| Author |
Message |
    
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11429
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 5:07 pm: | 
|
Nohero, I spent several months after the reval posting sales data. Even at that point sales east of the railroad and in Hilton were out of line with the assessments. As I have said many times, this is probably because those areas were done first and the boffo sales that closed in the summer and early fall of 2000 weren't recognized when they were assessed.
Interestingly, the Tuxedo Park area in South Orange, which is burdened with very high tax assessments has seen a lot of appreciation in spite of that fact. I think affordability has something to do with it.
In my opinion, and I have spent a lot of time on this, because of the bruhaw and because most people had an informal review done by the Assessor, the houses west of the train was probably close to correct, excluding the houses where the CVI people just plain missed entire floors and other interesting tidbits. The rest of the Town was underassessed as of October 1,2000.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, May 6, 2006 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Sarah,
With regard to the people yopu mentioned above whose taxes went from $8,500 to $14,000, I gotta axe:
If the taxes when they purchased were about $8,500, the assessed value of the property must have been about $83,000.
Did they ask why they were paying in the neighborhood of $400,000, for property which was assessed at only $83,000?
I'm curious as to what buyers were thinking when they saw the assessments prior to the reval.
The badly out of date assessments was one of the reasons why we stopped looking on the west side of the Township. Any pre-reval buyers who didn't see the tax hit comming, had their head in the sand.
TomR |
Sarah Macyshyn
Citizen
Username: Sarahzm
Post Number: 10
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 8:03 am: |
|
TomR -
The question you mentioned often comes up - particularly when people look in more than one town. In Millburn you often see houses selling very close to their assessed value, while in Livingston you can find homes selling at 10 times assessed value. There are towns in NJ where assessments havent changed for 40 or 50 years - so assessments that seem to bear no relation to actual value are the rule rather than the exception. Buyers usually focus on asking price and taxes - and not on assessments. And no, they didnt have their heads in the sand - we expected taxes to go up because it was clear that due to changing values the west side was under-taxed and the east side was over taxed, but I dont think any one expected the increases to be so drastic or that the west side would be so hard hit. Also, people looking in a particular price range tend to be aware of houses only in that price range - so for instance - someone today looking to spend around $500-$600K would most likely be totally unaware of assessments in neighborhoods with $300K to 400K homes or $900k+ homes.
I feel some bitterness about this because although I was moderately successful in contesting the major mistakes that were made on my assessment - I worked with several couples who were forced to sell because due to the unfairly high assessments placed on their properties they could no longer afford to stay in their homes. They felt they lacked the ability to fight. It is very hard to see the despair of an elderly couple leaving a home and town they had hoped to stay in for the rest of their lives - Going forward I would love to see some kind of property tax protection or discount for the elderly in all parts of town who have been here for a long time and are on fixed incomes. I think these people have paid their dues, they enrich the town, and deserve some accomodation. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Sarah,
You write that they didn't have their heads in the sand although they knew about the discrepancy between assessed values and market values; but instead chose to focus on asking prices and (presumably, then current) taxes. OK.
I figured it out before my first real estate purchase in '94. I thought the problem was an obvious one.
It was the uncertainty of the amount of the anticipated tax increase on the west side of the Township which took us out of that market.
As for the elders in our Township, there is a program which freezes property taxes at the then current assessment for seniors with limited income, albeit through a rebate. I forget the name of the program, but can dig it out if you think it will be helpful. (I hope that it wasn't one of the programs cut, or suspended, by one of our recent governors to balance out State's budget).
TomR |
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 48
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 7, 2006 - 11:46 pm: |
|
TomR, the program you mention is a tax increase on the rest of the state and (eventually) the township, particularly for those townships with much smaller senior populations.
There's another way to handle this, which is to freeze the property taxes and keep track of the accumulating shortfall, with interest. When the property is put up for sale, the future buyer must pay this bill. This is how delinquencies/foreclosures are already handled. This is being done at other places at the local level - I'm not sure if it's happening in New Jersey though. |
Sarah Macyshyn
Citizen
Username: Sarahzm
Post Number: 12
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 7:16 am: |
|
Thanks, Tom, I would really appreciate that info, or even some idea of where I could go to get it. I've never heard of it before. Sarah |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3415
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 9:07 am: |
|
In Texas, where my parents live, the school tax portion of their taxes is frozen for all taxpayers as of age 65. Actually I'm not sure if it is the assessement or the actual tax amount that gets frozen, but either way, this protects the senior citizens from the increases that occur after they reach retirement age and usually are on more limited incomes. |
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 50
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 9:32 am: |
|
That's one way to handle it, but it forces everyone else to subsidize their taxes. I'm not arguing against it, but the middle way that I noted above is a great compromise; the tax base doesn't erode, no one needs to get a reverse mortgage or find other ways of increasing their cash flow, yet the homeowner or homeowner's estate ultimately pays the bill.
It seems to me the first step is to get agreement that we want senior citizens / longtime residents to stay, then decide how to go about it. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
Why would we want seniors to stay? Make them pay just like all the rest of us. If they can't afford it they can move into the elderly slums that will get created as the old people get ousted from their communities. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14119
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
Alleygater, are you serious?
|
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1901
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 1:37 pm: |
|
I could ask Joel the same question with the last line of his post. It seemed very susceptible for parody...and to be honest (The last sentence of my post using the word "ousted") I hadn't thought I had done a very good job. I thought it was pretty clear that I was kidding. Sorry if my bad humor wasn't clear enough. I've been told my sarcasm is bad. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14123
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Don't sweat it. I'm often the last person to get a joke. It did occur to me you were joking, but for some reason, I had to make sure.
I think controlling taxes "manually" and creating disparities between what different people pay creates its own set of problems. People in CA, FL, OR and other places that have this aren't altogether happy about their situations.
|
Frederick Schmid
Citizen
Username: Carlfrederick
Post Number: 48
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
In California (Beverly Hills) we pay lower property taxes in comparison, but we have other taxes. As you know, NJ has had a heavy reliance on property taxes to defray the expenses of taxes. Here in California, Prop 13 many years ago curtailed the way property taxes could go up and thus, city councils and county supervisors had to find other ways to finance projects.
The cost of this approach has been the loss of good school systems. Once we were number one in education; now it averages down to being number 25 depending upon which poll you accept.
Although NJ is older than California, our infra structures are wearing out as well. As I read the various threads, Maplewood is a mature town unlike towns in south Jersey. I remember when the last lot in Maplewood was being built upon. New towns have to struggle building new roads, schools, etc. and mature towns have to struggle with rebuilding. In less then 25 years, the original building of Columbia High will be 100 years old.
Nothing is cheap -- no matter where you are. The only advantage (and it is a disadvantage too) is the ever appreating home values. But for new buyers, I don't know how they break in. The average home in Los Angeles is now over $500,000.
I decided to move back to Maplewood for the simple reason, I wanted to and now I have to find a way to make it work. I just wanted my two young sons -- 4 and 6 years to experience the East Coast.
|
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3416
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Just for the record, I would prefer that they lower the property taxes and use income-based taxes to fund most of the items currently funded by property tax - especially schools. This would eliminate the concern that people on fixed incomes will be taxed out of their homes since the tax would be based on those incomes rather than property value.
Right now I would probably pay more total taxes under such a system than I do now, but I would gladly do so in return for the security of knowing that if/when my income went down, so would my taxes. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4699
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
I think with a system like that, we would get screwed because it would be run by the state. We wouldn't even see the money we put in. Just my suspicions. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14131
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
ffof, does that mean you're happy with the status quo?
|
Frederick Schmid
Citizen
Username: Carlfrederick
Post Number: 49
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
sac,
This is how it is here in CA. Also, renters pay a larger share of the tax burden. Our CA income tax is 9.3% What is it in NJ? |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4700
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Until someone can explain to me how an income tax to fund schools would benefit us, yes.
See, I think there's even a bigger problem, and it is the teachers union. The health plan costs are skyrocketing. I don't think there should be tenure. Teachers should get their own individual contracts and be paid based on performance. These are the items that are going up the fastest and it is not special to our district. I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of not supporting the teachers now, but really, if the teachers want to be treated as professionals (and I think they should be), then they've got to get rid of the union.
The other ballooning cost is Special Ed. We need to provide for this based on a fed mandate, but we really don't get any monetary help.
I don't see how an income based tax will solve these problems. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11442
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Given that this is Jersey I think FFOF has a point. How many of you remember that the profits from the lotteries were going to go to fund education? Most of the profits go into the general funds and disappear, with precious little going to education.
|
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 3417
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
The income-based tax only addresses the problem of people being taxed on a basis that does not adequately reflect their ability to pay.
The cost side needs to be addressed regardless of the source of the tax funds. Switching to an income basis neither solves nor worsens that problem. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4701
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:51 pm: |
|
But the state would collect it, no? And then re-distribute it? We would all be screwed here in Maplewood, because our incomes are much higher than south jersey. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14132
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:52 pm: |
|
We've recently been told that NJ relies on property taxes to fund schools more than any other state does. I don't think it's necessary, and the other states seem to be proving this.
The federal mandates are there, like it or not. A lot of them are good, e.g. special ed. It raises up the neediest students. There's a price for doing that, and society should be paying it. We can't shift it to someone else, because there is no "someone else." That means whenever we think of how to do the job better but more expensively or whenever we think of a new job that now has to be done, we have to pay more. It's not a pleasant thought at first, but I am in favor of giving advantages to disadvantaged kids.
I think the unions probably are overreaching, but I don't support disbanding them. I'd prefer to see more of the country unionized. But of course, that's an entirely different debate, which we probably don't want to have here.
Have you thought about what it might be like for a house-rich and cash-poor person to face having to move? A home is a home, and I think it's a large burden to have to move from a place you've lived in for a long time. I don't believe we should provide guarantees that everyone can always stay, but things have gotten really rough for many people.
The state already funds school districts. The system is already in place. I just want to see some shifts in the funding patterns.
A tax system is supposed to take into account a person's ability to pay. The overreliance on property taxes has become very skewed. Ownership of property is not a good indicator of ability to pay. It was 200 years ago. It just isn't any more. As someone said eloquently here a few weeks ago, it's not as if you can pluck a brick out of your house and send it to Township Hall.
|
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 51
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Alleygater, this is not a choice between Maplewood and elderly slums. Seniors who could afford a $8K property tax but cannot afford a $12K tax and own a home in Maplewood are not in poverty situations. We're not talking about protecting poor seniors - we're talking about protecting middle to upper middle class seniors who we want to stay when they could afford to live comfortably elsewhere - and by elsewhere, I mean nearby, just in a town that isn't served by a train.
Everyone likes the basic idea, but how many will like it if they're having to subsidize them? As Tom Reingold points out, this creates its own set of problems. There's a reason nothing has been done about it yet; we don't have the agreement you parodied above.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11443
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 3:56 pm: |
|
In 2004 the Lottery turned a $750,000,000 profit. Less than 10% of that money went to primary and secondary education and most of that was to private schools. And no, I don't have the details. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 2741
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Sounds like the bigger problem is legitimate distrust that the state of NJ will distribute education funds appropriately.
I, too, favor an income-taxed basis for funding. Higher COL districts do not have to be penalized for being so. But, the longer I live here in NJ the more I understand New Jerseyeans fear of their own state govenment. What a rotten pit, and it seems to influence local government, too. More than once I've been told that it was important to vote a certain way, or for a certain person because he was effective and plugged in at a state level. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2457
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 4:20 pm: |
|
I suggest a very good website for checking out the current dilemma and some solutions. It's www.njsba which is the New Jersey School Board Association. While the association doesn't appear to advocate for totally changing the funding formula to an income tax based source, it points out that while NJ used to be about 50/50 between property and state revenues we're now out of balance and it's more like 60/40. They say there are some good things about maintaining property tax as a partial source of revenues (given that they're a school board association one wonders whether the concern is losing some home rule as ffof points out) but this needs to be better balanced with an income tax source. They are advocating for a special legislative session to deal with these major problems. As other school disctricts are feeling the bite of S1701 finally, we are finally not alone in our very real concerns.
For those who are interested there is an Education Funding Committee that is a non-partisan committee that has done a lot of educating and advocating. PL if you're interested in contact info. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1907
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Joel, what I parodied was that you seemed to imply that there are a group of people that WANT to get rid of seniors from our community, which seemed ridiculous to me. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4702
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Tom- I hope I wasn't misunderstood. I'm not saying anything negative about Sp. Ed. It's just that we don't get any compensation for it. Likewise, I don't think we get our due as an Abbott Rim district. Money for these things comes from where? The state income taxes.
I do know that if teachers paid a co-pay (if I'm wrong, please, someone correct me), we would save big $$ thereby being able to come in on a budget, thereby having taxes go up less.
Anyway, as wendy points out above, we are getting less from the state and have to rely on our property taxes. This tells me something is wrong with the state's budget, and I am loathe to give them more if we are not going to see it right here in our town.
ANyway, out to mow the lawn...later all. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14137
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 5:22 pm: |
|
ffof, your view and mine are probably not that far apart. But I don't see why you think we should be compensated for our special ed needs. We should pay to educate our kids, and if it gets more expensive to do so, we gotta come up with the money somehow. Who else can do it? Is there some district or county out there without special ed needs?
If we're more wealthy than other areas, then we should be sending them some of money. That's what taxes are for.
But there's a chance we wouldn't lose if we shifted some of the funding from property taxes to state income taxes. We already spend a reasonable amount in our school district when we compare with other districts. So I don't necessarily fear the state taking away our funding by telling us we spend too much.
As for copayments, I might agree, but I'm not sure, and I don't expect we'll be able to effect that change soon. Then again, I don't expect to see this proposed tax shift soon, either. C Bataille has pointed out that while the no-copayment deal may seem overly sweet, teachers have to make do with a lot of what us corporate wage earners don't have to tolerate, so maybe it's fair.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11444
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Wendy, most of the 40% the state contributes goes to the Abbott Districts. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Sarah,
Try this link: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/ and click on Property Tax Relief Programs, and when that page loads click on Senior Freeze.
Hope the information can help a few people you know.
TomR |
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 2599
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 9:21 pm: |
|
ffof: once again: WE in the NJ State Health Benefits Plan DO PAY CO-PAYS! Unless someone has chosen a "traditional plan" that only pays 80% anyway. Every time I visit a doctor's office or go to the ER I pay a co-pay. Every time I have a prescription filled I pay a co-pay. Now would you give up this fantasy of yours, please? Thank you. |
annettedepalma
Citizen
Username: Annettedepalma
Post Number: 437
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 8, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
I think ffof means employee contributions to the costs of their health care premiums, not co-pays to providers or for prescriptions. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5103
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Back on topic, FWIW, we need to wait until the market settles down before we have another reval. At least another year or two... |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page