| Author |
Message |
    
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 12:04 pm: |     |
Is 3.25% the new number? I watched last night's TC meeting (could actually hear it too).
First member of the public to speak blew my mind. A gray-haired gentleman asked what the rate now is. 2.75% or 3.25% which he claimed someone he spoke with at town hall had confirmed. He said he had a small 3 bedroom, 1 bath house on Pierson Road. Using the higher rate, he said he faced taxes of $200 A WEEK!
Did he get a straight answer? The TC could take their act on the road. First Mr. Ryan did his shtick about using 2000 figures...then our mayor spoke of the impossibility of knowing that figure until the school and county budgets are set. He ended his discourse by saying, yes, it is possible that the new rate may be 3.25%!
I had never done that math. Now I'am seriously depressed. Using 2.75, my weekly tax bill comes to $287. At 3.25, it's a whopping $340 a week!!
I say railroaded out of town because our beloved Midtown Direct resulted in the flock of buyers who were willing to go into bidding wars for their houses last year, thus upping our assessments.
I ask you again. How many of us can afford such an expense? Our reval was flawed as is proved every day by complaints of citizens, the multiple adjustments, etc. etc. |
Mammabear
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 12:18 pm: | |
M.- As I keep saying, the more reductions that are made to CVI's assessed values (whether justified or not) the higher our tax rate will go. If the budget dictates that $XXXX be collected, then a collective reduction in values means the only way to get the money is to increase the tax rate. |
John
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 12:42 pm: | |
An equal increase in the value of all homes in town would not have resulted in an increase in anyone's taxes (I am assuming that the share of County taxes does not change) using the 2000 base. So I guess Railroaded out of town may not be the best phrase to use. It's the tax base we should be looking at to see how much that increases. The TC keeps telling us (and probably will say they warned us) that the budget is not finalized. The rate changes now are directly related to the Budget. None of this is to say I agree with the current NJ mandated Property Tax methods. I'm just saying if the entire town improves equally, the result is a steady fair share under the current system. Nor do I think it is fair to Tax homeowners who improve their homes (since I think this should be encouraged) to improve the value of all homes in the town. It's a sad state of affairs when you can (or need to) lower your cost of living, and at the same time drive down the value of your neighbor's property, by letting you home deteriorate.
What do people think of a tax system that does not take into account the condition or value of a home but rather the physical characteristics (sq. footage, location, usage·)? |
Bobk
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 12:44 pm: | |
In a previous post one of the TC members indicated that a tentative rate had to be included with the certification of the reval to the tax board. I don't believe that this number has been released.
Also, from comments made at the Wednesday night meeting Mr. Haushalter seemed to indicate that the reval would cause our share of the Essex County taxes to increase.
My guess is that factoring in at least a 5% increase in the three budgets involved on average and the effect of the reval reductions we are probably going to be north of $3.00.
In spite of this I urge that everyone keep their shirt on until more definitive information is available. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:03 pm: | |
I think the exodus has already started. We know of a family that's already moved out. They were willing to trade DOWN..get a smaller house, in order to move to a town with lower taxes and better schools. |
Konigen
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:54 pm: | |
Overtaxdalready,
Just curious, where did that family move to? If it's 3.25% or higher, we're going to have to consider moving, as well...
Thanks,
Konigen |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:59 pm: | |
If it's really 3.25%, I think the whole town will consider moving! |
Bak
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 4:07 pm: | |
We will leave, too. My average-size home will pay 15,015 in taxes, which is DOUBLE my taxes when we bought the home in 1998.
Unbelievable.
And a realtor told me yesterday that I could only hope to sell the home at 85% of my assessed value this Spring, due to a forecasted high-supply and potential homeowners being warned by realtors about the reval.
Unbelievable. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 4:11 pm: | |
I wonder if realtors are really warning about the reval. It's unfortunate, but I went to 6 open houses in the last month, and each realtor quoted a tax amount that was not the actual amount in 2000. I assume it was new assessment times 2.75%. However, not one (and this is the part I can't believe) could tell me what the new assessment was at the time of the open house, nor if it was being reviewed or appealed. I think I would run from that situation, rather than buying a house for which I didn't know the results of the reval. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 4:16 pm: | |
Konigen
I believe it was to Westfield.
Bak...we're in the same boat. It's aburd for us to pay mid-to-upper teens for the house we have. Too much money to be thrown away on property taxes. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 4:16 pm: | |
make that "absurd". |
Konigen
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 4:22 pm: | |
Thanks, Overtaxd. Absurd, insane, and highway robbery!
Konigen |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 4:42 pm: | |
I know it's difficult to compare towns, but I thought this was interesting. A person at work brought in a listing for a property in Cedar Grove. Asking price...$1.125 Million. It has 4 bedrooms, 4 full baths, central air, full finished basement, two fireplaces, inground pool/hot tub. Built in 1989. Taxes are $20,000. A house with more than twice the FMV of mine with taxes about 20% more than mine. Makes me feel like I'm getting my money's worth here. |
Mammabear
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 5:12 pm: | |
John- there are two separate issues here. First, the appreciation of the real estate in Maplewood. Yes, our houses are indeed worth more than they were a couple of years ago. Second, and what seems to be causing the most uproar, is the unfair distribution of taxes that has been going on for years.
Which leads me back to my original point- the budget needs a certain dollar amount. So CVI comes in and evaluates our homes to come up with fair market values across the board. Then the TC (or whomever) applies the corresponding tax rate to those collective values so that they get their budget number. When people appeal and reduce their valuation numbers, the tax rate just goes up.
Also, what everyone doesn't get is that the valuation number itself is kind of immaterial. As long as you are in line with your immediate neighbors, you should be fine. The importance of the number is to split up the tax burden fairly among the residents here in Maplewood. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 5:31 pm: | |
I forgot to add another fact from last night's meeting. It appears South Orange will object to any phasing in of our taxes over a three year period. SO doesn't want to carry anymore of the school budget than it has to. There was some talk amongst the TC that they would be having a sit down with the trustees quickly. Also, since we had a reval, SO hasn't, and we share the school budget, there appears to be another problem brewing. |
John
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 5:43 pm: | |
Mammabear- I agree with you on all points.
The problem I have is not with the reval or how it was done. Its a question of what is really fair and how do we change current law to reflect it.
Beside the points just posted on the other thread Mtierney just pointed out another flaw in the system. Unless all the same school district, County and then, State, revalue at the same time, our fair share is questionable under current law. |
Ejt
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 6:10 pm: | |
Overtaxed, that enclave in Cedar Grove known as Cedar Ridge has MANY homes 1 million and up. It's like a small Beverly Hills up there! (Rumor has it Tom Cruise just purchased a home there to be close to his Mom, who's supposedly still in Glen Ridge) |
Alidah
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 10:28 pm: | |
Even with the high taxes you get a great buy in (Jefferson) Maplewood. The same $500K will buy you very little in Millburn, Short Hills, Summit, or Chatham, which is where several acquaintances of mine are moving as a result of this reval.
These real estate agents have been playing fast and loose with this reval. Burgdorff wouldn't release the new assesment figure to my friend before she closed on her house (she and I didn't know we could find it at town hall--and they sure wouldn't tell her).
I went to an open house this weekend, and for a house that was listed at $549K the "estimated taxes" were $12,500. What kind of nonsense is that? |
Mem
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 11:07 pm: | |
A colleague of mine is relocating to West Virginia (which is south of Trenton). He had his house built, complete with pool, barn, etc. lots of land, for $900,000. But, his taxes are $900 per year...and he doesn't have to pay for garbage. What's wrong with the "bigger picture" here in this USA of ours? Sorry to go off the subject of Maplewood, NJ taxes, but with my tax increase, everything is confusing to me now. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, March 8, 2001 - 5:15 am: | |
Basically an additional $5,000 in taxes works out to be an additional $50,000 that can be carried in mortgage. If you are looking at a $550k house in Maplewood, if you look in another town where taxes are $5k less, you are looking at a $600,000 house for the same monthly out of pocket.
$600k will get you a nice house in a lot of towns in this general area. Millburn, Summit, Chatham, New Providence, etc. You are probably going to get more square feet in Maplewood, but a larger lot in the other towns. A friend lives in Chatham Township. His house has a market value of around $800k and is on at least a half acre. The taxes are just over $7k and this is after a major remodeling that added square footage to the house.
No I don't want to live in those towns either, but I don't want to be forced out of Maplewood either by high taxes and the potential declining property values. |
|