, or both... so it goes).
Well, I'm certain that you have no idea how all this makes me feel. I'm raising three children in Maplewood with an increase that is (a) none of your business (b) a matter of public record so you know anyway (c) not for you to judge, just as I shouldn't be judging yours.
You may not want numbers from me, and my own affairs are none of your business, but I will tell you (since you asked) that:
- my portfolio? [CENSORED!!]...
- my disposable income? shrinking like mad...
- i'd just as soon be paying taxes on my old assessment because I'd be better off...
- I know that my own personal assessment is fair, so I'm working to find the extra $6K+ a year to pay my taxes.
If you think I'm not facing the prospect of being uprooted... or if you think I don't care that some people in Maplewood are as upset about their increases as I am... then we have no basis to discuss this issue.
"It's not a conspiracy, it's survival?" Agreed! Walk a mile in my financial shoes before being assured that I don't "get it" just as well as you do.
And if you've an idea about how to handle this, let me know.
You can have all the credit that you can possibly absorb! And I'll fight to be the first in line to give it to you. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Saturday, March 3, 2001 - 4:48 am: | |
Mr. Ryan:
Where is the report available? The only thing I found at the library were copies of the cover letters for the report.
Your comment about the reports as "an extensive legal brief" are telling. Listening to the verbal reports at the special TC meeting that was exactly my wife's and my view. The report was a legal brief in support of the TC position, not the balanced report many of us, probably naively, expected it to be. |
|