| Author |
Message |
    
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2001 - 11:46 pm: |     |
I have to tell you, jerry, from the bottom of my heart: none.
families are the heart and soul of education, of learning, of a community. surrender our schools to faceless beaurocrats?
say it ain't so!
i'm with ms. davenport on 'home rule'. I'm a believer.
(edited to add: now i can't get that stupid monkees song out of my head. thought i'd wish the same curse on the rest of you.)J |
Ejt
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 12:24 am: | |
Sorry but I just have to add that I played that song today and it's already been in my head!
(How'd you get your smiley so small?) |
Dave
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 6:51 am: | |
I think a local lottery would make just as much money as it would cost to run it. Probably less. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 7:31 am: | |
Lets start with the following assumptions:
There are four major variables that need to be addressed in any workable plan for the restructuring of our approach to real property taxation: ratables (who gets taxed); services (what the taxes pay for); distribution of tax burden (who pays what and why); and alternative funding sources (regionalization, State and Federal funds, grants, tax relief programs,etc.).
Ratables: We are not going to be able to change which properties in this town are subject to real property tax without legislation. This legislation is not likely to be passed. Therefore, in the short term we are stuck with what we got. The main approach open to us is to try to improve the values of our ratables more uniformly so that the majority of the tax burden doesn't fall on a relatively few tax payers. Springfield Avenue is a good place to start but we have to recognise that it is already fully developed and mostly occupied. Changes to the types of goods and services provided on Springfield Avenue needs to be viewed long term. Aesthetic changes could bring more pedestrian traffic to Springfield Avenue and increase the feeling of safety on the street but many of the goods and services presently offered there are not as likely to benefit from these changes as the "neighborhood shops" we have lost in recent years.
Services: Unless someone can think of a township service, presently provided, that we can do without, there is likely to be little immediate change to this category. We have less control with the school system and with county expenditures and are unlikely to resolve those issues here. Therefore, I would propose that the services variable remain fixed for the time being.
Distribution of the Tax Burden: This is the variable that John addressed which started this thread. I firmly believe that we are one town and our comparables should reflect that. On the other hand, I firmly believe that there are factors which affect the values of our homes that should result in differences in what we pay in real property taxes. If patterns emerge in certain parts of town based on the application of these factors, so be it. These factors would include: size of overall property, quality of construction, current condition of the
structure(s) (how much of a fixer-uper is it?), proximity of property to things that affect it's market value upwards or downwards such as bus/train/jitney access, schools, shops, open areas (such as the Reservation), foot and vehicular traffic, airplane and railroad noise, strong neighborhood groups, crime patterns, etc. Some of these factors are not applied equally when a town is broken down into too many neighborhoods because of halo affects. Several posters on this board have complained of halo affects on their real property assessment leading to anomalies. They could be right.
Alternative sources of funding: This is the variable that most of us have been focusing on in the hopes that we can find a magical source of up to now unidentified income that we can tap into and instantly solve all our problems. That is not going to happen. However, people on this board have been very good at researching and identifying programs and legislative initiatives that can help ease the tax burden a little for some of us. Let's keep up the good work. One approach we have not yet examined is regionalization (where several government jurisdictions pool their resources to fund common needs). We do this now with our school system which is shared with South Orange. (Would anyone want to see a regional school system for all of Essex County? for the part of Essex county that is not Newark, Irvington, East Orange or Orange?)
We are taking a regional approach to animal control with the development of an animal shelter with neighboring communities. A proposal several years ago to regionalize fire service was shouted down for several reasons I won't go into here. Still it is an approach that should be examined for at least some of our mandated services. We should also continue to examine other areas of financial relief that lead us even a little closer to our overall goals.
Jerry: I was kidding about the lottery. rather, I was focusing on the "lottery mentality" of gifts from the great "other sources of funding" that many of us don't realize we generate but we do. It was a reaction to the income tax vs real property tax and local vs State/Federal tax funding we have described. I believe, based on what I have read here and experienced in the community that these approaches, while cost saving for some, would increase costs for Maplewoodians as a whole and significantly reduce the amount of self determination we have now. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 8:42 am: | |
ejt
I just used the formatting rules listed under 'formatting' at the left. |
Ejt
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 10:48 am: | |
Ah-ha! Thanks! J |
Mem
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 11:14 am: | |
\ch( ) |
Mem
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 11:14 am: | |
Well, I kind of did it! |
Melidere
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 11:57 am: | |
i like yours better. looks like he has arms
heh |
Melidere
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 11:59 am: | |
 |
Ejt
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 12:28 pm: | |
or pigtails! Love that one Melidere! |
Ken
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 12:33 pm: | |
WONDERFUL! |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 12:36 pm: | |
Ken,
Your suggestion on how to change the tax system was "wonderful!" |
Ejt
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 8:18 pm: | |
Yes, and it's always refreshing to see it in ancient Elven Runes.
Elrond in 2004! |
Oots
| | Posted on Saturday, March 10, 2001 - 9:39 pm: | |
was'nt the nj lottery & casino income as well as the income tax supposed to go towards education-ultimately property taxes. where is all this money? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 1:47 am: | |
oots: another reason to be against it! |
Willfalaise1
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 11:49 am: | |
Jerry, I just wanted to address your comments on the intangible asset tax idea:
Willfalaise: for lots of reasons I would be against taxing the value of assets like
stocks in the way you propose. It's much too volatile from year to year. What was
my Lucent stock worth 1/1/2000 versus 1/1/2001? (ow, that hurt!), and how can
a municipality make revenue plans and projections based on a revenue stream
that's that volatile from year to year?
Yes, I agree the volatility of assets like this is a problem, but isn't it the recent (and perhaps future) volatiltiy of our housing market that has caused so many problems with the tax structure as it stands? And I'm not proposing that this tax be collected by the municipality but by the state as a way to fund a more powerful NJ saver style rebate program.
Do you think an increase in income tax alone can give us the relief we need? Lottery money's obviously not the answer, or sales tax when it's so easy for NJ shoppers to buy in another state. I'm definitely in favor of an income tax increase if the money will be used to give more state aid to schools, but I'm not sure if that's enough. |
John
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 5:13 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan- The last governor who raised income taxes was not right. He came into office promising to lower taxes. So he was WRONG!!! The problem he had was that he LIED to get elected. A lesson many politicians still have not learned. Some just get away with it better than others. Mrs. Whitman also told us she was going to lower our taxes. Now look at our property taxes. I suppose she did lower taxes for anyone from out of state though. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 5:31 pm: | |
I would like to ask again, John, and others: Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who said they were going to raise taxes, income or otherwise? And if you are bold enough to claim that you would, do you honestly think that person would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected?
My impression of Florio was that he went in thinking he actually could lower taxes and then saw the mess his predecessor had left him and realized there was no way to run the state without some drastic measure.
Bacata |
John
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 5:49 pm: | |
Bacata,
I would be more likely to vote for a candidate that came in promising to lower taxes than one that did not. But the next time around once a candidate has proven to us that he/she can not be trusted, I would never vote for them again. I would rather vote for someone who says "this is my plan" and at least tries to stick to it. Anyone who is naive enough to believe Florio went into office without knowing what the state of our budget was, when he was promising to lower taxes, would at least have to think HOW COULD HE PROMISE TO DO SOMETHING HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT? He lied and that is what he paid for. Then we get Whitman. People still think she lowered our taxes (I don't get it). I can also tell you I'd be most likely to vote for someone who said they'd try to hold the line on taxes, than someone who promised to lower them. And that is an honest answer. |
|