| Author |
Message |
    
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 7:42 pm: |     |
Thank you for your honest and considered answer, John. I still wonder how anyone who really believed we needed to increase the income tax could possibly get elected on that platform, though. Holding the line will not help us out of this mess, in my opinion.
Bacata |
John
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 8:13 pm: | |
Bacata,
Holding the line is what is necessary until incomes catch up. Our property taxes are increasing so rapidly because politicians find it easier to spend on new programs, give pay increases and, do favors to remain connected (for our benefit), than to take a stand and say "hold the line". My property taxes have gone up around $500 per year for the past 7 years. When it started it was about a 10% increase from the previous year. On the positive side, if the trend continues, it will soon be under 5%. Inflation has not kept pace. So if inflation in the general economy is running around 3%(?) why can't politicians hold the line on spending to 3%? |
John
| | Posted on Monday, March 12, 2001 - 9:54 am: | |
Joancrystal:
You seem to be very well informed. I'm trying to catch up after missing a day on the baord and tried to respond to some easier postings first. I don't know that I'll make any sense in responding to yours but here goes.
On Ratables- I agree but, I'd like to point out that just because it is hard doesn't mean we should not work toward change.
On Services- The same response as above. The municipal portion of taxes is not the major part of the problem however. And even though we do not have direct input in the State County and School budgets does not mean we should accept them without question or demand for changes. We MAY NOT get what we want, but, if we don't make requests, we WILL NOT get what we want.
On Distribution of the tax burden- We agree. In your explanation you have given argument for a base tax (as a portion) and summarized the variables that increase or decrease the remaining balance of the tax bill. One thing I disagree with is that the quality or condition of a home should affect the tax burden. This discourages improvements and even maintenance. The only time I agree that a fixer upper should receive any form of tax relief is from the time of purchase and for a period thereafter (say 2 yrs. a totally arbitrary number) to encourage the purchase of such properties. Then the tax goes back to where it should be whether the improvements are made or not. Further if the improvements were not made, maybe the relief that was given should be added to the tax bill over the next two years. This would encourage someone to buy the fixer-upper and then fix it up.
Alternative sources of funding- I am not for regionalization. However, it was pointed out to me recently on this board that there are benefits that can not be ignored. So I can no longer say that I am totally against it. Still I do not like the idea of losing control of local services (or the feeling thereof). And again, we should not just assume that "it ain't gonna happen" and give up. Things are what they are now and I accept that. But, I do not accept that we can not change them.
As I started out saying, you seem very informed. You probably have a lot more to offer to this conversation so please keep the ideas flowing. Whether you agree or disagree with anything anyone is saying. The more input the better. Hopefully from all the ideas, we can piece something together that most people can be happy with. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 7:22 pm: | |
Real property assessments have to be tied into fair market values and physical condition of the structure on the property definitely affects what the house will sell for.
On another thread, posters questioned the recent sale of a house on Prospect Street for approximately $250,000 (about half of what it's assessed value should have been under revaluation). Those familiar with the house pointed to the fact that it was in very poor condition when it was sold. The structure had deteriorated to the point that the former owner could not even live in it any more. The house is now being virtually rebuilt -- the process has been going on for months. When this work is completed, it is highly likely that we will once again have a ratable worth $500,000 or more.
I sincerely hope that homeoweners in Maplewood won't be encouraged to let their homes deteriorate in hopes of keeping their real property taxes low. My experience in Maplewood has been just the opposite. Maplewoodians throughout town are forever talking on this board and elsewhere about improving their properties.
If we were to reach a point where people felt they could not keep up with the cost of maintaining their homes, I hope there would be a program of low/no interest loans and habitat-type home improvement resources to help people keep their homes in the best condition possible.
However, legally, we cannot remove the condition of the home from the real propety valuation equation. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 10:52 am: | |
JoanCrystal: my home has gone without needed improvements over the past decade because I had no money to put into it due to the disproportionate amount of taxes I was paying. My family's resources have been stretched to the limit the entire time I have lived in Maplewood. I hope there is a light at the end of this tunnel for me and some of my neighbors now.
A phase-in of taxes for those with home assets 3 and 4 times the value of mine would probably force me to continue to delay improving my home since it will eat away most if not all of my scheduled decrease(unless I happen to qualify for the new money from the state, still don't know any details.) So the rain will continue to damage the walls under my leaky windows. My basement will continue to collect serious amounts of water on days like today and we'll haul out the wet vac again tonight.
Note: we are NOT discussing redoing my 50 year old kitchen or adding a second bathroom, which actually would increase the sale value - and presumably the tax value - of my home. We're talking basic stuff here. We did actually manage to replace the 50 year old furnace this year but really only because PSEG declared it a serious fire hazard and therefore unusable. We would have limped along with it for another year otherwise. So we shelled out money we did not have and made no contributions to our daughter's college fund or our retirement funds and put off the IDEA of replacing some windows ir hiring someone to work on our watery basement for another year. It is sometimes a bit galling to read all the posts on home improvements ($500 for one radiator cover is REASONABLE? Guess that's why some of ours are naked) from some of the very same people who claim that they are being taxed out of Maplewood.
My point is that the scenario you fear has been happening in my part of town (and in my home) for years already. This is why we need some relief NOW. Because otherwise my side of town will begin to look more and more like Irvington and people will continue to abandon their homes here. And that will not help anyone in the rest of town.
Bacata |
Beach
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 12:44 pm: | |
You knew what you were getting into when you brought your leaky home, didn't you? I knew exactly what was wrong with my home when I closed on it; drafty old windows, worn and rotting floors, sagging and leaky roofs, a bathroom right out of 1955, a furnace I was told has antique parts, etc. Maybe you should have purchased in a more affordable town for your budget. That is the bottom line, Nakaille. If others want to shell out 500 bucks for a radiator cover, that's their problem, don't you think? |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 12:52 pm: | |
Bacata,
That may just be the hundredth time I have heard someone say they have been "over-paying for years". Can you prove your tax burden was out of proportion for years? I've got news, your tax burden did not skew until 1998. That's the fact. And I can prove it. Can you point to some data that proves when your tax burden became out of proportion?
You haven't made home improvements because up until now your budget has been stretched to the limit by your tax bill? You lived with a 50 year-old furnace that was declared a serious fire hazard (!!) with a 5 year old in the house because of your tax bill? Enough with the sob stories already! We get your point. You want property tax relief. We all do. We would all rather spend our hard-earned income on other things.
I am appalled that you can say that you would put your 5 year old daughter's life in jeopardy because you couldn't afford home maintenance - specifically because your property taxes were out of proportion to those who were maintaining theirs.
You seem to want to put the very same concerns YOU had (budgetary, making critical improvement choices, college bills, personal safety, retirement, quality of life) onto the "other" folks without a single shred of sympathy you expect others to heap on your sob stories.
I'm glad your taxes are going down. I'm glad your section of town will receive additional monies for beautification. I'm glad your section of town was awarded a historical neighborhood grant.
What all this means is that in very short order, all the property owners will suddenly make all those improvements that have been neglected, right? Then the property values will inrease, right? Then your tax burden will be out of proportion again, right?
Dy |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 1:08 pm: | |
Dy, I'm sure you don't need to be appalled. Maybe she only found out about the problem this season and corrected it right away. She didn't give details, so we don't really know anything about it. She also didn't say when the leaks started and if she knew about them when she bought the house. I'm sure she didn't! She's only presenting her view that making tax payments are difficult, she's been doing it for awhile, the situation is being corrected, and if the payments for others are difficult it's not her fault or responsibility to fix or amend.
And btw, how many years does it take to make years? 1998, 1999 and 2000 are already 3. I guess it takes more than that? ;-) |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 1:14 pm: | |
Dy and Beach, I am sorry that you just don't get it.
I had my furnace inspected VOLUNTARILY by PSEG because I WAS concerned about its safety. So, no, I wasn't interested in risking my daughter's life or mine or my partner's.
How many times will I have to repeat that despite the fact that homes of the same size, of the same age and on the same size lots are all over town, 10 years ago, literally 50 of them were available in Hilton/Orchard while only 2 were available outside of Orchard in my price range (which was NOT, by the way, the absolute bottom of the market.) The VALUES were disproportionate even then. Other posters have stated the same. This is not a two year freak phenomenon. Don't kid yourselves. Why did the town assessor have to make serious tax adjustments over the years (not just the last 2 years) for the few who were knowledgeable about the skew and contested their taxes?
Yes, we all want tax relief. But phasing-in is only tax relief for a select few, who in fact do have other options they may well choose not to exercise. It is not fair at all. Yes, I plan to make improvements. I've been frustrated for a number of years that I did not have the resources to do so. And I will pay my fair share of taxes when my home value rises as a result. Just don't ask me to pay YOURS!
And if someone ELSE finds they cannot make improvements this year, or pay into retirement or college funds, well then perhaps they can EMPATHIZE just a bit with those of us who have been on this short end of the stick for some time now. Not you, I guess, but perhaps some others. You ask me to not just empathize, but to PAY as well. The answer is still NO. It's very simple. I HAVE NO MONEY TO LEND OR TO GRANT. I have no wish to do so either. And I will not let anyone steal it from me, thank you very much. If you do, and choose this as your charity, so be it.
Bacata |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 1:28 pm: | |
Joseph,
Yes, it takes more than three years. They said it was a decade since "needed improvements" were done. A decade ago, there was not the disproportion we see today. There was NO disproportion at all. Get it? So NOW what's their excuse? And, the reval project itself took two of those three years. 1998 coincides with when the revaluation project kicked off. So what was the impetus for the voluntary political hot potato? |
Beach
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 1:33 pm: | |
Oh I get it alright. It's you that doesn't. You know you didn't have to buy here and you knew you couldn't afford it but you probably wanted the address right? And the imaginary diversity that you think comes with it. Well, you've paid for that address for nine years and the thought of saving a few measly dollars on your taxes has you all in a tizzy towards the other owners who have the audacity to pay 500 bucks for a radiator cover. Oh yeah I get it alright. |
Melidere
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 2:03 pm: | |
"I've got news, your tax burden did not
skew until 1998. That's the fact. And I can prove it. "
i'm dying to see this. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 2:12 pm: | |
Njjoseph: you're right, the leaks were not apparent when we bought the house. Not to the home inspector or even to my architect cousin who came and checked out the three houses we were most interested in. The former owner ran a business out of his basement and had supplies on the floor and claimed it had been dry for 20 years. The first really serious rain (months after we closed) had us running out to the hardware store for a wet vac.
People willing/able to shell out $500 for a radiator cover don't need MY money to pay THEIR taxes. That was my point. The radiator cover was simply an example of priorities. (No offense to anyone who actually bought such covers, if you have the money to spend, you are fortunate. Look for me on bulk trash day checking out your old metal ones, though. I am a firm believer in recycling  )
I have not been asking for someone to pay my taxes so I can stay in Maplewood. I have done what I had to do in cost-cutting to be able to stay. It has been a bigger stretch than it should have been but at least now I know it was not my own budgeting at fault. (Please get off your high horse, Beach, about what town I should have purchased my home in and I will try to stop speculating about your disposable income, okay?)
On the other hand, I do, however, expect those getting big increases to make their own adjustments in terms of financial priorities. IF they choose to stay in their present Maplewood homes, they may well have to face the same kind of choices I have had to make in recent years.
I refuse to be held hostage to someone else's financial choices. There are options, but taking money from my family and my house is not one of them. Some of the options (for those who need a refresher) are: borrow money this year while you figure out what you need to do long-term. Sell your highly valued home and buy two or three others in Maplewood or just pocket the profit after buying a replacement home in Maplewood. Rearrange your priorities to fit your financial reality. Stop pretending the stock market is earned income. It's a high stakes game of chance and not much more. Make your choices but don't ask me to pay for them.
The only thing I find appalling in this is the unstated yet apparent belief that people with fewer assets should underwrite the taxes of those with more, and without a second thought given to repayment, interest, or the consent of the former. Would someone, Beach or Dytunck in particular, care to comment on this last issue, please?
Bacata |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 2:27 pm: | |
Beach: Your arrogance about a "few measly dollars" speaks volumes in terms of this whole discussion. Over the course of my residence in Maplewood it is somewhere between 10 and 20K. To me, that's not measly. To you, I guess it is. So my perception of your disposable income would appear to be confirmed.
If I couldn't afford to buy in Maplewood, why did the bank approve the loan? Why have my mortgage and tax payments been made on time? As I've said, there are no bankers in my family so it's not as if I got some special treatment.
Careful, you really might fall off that high horse of yours.
Bacata |
Face
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 4:01 pm: | |
Bacata, Nakaille, whatever..., How would you like to have "overpaid" for years, while living on Rynda Rd. Then move to Clinton Ave. where I was paying about $10,000/yr. in taxes, until this reval says at Rynda you over paid, and now you must pay $18,000/yr. True story!
I love Maplewood. I've raised my family here. We are part of the "grand mosaic" that is Maplewood. A phase in provides many residents the chance to budget and make decisions about their futures. In order to retain the fabric that is Maplewood, why not take a little time implementing the new reval? What is your hurry? Think about the wholeness of our community, not just yourself! If you don't, we all run the risk of ruining the character of our town, just so that those who "overpaid for so many years," give me a break!
Is that what you want? Do you want to sacrifice the quality of life of many residents, the ambience of the town itself, just so you and your ilk can feel satisfied that you are finally paying appropriate levels? Think about it!
The economy is changing as we speak, look at the stock market, down again today. What do you think will happen to home prices? People will sell their homes for less. The tax increases are not being stated upfront by realtors to those prospective buyers, why is that?
If the reval goes through all at once, it will be too painful for many. State lawmakers are actually listening for a change. They are providing a smoother way to implement a difficult situation. We should take advantage of this! It stands a better chance of saving our town! |
John
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 4:09 pm: | |
1- Start with a base tax on each property. This covers only a percentage of the tax base. (everyone uses the same services)
2- An even rate per sq. footage of land across each town. (larger properties tend to have a higher market value)
3- An even rate per sq. footage of improvements. (larger houses tend to have a higher market value)
4- Add to that an increase for each bathroom and kitchen. (they add value to the house and tend to use more sewage service)
5- Deduct for busy street (calculated by number of cars that use the street).
6- Deduct for usage of property for Traffic signs, Telephone poles etc. (public utility services to aid others)
7- Add for each fireplace (higher risk of using the fire dept.)
8- Add 25 dollars (only an arbitrary number) for households using the school system. (this is only a far out suggestion but, the town can use the money to fund a program that checks on out of district students. If you did not pay the fee, you have no children using the school system. Half the work is done. The money can be used to check into those students who are using an address of someone in town who is aiding them by supplying the address needed for enrollment.)
9- A local tax on the profits from the sale of a home. This is when the value is true. If you purchased your home for 150K and your share increase because at some point it was assessed at 300K but when you sell you are back to par, you've paid with no real benefit. On the other hand if the value goes up at the time you sell you have cash in hand to pay the tax. The town would not be able to calculate these incoming taxes into the budget and could therefore be applied to reduce the overall burden for the following year (assuming they don't spend it on extra services).
I believe that if New Jersey applied this type of formula State wide there would be no need for controversy whenever market values change. That is exactly what has happened here in Maplewood. And it will happen again when the assessment is done in a down market. The real problem is that if the burden shifts the other way, there will be many people (in lower value homes) who honestly can not afford the huge increases. With this proposal the fair share of the tax burden will always remain the same. More valuable houses will always pay more taxes.
The idea I have put forward is only that "an idea". I'm sure I have missed something and if you find it so please feel free to add it. I realize that this proposal will probably not happen. But if we don't do something to stabilize the way taxes are calculated, how will we ever get to the point of reducing taxes. It would be nice if someone, some day, can put everyone's ideas together and come up with something that is truly fair. The current system is far from fair, even if your share will be going down. We need a system of taxation where the burden never shifts. This will allow all to budget what they need. See what they can afford. Allow improvements that benefit the community without penalty. And in the long-run stability foster the community.
With this said, I now retreat to the sidelines. I'll watch the postings and answer any direct questions, otherwise, I will not post anymore. I welcome any comments on this proposal (for or against) and encourage you to speak your mind and make your own proposals. I also hope that the TC will keep following the postings and take action on those that have merit. |
Beach
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 4:13 pm: | |
My horse is holding me quite steady here on the east side with you in my equally old house. And wait and see Nakaille, if it's anything for us it will be a few measly dollars. And all the bellyaching about your falling down house will be for naught.
And if you can afford it, what's all this about windows and furnaces and college funds and charity and grants and on and on and on.....?
Trust me, making your bills on time has nothing to do with whether or not you can really afford them. I've been there and done that. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 4:19 pm: | |
John,
It sounds like you put some considerable time into your ideas. Thanks for getting back on track. Whether they will be fair or constitutional or practical, is open for discussion. Let's put our heads together and formulate substantive ideas for the meeting at CHS on the 27th. Nice start.
Dytunck |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 4:24 pm: | |
Well, well, Beach, "been there and done that" and you want to chide me about my finances? Please, save it.
I shouldn't protest your presumption to take money from my pocket to make you more comfortable? I should just lay back and enjoy it?You've got the wrong player here.
And last I heard I got to choose which charities to contribute to. Guess what, your name wasn't one of them!
To all: Do feel free to not read my posts if they irritate you so mightily. But don't try to pretend it's for the good of the community that you advocate continuing to drain the resources of the east side of town. That's simple greed.
Bacata |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 4:44 pm: | |
Bacata- Beach LIVES on the east side of town (as stated in many posts) Apparently he/she doesn't think the tax decrease is worth all this. |
|