| Author |
Message |
    
Dytunck
| | Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2001 - 10:28 pm: |     |
Here are some thoughts to ponder:
In 2000, Maplewood taxed 315 commercial properties assessed at $58,774,200 a total of $6,006,723.24. For 2001, after the revaluation, there is ONE more commercial property, for a total of 316, assessed for $187,145,700. At the zero-sum equalizing tax rate of 2.66%, then the commercial levy would be $4,978,075.
The revaluation cost the residents of Maplewood $1,028,650!! Midas, Dunkin Donuts, Goodyear, Verizon, NJ Transit, Exxon, the Professional Offices, the adult video stores, ..... all these commercial ratables that we're trying to lure into town with beautification of sidewalks and parking spots, just got a tax break.
Look at it this way: There are 316 commercial properties in town. That's just 4.3%. It's nothing! If we agree that we want to increase commercial ratables, (we are to invest $10,000,000 on the Springfield Avenue Project), then what sense does it make to lower those ratables by over 1 Million bucks? How long will it take to recoup that ten mil? Answer is never. It's a losing cause. We're already behind by 1 million just due to the revaluation. Do you think that a notions shop and a Thai restaurant are going to contribute to the tax burden of Maplewood? Seriously!
And have you noticed how many of our commercial establishments are "cash only" or leave the register open? Is this a way to fool the taxman?
We are spending all this money on trying to bring up the commercial strip in town, but it will never pay itself back.
The burden shall increasingly fall on the residents. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2001 - 11:22 pm: | |
Zero-sum equalizing rate is 2.75% if you are using the spreadsheet I posted, D. Not 2.66%.
I see 361 commercial line items. I don't see your numbers.
Those 4.97% of the total line items in town used to pay $7.004M (or about 12.38% of the total tax bill). Using the 2.75% rate they'll pay $5.973M (or about 10.55% of the total tax bill).
If that $1,030,359 shift away from commercial to residential shifted back, that would be that much less money that would have to be collected from the residential properties.
I am not sure I buy your "it will never pay for itself" argument either, even if we expected the entire $10M to come from property taxes... which we don't.
If we spent $2M in property tax money on Springfield Ave redevelopment, and if that simply reversed the approximately $1M shift away from residential and back to commercial, then wouldn't that $2M pay itself back in 2 years?
I know, I know, I am waving my hands a little on the REAL cost of that $2M, but "it will never pay itself back" seems to be just not true. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2001 - 11:57 pm: | |
Jerry,
According to the book there were 316 commercial properties, 35 industrial and 11 apartment (Class 4a, 4b and 4c). I was using 4a - commercial, as I referred to them in my post. I won't split hairs on this one. It hardly lessens my point, since 46 more properties are negligible.
Re the zero-sum number, you got me on that one. But it's not 2.75 either. As certified by Ed Galante, the zero sum is 2.77%. ($56,656,971.24 divided by $2,045,085,000.00) Those are the numbers as made public.
Well, with these two minor corrections, we still have the million dollars "commercial" reduction. My point is still that you're going to have to sell a helluva lot of buttons and bows to just get back to the point the commercial ratables were at in 2000.
If that $1,030,359 shift away from commercial to residential shifted back, that would be that much less money that would have to be collected from the residential properties.
Right. If it all shifted back, we'd be back to where we were in 2000.
If we spent $2M in property tax money on Springfield Ave redevelopment, and if that simply reversed the approximately $1M shift away from residential and back to commercial, then wouldn't that $2M pay itself back in 2 years?
To generate $2M more in commercial property tax, you would need to increase the commercial property values by $72 Million dollars in 2 years. Is this what you say is possible? And if so, what took so long?
Come on, this will never pay off. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 12:21 am: | |
We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. I was splitting hairs myself on your "never pay off" point, which I think is just wrong.
I believe that we as a community can't afford NOT to invest in Springfield Ave.
Will it pay for itself *immediately*?
Will it only pay off in improved $$ value of properties on the avenue?
Do we like what we'd get if we did NOT invest in the avenue?
No to all three, I think. |
Ihateice
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 5:15 am: | |
I wonder how many people use the Maplewood Visa so that money comes back to the town. I know I use it WAY TOO MUCH! This is a great way to pull extra cash into the town. |
Lisat
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 7:32 pm: | |
I have a question about the Springfield Avenue project. Do you have a model that you're working from? Can you point to a model that has been successful somewhere else and tell us why it will be successful here? I want Springfield Avenue to be successful but I don't want us to throw money at it, say we tried and walk away. What's the model? |
|