| Author | Message | ||
     mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 4821 Registered: 5-2001  |
Bobk, It was really upsetting to my parents and their neighbors to be harrassed by the previous administration because of my dad's lawn sign. He likes where he lives now but he really misses Maplewood - maybe he and all the other great people that left will move back now that we have decent leadership!  | ||
| L'Angelo Misterioso Citizen Username: Misterioso Post Number: 238 Registered: 10-2003  |
Why, Mem? Has the "current leadership" lowered taxes any? Township property taxes are going up almost 8% this year. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 8463 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mem and L'Angelo possibly Mem's Dad (and others) wouldn't have had to move if Vic hadn't put through a ten percent or so tax increase with the reval. This is usually called the "Stealth Tax" around town. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3762 Registered: 5-2001  |
L'Angie- Your guy hasn't a chance. Fred and Co have done more in this town than Vic ever did or would ever be capable of doing. | ||
| L'Angelo Misterioso Citizen Username: Misterioso Post Number: 240 Registered: 10-2003 |
If by "around town" you mean "wherever I happen to be standing at the moment," then you may be right, Bob. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 4824 Registered: 5-2001 |
L'angelo - 8% is nothing compared to the 50% many of us ended up with after "your guy" got through with us back then. | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 1816 Registered: 6-2001 |
In other words-your houses were worth MORE than you ever dreamt, and after years of a "sweetheart deal", you were asked to pay your fair share. Gerry and Vic could have done what previous TCs did, and ignore the problem, and then pass the responsibility of a reval onto the next administration. And then the State could have sued us, or threatened us with a lawsuit over the property tax disparities. Everybody agrees taxes suck! And yet, of the three candidates in the June primary, only one of them has stood by his commitment for property tax reform. And this person ain't Fred or Ian! | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 8468 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wharfrat, in general houses between Ridgewood and Wyoming have appreciated less than elsewhere in town. | ||
| L'Angelo Misterioso Citizen Username: Misterioso Post Number: 246 Registered: 10-2003 |
Painful, Mem - of course. I wouldn't demean anyone's hardship due to the revaluation. But it was both legally required and long overdue. Your folks (and I know they were not the only ones) probably felt they had to move because they no longer thought it worthwhile (or, maybe, possible) to pay the higher property tax. Look on the other side of the equation, though. I'm sure it was no less painful, before the reval, for the people whose homes were being OVERtaxed by double-digit percentages. Was the new assessment of your parents' house unreasonable? I think you posted somewhere that they sold about a year after the reval. How close to the new assessed value was the price they got for the house? The sale may not have been entirely by their choice, and that's indeed unfortunate, but was the assessment out of line with the sale price? | ||
| Jack Straw Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 5066 Registered: 10-2001 |
SO Wharfie if Vic gets in our taxes will go down? | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 1817 Registered: 6-2001 |
After years masquerading as a (fill in the blank) you expect us to take you seriously? Troll question!
Joeltfk  | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 4827 Registered: 5-2001 |
L'angelo, It was an emotional decicion when my parents decided to sell, they weren't thinking in terms of assessment, investment, etc., and you're right, they didn't think it was worth living in Maplewood after the sticker shock of the reval, as well as having been personally insulted by that admin. I wish Vic had investigated some kind of amortization program to alleviate the drastic increases for so many people, but the impression many of us got by his attitude was that he was sticking it to us in some egotistical way. | ||
| L'Angelo Misterioso Citizen Username: Misterioso Post Number: 250 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mem - I don't know if you were at the GRASP debate last week, but that question (about amortizing the change) came up. Vic's answer was that they DID try to do that - they pleaded with the state dept of taxation to let the changes be phased in - but the state absolutely wouldn't allow it. | ||
| Jack Straw Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 5072 Registered: 10-2001 |
yeah, but Vic pleaded AFTER he realized the disaster. He never thought to do so before everyone got word we were screwed thanks to the reval. | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 1819 Registered: 6-2001 |
Bob K- If memory serves me (or I have access to a phone book) you live between Ridgewood and Wyoming. On another thread, way back when, you said you bought your house in 1981. My guess is you paid in around $150,000 for your house. If you look at the 2000 assessments, the average market price of a house in your neighborhood was pegged at between $425,000-500,000. Today, it is almost impossible to find a house here under $700,000, and more typical is $850,000. Meanwhile, people who paid that amount for a house on the other side of town, in 1980, have yet to catch up with what your house is worth. Although removing the unfairly high taxes in the "east" 2001 was immediately reflected in a boost of house prices there (as would be expected), the continuing rise in your neighborhood has been -- in the words of Larry Seltzer, one of your MOL heroes -- "none too shabby." Another way to look at it is to compare your investment in your home with stock market investments. In real dollars, much of which you and your neighbors were able to invest in your house makes you an extraordinary winner in the Maplewood real estate market. Nonetheless, it doesn't surprise me that you are still whining that you could have gotten more, and you want to punish the man who didn't let you keep stuffing your piggy bank at the expense of the rest of Maplewood's taxpayers. In addition, if the man you claim is the greatest thing since sliced bread had done his job 10 years ago, this debate would be moot. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 8475 Registered: 5-2001 |
Wharf, first off I agree that values had gotten out of whack and have no problem with a revaluation being done. My problem is mostly with the methodology, that even the judge who dismissed the suit on the subject called "flawed". The work that Larry did last year clearly shows that houses in the VCS we live in (between Ridgewood and Wyoming) appreciated at a much lower percentage than other areas of town. Because you were starting with a higher base I agree with Larry that the dollar amount is "none to shabby" and roughly equivalent of other areas. One way or another the manner in which the reval was handled was horrible. I remember Vic sitting in his chair with a bull horn and another meeting that had to be held in the CHS auditorium. Other towns manage to conduct revaluations without turning it into an "us vs. them" confrontation, which is what happened here. I can't support the idea of going back to that sort of a situation, nor do I think the majority of people here want to be in that situation. I have posted here several times that overall I consider the reval to have been good for the town. The blockbusting that went on in the Hilton area especially during the 1990s has ceased and the area is beginning to reintegrate (see the study George Robinson did for the CCR), which is positive. Your last paragraph isn't very clear. Are you blaming Fred for the imbalance that occured in the late 1990s? This is pretty far out, even for an "us vs. them" type such as yourself. For the record the COD (the measure of tax fairness) didn't go over 15 (the point where a reval is needed) until a year or two before the reval. Last year it was getting close to i5. I will see if new CODs have been published later today. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 8477 Registered: 5-2001 |
As mentioned above the 2004 COD for Maplewood is 14.48%. CODs over 15% are considered reason to have a new reassessment. By way of reference South Orange's 2004 COD is 16.56 and the Essex County Tax Board has ordered that they do a reassessment. | ||
| C Bataille Citizen Username: Nakaille Post Number: 2002 Registered: 5-2001 |
There is actually a very sound reason why the state said the changes could not be phased in: because those of us who were overpaying relative to the real value of our homes would have continued to foot the tax bill for those who were underpaying relative to the real value of their homes for whatever amount of time the phase-in took. It was really time for that bit of injustice to end. It's not as if those of us on the overpaying side had too much money and needed to be given an involuntary charity! Cathy | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 8485 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cathy, given NJ law I ain't goin' to argue the point. However, a month or so ago Kathy with a K posted about Maryland. In that state assessment changes are, by law, phased in over a three year period and are limited to a maximum up or down change of, and this is from memory,of 25%. To me this makes a lot of sense. Remember, that if our COD goes over 15 nesxt year and a new reval is ordered by the county, the most likely scenario is much higher taxes in the areas that received the greatest benefit last time. | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 528 Registered: 6-2002 |
Bob, I believe Wharfie was referring to Grasmere, not Fred-san. |
