| Author | Message | ||
     Mtierney |
I'll surely send an email to Maplewood tax. I also will send out for a reality check. Bacata, honestly, I don't recall getting a dime from you. I called a friend who is in banking today and told him about my $12G tax on a $116,000 assessment and he said it was ridiculous - I rebought my house in tax payments alone in 10 years. This same person said the decision to base our new assessments on the highest real estate sales period in Maplewood was absolutely wrong in his expert opinion. I'll try to stop whinning. | ||
| Townie |
Mtierney, My mother bought a house in Los Angeles in 1962 for $11,000. Around 1986, she sold it for $220,000! (A park had been made across the street from her house, partly funded by her taxes.) By the time she sold her house, she had bought it many, many times over in tax payments, especially if you remember the inflation of the 70s. She put the money she made from her house profit in the stock market and, yes, she's in good financial shape today despite the recent travail in the Nasdaq. It is so difficult to understand what you think is wrong with your situtation from your posts. If you are simply saying evertybody's taxes are too high in this town, I can understand that. But that has nothing to do with the reval, just who you elect to run the town and the state. If you are saying your assessment is too high because it's not fair market value, then you need to appeal. If you are saying your assessment is correct but you think you can't afford the new taxes, then you should either talk with a realtor or see a financial counselor. (Not your friend in banking, because he doesn't sound like he understands the situation.) Before joining any class action suit, you should consider whether that is just throwing good money after bad. If you think your assessment is correct and can afford the new taxes but just want to kick about it, I think Internet boards are an outlet for that, although obviously you take your chances getting negative posts in return and very little sympathy. I just wish I understood what you're trying to say! kathleen | ||
| Nakaille |
Excuse me, Mtierney, are you trying to say that your house was assessed at 116K (in current money) and your taxes are 12G? If so, we are even. My home was assessed at half that and I have been paying half that amount in taxes. Please go back and look. If you are using a 1981 reval figure (in which case your home even then was a good deal higher than the average Maplewood home) to talk about today's tax numbers, then you are trying to buy today's milk with yesterday's money. It doesn't work. Do you remember what milk, eggs and bread cost in '81? A good deal less than in 2001. And housing values have risen at a greater pace than food from what I can tell. My parents paid 26K for an 8 room house with 3 bathrooms in Madison in 1964. That house is worth close to 400K now. And that is what my mother pays taxes on. Not 26K. This is not a Maplewood plot. This is economic reality in this part of the country. I KNOW you don't want to sell. (So don't! It's certainly no skin off my back if you choose to impoverish yourself in your obstinant refusal to consider any options except whining.) BUT, in a more mature frame of mind, what could you honestly get for your house now? Ask a realtor to come and look but don't tell them you are not really going to sell. This is information you need to be able to make informed decisions. Whether it is to join a class action suit, to get a reverse mortgage or to sell. It doesn't matter what you choose. You need to know the value of your home. It is NOT 116K. And your friend the banker has no idea if this is the peak of the market. From what others have posted, it is not, rather it is merely part of a continuing upward trend, which means it was accurate whether we like it or not. But MT, don't you want that house near me for 57K? Just think, you could bank or otherwise invest about, what, 4 or 500K? Now THAT is the real money in your house. Naah, it's too much fun to be the victim and just whine. Heaven forbid you try to take charge of the situation and do some real problem solving. Bacata | ||
| Joancrystal |
I was strongly in favor of a phase in which would have permitted those facing substantial tax increases to phase in their payments -- until the tax rates got certified by the township. My conviction was based on the fact that persons living on tight budgets, regardless of the size of that budget, would suffer considerable hardship if they suddenly had to pay tax increases which could amount to 50% or more! I felt that people who would be seeing significant decreases in real property assessment would not be hurt as much by the phase in because they had known what their tax situation was when they purchased their property and should already have been budgeting for it. Now, my position has shifted (even though my own taxes are apt to go up by more than 30%). Why? Because the township has officially certified the new assessment valuations to the County. People receiving official notification of their pending tax relief are apt to have made commitments for the money they assumed they would be saving. These commitments, made in good faith, would now place the same budget strain on the them if a phase in were to be enacted at this point. The only people I see who aren't in a position to lose significantly are those whose valuations stayed about the same and even they could see unexpected increases due to changes in Maplewoods share of County and school funding. | ||
| Mtierney |
I did my reality check and in a more composed manner, here is what I believe I have been saying for weeks now - obviously pretty badly too. I think we must fight property-tax funding for our schools. I doubt that new assessment figure because of the way CV did its job. The many adjustments, seemingly random at times, has me worried. You worry alot as you get older! I have seen so many communities fold under punishing taxes - we need only to look at East Orange which I remember as such a fine city at one time. I do not think you can switch houses like you switch hats. But then, today's society is prone to accept disposable everything. There are some things hard to put a dollar value on. Moving on is a decision I will make when that time comes, but it is something I just can't think about now. (Many more serious concerns than my flowers to be sure which need not be aired on this board) And so, I'll be forced to pay out. Today's paper again has an article questioning the displacement of seniors and the net result. | ||
| Townie |
Mtierney, I do understand you much better now, and sorry if I missed any previous posts where I might have caught on sooner. I was hoping to worry less as I got older, and in some ways I do, but I share a number of your concerns. I share your concern about taxes and certainly understand your reluctance to sell your home. All I can say is that Maplewood has thus far been a very good financial investment for many homeowners, and there is good reason to believe it will continue to be. I hope homeowners in areas where real estate values have lagged will now see their values rise, because that will reduce our share of the tax burden. I'll also be joining you in the fight to find a new way to fund the schools. kathleen | ||
| Yvette |
Count me in that Fight too! Do you know if this will be part of that tax meeting on 3/27? | ||
| Townie |
Yvette, I'm not sure how the 3/27 meeting will be structured. The meeting is about a possible constitutional convention that would focus on restructuring tax laws in NJ. I think all suggestions can be considered. I posted all that I know about what's going in this thread: http://66.33.27.71/forum/ I'm guessing that we'll be hearing more about this in the coming days. Ellen Davenport has been the person spearheading this in town. | ||
| Tracks |
The phase-in could be a mixed blessing. If passed, Newark would try to take advantage of it and thereby shorting the county what they should be paying (as they have been) and that will hurt Maplewood and S. Orange. Probably Ron Rice has Newark in mind and Maplewood is just a convenient excuse to try to promote this bill. As I have said, this is a lousy band-aid for a much bigger problem and we cannot let Trenton think this is any way acceptable to real tax-reform in NJ. | ||
| Lseltzer |
Actually, I think there was a separate Reval Relief act a few years ago just for Newark and maybe Camden. | ||
| Gerardryan |
there was one for camden ('93) and one for newark ('99). | ||
| Tracks |
Band-aid after band-aid without fixing the problem is a waste of time and energy. When will we get a Governor and state senators who have the guts to deal with the problem and implement a reform. | ||
| Mwacks |
There's a new article in today's Star Ledger on the tax phase in (over 3 to 5 years). It is obvious that there will be a battle in Maplewood (spreading to South Orange) to get the phase in, assuming the legislation is passed in Trenton. Let's hope we have the opportunity, and can successfully convince the TC to take advantage of the phase in. At this point, it's about the only thing that will keep a lot of people from moving. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Mwacks, most of Maplewood does NOT want the phase-in. We have debated this over and over again. I hope that before the TC makes a decision, that it will put several alternatives before the public and hopefully have a vote on them. Obviously, phase-ins are not appropriate for those whose taxes are going down. Homeowners in this situation could appeal and win, and possibly be eligible to enforce a 3-year freeze on their taxes. This will force the rest of Maplewood to payer high taxes as a result of a higher rate. Phase-ins for certain homeowners whose taxes are going up by a certain percentage, i.e. 30% or more, are discriminatory. All homeowners whose taxes are going up should be eligible for the phase-in, or noone should be eligible. Still, even if all are eligible, the tax rate goes up, and our taxes do, too. I'm not sure what you're thinking, but Maplewood (as a whole) is not going to benefit from a phase-in. BTW, based on my new assessment and the proposed rate, my taxes are due to go UP. | ||
| Lseltzer |
The Star Ledger article is at http://www.nj.com/njcommunities/ledger/essex/index.ssf?/njcommunities/ledger/essex/12b301d.html Interesting article. | ||
| Octofoil |
Mjjoseph, It seems quite presumptuous of you to assert that "most of Maplewood" does not want a phase-in. Yes, a phase-in has been debated extensively, but I don't recall anyone taking a vote or counting. Did you? If it is your impression that "most of Maplewood" does not want a phase-in, shouldn't you characterize it that way, that is, as your impression? IMHO, in general, a blanket phase-in doesn't sound like the right thing to do. But instead of just saying no, shouldn't we prefer to ask, "Is there a fair and equitable way that it can be done?" If there isn't, so be it. If there is, then perhpas some folks who might otherwise be forced out will have some relief. My understanding is that is it up to the TC to study criteria and alternatives and decide whether or not to utilize any kind of phase-in (if it eventually passes and becomes law). BTW, we've decided to leave anyway, phase-in or no phase-in, so I have no axe to grind either way. | ||
| Njjoseph |
Octofoil, I based my statement on reading this board as well as speaking with friends in all parts of town. It's not a scientific approach, and maybe it is presumptuous of me. However, I was trying to show that there are a significant number of people who don't want the phase-in (and you didn't chastise Mwacks, btw, for errors in his/her statements). If the phase-in isn't "blanket," it's discriminatory. ALL homeowners should be subject to the same rules. If the phase-in applies to all homeowners, those whose taxes are going down will not benefit. There is no way that a phase-in is going to be equitable for everyone, including those whose taxes are going up. If your taxes are going up 30%, then they are going up 30%. It may be difficult to pay, as we don't expect these kinds of increases from one year to the next. But this reval was well-publicized for a year-and-a-half now, and options were available. Now that some of the homeowners haven't taken advantage of these options, they can either sell their homes, or push for legislation to have their neighbors pay taxes for them. The only way a phase-in could be considered equitable is if it were in terms of a loan that would be repaid at the end of the phase-in period. The town would need to finance this, probably with bonds or state aid. This is not a true phase-in as it would require 100% payment of all taxes for all years. Paying the fair share is the only equitable solution, no matter how much your taxes go up or down. And work to change the tax laws so that this mess doesn't occur again. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Njjoseph: The more estute citizens of Maplewood may have known that a revaluation was coming but I doubt that anyone expected to be seeing a massive real property assessment increase a year and a half ago. For some reason, people in some of the hardest hit areas were among the last to know what there proportionate increases would be. Home owners in my neighborhood only received notification of their revaluation figure three months ago! Some of us are still waiting to hear the results of our real property tax reviews by Ed Galante and company so we still don't know what our actual tax bill will be. It's kind of hard to make life altering changes when the impact on you is still so uncertain. | ||
| Nohero |
At last night's TC meeting, it was mentioned that there have already been changes to the bill, from when it was first introduced. The current version is online: Current Version of Phase-In Bill The first version authorized a phase-in of "changes" in assessed valuations. The new version authorizes phase-ins of "increases" in assessed valuations. Technically, the Maplewood revaluation resulted in "increases" in valuation for all properties; the change in tax liability came about because of the fact that some properties increased in value at a greater rate than others. So, bottom line, it's unclear what the consequences of the proposed bill under its new form would be, just as it is unclear as to how people who are expecting a tax decrease would be treated under the proposed law. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Much better than the previous wording. Everyone in Town would now be "equivalently affected" if the legislation were adopted and the TC agreed to implement it in Maplewood. |
