| Author |
Message |
    
Lisat
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 9:58 pm: |     |
If the multiplyer is 3.25, I'm looking at a 100% increase in taxes while my income has been cut in half because the economy is taking a nosedive . But that's my problem. As I await Galante's wisdom, I'm doing what any practical person who happens to be a writer does... I'm writing the novel that's been writing itself in my head for 10 years. And the taxes, health insurance bills, etc. be &*%$ed.
Now, since this post is about the phase-in... I have a question that is loosely related. If real estate values change in the next couple of years, for instance, if the 40 gigantic houses go on the market at the same time with gigantic tax tags and sell for below their assessments will that information go into the database that Certified handed over to the town assessor (I heard that he's paid by the state not the town, is this true?).
Is the database going to be updated continuously with changes in people's homes (bathroom having a fixture added) and real estate value changes? Or would only the home involved in a sale be affected? Anyone know? And if the database is updated with this information, will assessments also be updated?
I know that some people are waiting to decide whether or not to move based on this very question. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 8:06 am: | |
Joancrystal - I don't know if everyone would be "equivalently affected". If some of us pay less tax than otherwise (due to the phase-in of the new valuations), and others pay more than they otherwise would have, then there would be different effects on different people. |
Mwacks
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 8:32 am: | |
Mjjoseph - what inaccuracies?
Those who have been overpaying at least have their taxes built into their household budgets, but those who are facing huge increases were blindsided. Many people facing huge sudden increases will have little choice but to leave. While many on this board seem to think this is just fine, it really is not to the advantage of this town to loose some of these residents. Selling prices on homes with very high taxes will drop (we've been watching a house on our street sit unsold for weeks at a price well below its assessed value), prompting successful challenges to assessments which will help to re-balance taxes again (not to the advantage to those currently paying more than their share). Some of the residents we'll loose are folks who have lived here a long time and contributed much to the community.
Sudden huge tax increases for some will de-stabilize this community (as we have already seen). A phase in will help to restore stability and benefit the whole community. I can't blame those who have been overpaying from complaining that they would continue to overpay during a phase in. They're right - they shouldn't have to pay for others. But, done right, the damage could be minimized and ultimately the benefit to the community as a whole would be a benefit to all individuals as well.
There are two sides to this arguement - and a currently vocal side against the phase in does not necessarily constitute a majority. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 8:51 am: | |
Mwacks, just because homeowners have budgeted for taxes doesn't mean they're not entitled to the tax reduction. Keep in mind that if the bill passes, it is a change to the tax law, done after the fact. Why wasn't it changed prior to the reval?
Yes, there ARE 2 sides to the argument -- you seem to have forgotten that in your first posting and have done little to accept it in the last.
Joan, I can't believe that only "astute" persons could surmise the effect of the reval. What a slap in the face you are giving to our townspeople.
I also can't believe that those who were surprised by their large increases in taxes have never opened a News-Record, never walked by Klein or Burgdorff when in the village (do they not even go to the village?), or heard about sales in their neighborhoods through the grapevine. I cannot accept that such a significant number of people in Maplewood are that unaware. If they are that unaware, do they really care about Maplewood? |
Johnjdel
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 9:09 am: | |
Joancrystal,
Going back to another thread on a quick sidenote, the bad possibilities of the pending revaluation were discussed in the Township Committee campaign of 1999. The Republicans warned of drastic increases in isolated, selective sections of town.
As I said on the other thread: blame the fact that no one heard the message on whoever you want. Uninspiring candidates or uninspired audience...its both. Still, there were people talking about it... |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 9:28 am: | |
Maybe, john, but not out loud. On another thread where someone requested a clear articulation of what bill gold is *for* the response was to call him and ask him.
Where are the posts on this board warning of such a thing? This board was alive and active in 99. I don't remember ever reading of such a warning.
and why can't gold's objectives be clearly written in language we can all understand? |
Jennie
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 9:31 am: | |
NJ-It's not high sales prices by themselves that are causing tax increases, it's the difference in appreciation in different parts of town that's causing the shift of tax burden. If every house appreciated at the same rate, it wouldn't matter if sale prices were a zillion dollars, taxes would not change. And if any reasonable person could "surmise the effect" of the reval, how come Celia King has been on tv (a show produced at the beginning of the reval process and rerun many times) assuring us that any changes in taxes would not be substantial? Was she fooling us? Or maybe she didn't "surmise the effect"? I believed her and was very surprised at my unsubstantial 40% or so increase. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 10:12 am: | |
Jennie, you're right about the sales prices, of course, and we don't need to debate this all over again. However, there were statements prepared by the TC some time ago explaining how a reval works along with how the rate changes, etc. Although the numbers weren't settled, Jerry had been posting that the new assessment was averaging 4 times the prior assessment. You can't tell me that it takes more than a few minutes to see that homes in your neighborhood that you consider comparable to yours are selling in a certain price range, then compare it to the assessment on your tax bill.
I can't speak for Celia. Maybe she'll be happy to tell you why she made the statement. Maybe it had nothing to do with assessments, but she attempted to clarify that no new tax money would be collected (i.e. this is zero-sum).
I have been a homeowner here since August, 2000. I purchased here in May, 2000. I did not hear about then reval from my real-estate agent. I researched and learned about the reval prior to making an offer and keep learing when new information is presented. Unfortunately, there's been very little news in the last two months.
Yes, a new homeowner may do more research than someone who's been in town a long time. On the other hand, the city in which my parents live is also going through a reval, and you can bet my 60-year old, high-school-educated parents understand the situation and are staying informed. I expect no less from our capable townspeople. Is that a mistake? |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 10:19 am: | |
What is the multiplier du jour? Is it .0275, .03 or .0325? The budgets aren't finalized until June but come on, they know. And if they are high at least it will be summer and people waiting outside the TC building won't be freezing!
I would hope in light of this reval that they might choose to curb their spending a bit. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 10:24 am: | |
Mwacks: the fact that my unfair tax burden has been part of my household budget does not mean it has done me any less harm over the years. I wish I had had the 10 to 15K or maybe even 20K I overpaid to put into HOME IMPROVEMENTS or my child's COLLEGE FUND, or my RETIREMENT FUND. I hope you were able to do some of these things over the past decade. I will never see a penny of that money. It is not as if my family did not NEED that money, you know. I still need it. I still need to fund the above mentioned items. Why should I and my neighbors CONTINUE to shoulder your burden? Will you contribute to my retirement fund, or my child's college education or pay for windows or siding on my house? I know I have posted these arguments before. I think they bear repeating in the face of the current issues.
My reading of the bill is that it is written to placate a vocal minority of tax payers whose total assets already far outstrip those of the average resident. Many of us who are scheduled for a decrease have had to borrow money to pay for some of our ordinary expenses or we've just gone without. My understanding is that the banks are still open. If that is your only option for the present year's taxes, then bite the bullet while you make other arrangements for the future. Just remember, the rest of us are not bankers or banks and we don't actually have any spare cash to lend (oops, I mean GRANT you outright.)
Bacata |
Eliz
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 10:47 am: | |
Re lisat's posting - did I miss something - is the new mil rate estimated at 3.25? Is that a general concensus? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 10:47 am: | |
I hear you Mwacks. Looking hopefully for a phase in. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 11:23 am: | |
The last rate announced is the 2.75%, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went to almost 2.8% based on the 2000 budget and the recent reviews. That could mean 2.9 - 2.95% for 2001. This is still quite high, but it won't come close to 3.25%. I believe Lisat is just doing a "what-if" scenario. |
Beach
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 11:23 am: | |
Nakaille, did you purchase your home 9 or so years ago with the knowledge that your taxes would go down in 2001? If not, then by buying your home, you agreed to pay those taxes, regardless of what others were paying! What they did with their "extra" money that you voluntarily turned down by not looking for a home somewhere where the taxes weren't such a burden to you should be of no concern to you! You CHOSE to buy a home in Maplewood, where everyone and their mother knows the taxes are high, and have been high for a long, long time. Sorry, I think it's way too late to cry foul now and to treat these people as though they've had some control over what they've been paying over the years. I know you would never do it, but you really should lay the blame on the local govt! It's THEIR fault you've been over-paying, not the homeowners. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 11:25 am: | |
Njjoseph, what further steps would you have expected our capable townspeople to have taken to remain informed? Yes they knew a reval was coming. Yes they knew their properties would be valued higher than they currently were. Then what? Were they to assume that they would be getting a 30-60% increase in property taxes? No one in their right mind would have assumed that. I was expecting an increase of about 15%. The joke was on me as mine was around 4 times that amount. Jennie's right, without knowing the total of the assessments it would be impossible to guage the impact of the reval knowing only what your house was valued out (and not knowing the rate). |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 11:31 am: | |
Beach -- you have a point, but it's the same point from the other view as well. You agreed to pay your fair share of taxes when you bought your house. None of us has a crystal ball, so you cannot predict your taxes in the future. Some taxes have gone up dramatically, and it is difficult for some to pay.
However, does anyone think, given the current tax laws, that the taxes they will pay in 2001 do not represent their fair share? If yes, then appeal. If not, then your argument is not with your assessment and the tax rate based on the assessments and budget; it's with something else, i.e. the budget, dislike of the tax laws, etc. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 11:33 am: | |
On the new, 2001, tax rate there seem to be two wild cards brought around by the Reval:
1/ Wouldn't our share of the BOE budget go up? Our values are up and from the census data it appears the number of < 18 year olds is up more than in SO.
2/ Mr. Haushalter indicated during his testimony that Maplewood's share of the county taxes would also go up because of the Reval. How much?
A lot of you folks know a heck of a lot more about this than I do. Any guesses? |
Beach
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 11:40 am: | |
NJj-- So far, it seems my taxes are going down. But I don't blame or harbor resentment toward the other homeowners at all for what I've been paying over the years. They've had absolutely nothing to do with it! |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 11:52 am: | |
Beach -- EXACTLY! Which is the same argument now, for those whose taxes are going up -- those whose taxes are going down have nothing to do with it!
However, with a phase-in, EVERYONE will be affected. |
Beach
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 12:05 pm: | |
True, nj, but I didn't expect my taxes to go down so if it takes awhile it will be business as usual for my bank account. Of course I would LOVE to fix my garage roof and re-finish(and replace) my hardwood floors but those are my problems. Plus, realistically, I don't think my reduction will miraculously allow me to do these things in the near future, if ever. And again, I don't put the blame on the other owners in town. I know where it sits. |
|