| Author | Message | ||
     Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 1905 Registered: 11-2001  |
Pete: My point exactly. If we think that piloted offerings will save us on the school portion of our taxes when Maplewood is just now gearing up with their plans, we are so wrong. Maplewood holds the trump card in this game. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 6611 Registered: 4-1997  |
I think Othello&Elvis is asking about the vibe of the town. I think both M and SO are very similar in lots of ways, but I do think SO is better integrated, which, for me, gives SO a bit more of a cosmopolitan feel. I would like to trade town governments, though. Maplewood is more actively engaged politically and more demanding of its officials, I think. Also, it's much easier to get a pitcher of beer with your pizza in South Orange. | ||
| Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 1907 Registered: 11-2001 |
 | ||
| Daniel M. Jacobs, PP, AICP Supporter Username: Conrail Post Number: 33 Registered: 1-2004 |
One place to consider starting with service consolidation might be the first aid squads, since they are not directly under the control of the town governments. Both squads appear to be facing a shortage of volunteers. Of course, the fewer the volunteers, the greater the time demands on the remaining volunteers, which only further discourages new volunteers! If one consolidated squad could cover both towns (a BIG if), the total time demands could be reduced by 1/2, improving the chances of attracting new volunteers (Would you prefer to sacrifice one night a week or one night every other week?). I know that Maplewood was considering eliminating its first aid squad and SO currently pays MONOC to provide daytime coverage (Maplewood relies on its Fire Department). Perhaps both towns could consolidate daytime coverage too to save money? In any case, if it works with the non-governmental first aid squads, it might encourage further consolidation in other areas (Police, Fire, Tax Assessor, etc.). | ||
| joso Citizen Username: Joso Post Number: 302 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hipper, seems like more older cooler looking houses and seems more relaxed..As a former MW, and now SO - you hit the nail on the head. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 7433 Registered: 1-2003  |
We would need only one town hall, and we could collect property taxes from the relinquished one. And similarly for other municipal buildings. | ||
| Two Sense Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 198 Registered: 7-2004 |
One alternative model to consider is Maryland's. Virtually all government services in Maryland are provided by counties, including public safety, public works, education, recreation, etc. and tax rates reflect this. Major towns, like Bethesda, are little more than real estate marketing designations. With this model, Village Hall could be converted to an entertainment venue and cafe. | ||
| SO Refugee Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 463 Registered: 2-2005  |
Or gutted and converted into a B&B. | ||
| Two Sense Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 199 Registered: 7-2004 |
I meant to say, new entertainment venue. | ||
| CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 316 Registered: 6-2003 |
FUnny this thread started today - this week I met a woman who lives in Montclair. WHen I told her I lived in SO she said that SO is now the place to be because it is edgier, more urban (I was thinking abandoned buildings were the reason). She said that Montclair is starting to become too suburban and it is believed that SO is the only cool place left that has an urban and edgy feel. | ||
| bets Supporter Username: Bets Post Number: 1702 Registered: 6-2001  |
Let's keep the town hall with the best HVAC system. But it still needs to be South Orange Town Hall. I don't think M'wood wants to give up its name. bets | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 7436 Registered: 1-2003 |
I don't think the town names need to be an issue. Look at Millburn. Two thirds of the people there live in a zip code called Short Hills, which would lead some to think there are two towns. But there are one. We could keep the names, according to zip codes. And who cares what the official town name is? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 7437 Registered: 1-2003 |
Two Sense, that's fascinating. Meanwhile, Massachusetts got rid of counties, for the same reason. I wonder which system works better, if they can even be compared. | ||
| Harold Colton-Max Citizen Username: Coltonmax Post Number: 44 Registered: 1-2004 |
Spitz -- The name of the book by former Assembly Speaker Alan J. Karcher is "New Jersey's Multiple Municipal Madness". It was published by Rutgers University Press in 1998. In my opinion, it is a very good book on the subject. -- Harold | ||
| happyman Citizen Username: Happyman Post Number: 335 Registered: 6-2001 |
Bets- You could just rename it . . . South Orange Town Hall ... Deli! That eliminates one "Coming Soon" sign. Now that's thinkin. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 1323 Registered: 1-2004  |
It would be nice if we could merge more of the services between the two towns. But there are some thigns to consider. For one, with Maplewood planning to build a new police dept, if the towns share services, having it built over on Springfield Ave would be a mistake. Maybe it should be built on Valley Street somewhere? Doesn't Biefus have properity on Valley we could codemn? The school system is already shared. South Orange residents can already use Maplewood's library, and visa versa; the baseball program is now shared, and I'm sure there are other things shared as well. I'm not sure merging the squads would work though with the squad buildings being in their current locations. The response time would be too great. Then again, when a squad comes from another town on as a mutual aide response, it comes from a distance as well. | ||
| ashear Supporter Username: Ashear Post Number: 1837 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm not sure I see much difference but one thing that led us to favor Maplewood when we were looking is that if you commute and can't afford a house walking distance from the train the commuter parking situation in Maplewood seems to be much better. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 593 Registered: 5-2001 |
Really? I thought Maplewood's approach to commuter parking was, "you want a permit? Here's a permit. Good luck in finding a spot!" SO puts you on a waiting list which ticks people off, but once you get that permit, you have a spot to park in. Maplewood seems in general to be way more "vain" as a town. Worries incessantly about what its rank is on some survey, what other people think of it, etc etc. Is hopelessly jealous of its prettier sister Millburn and worries constantly that it more closely resembles its homlier sister Irvington. South Orange seems more self-assured and self-confident as a town. Why, I don't know, but it feels that way to me. More "coming soon" signs and more vacant storefronts, and a butt-ugly development at the top of the hill, don't exactly breed self-confidence, but there it is. Finally, I think that SO is more evenly integrated that Maplewood is. SO has the potential to be much funkier and more cutting edge than it is (think Montclair). Maplewood has the potential to be more lofty and exclusive than it is (think Millburn or maybe Westfield). Well I can't think of any more generalities for now. I happen to live right near the border of the two towns and quite enjoy both of them fairly equally. | ||
| Ligeti Citizen Username: Ligeti Post Number: 250 Registered: 7-2002 |
Readable street signs are more of a priority in South Orange than Maplewood. Many Maplewood residents don't even see the point of putting address #s on their houses. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 7456 Registered: 1-2003 |
I appreciate all the citations of the differences. My conclusion, however, is that the differences are small and make little difference in what life is like. The only substantive difference seems be the train parking issue. Also, a lot depends on your immediate neighbors and neighborhood, but that's true everywhere. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 910 Registered: 12-2003  |
Agree with Tom. I really see no difference between the towns (and I assure you that all the folks streaming out here from NYC don't know about any differences either). Both towns have great neighborhoods, diverse populations, houses cost the same, and I see no substantial difference in tax bills (peruse for yourself on www.gsmls.com). I really don't know how the towns could develop different "identities" given their proximity and all the overlap. Nor do I particularly think they need to -- I'd say both have got it right. | ||
| Daniel M. Jacobs, PP, AICP Supporter Username: Conrail Post Number: 34 Registered: 1-2004 |
I think that there are minor differences between the two towns (dogs, gaslamps, etc.), but broadly speaking they provide a similar quality of life at a similar cost. That is why the "fiscal efficiency" opportunities of consolidation may be larger than in most other NJ towns. . . | ||
| aa Citizen Username: Kyk2001 Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2005 |
Why would anyone live in SO or MW with taxes so bloody high? unless you have 2.5 kids? I looked at buying a house in SO but with the new assessment coming in a few years, God help all you residents. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 7506 Registered: 1-2003 |
We were home shopping two and a half years ago. We were about to get married. I have two kids from my first marriage. My wife lived in Manhattan. I lived in Edison, NJ. We settled South Orange and Maplewood because it combined all sorts of criteria. We figured that living here would fit our budget. You could point out that for less money, we could have gotten the same or more, but we're happy. The location is good, it's attractive, the neighbors are nice and interesting and some are the type I'd like to be friends with), the towns are ethnically and economically mixed (which is a benefit for us), and so on. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1134 Registered: 5-2004  |
How about this? Wr merge the towns, raze the parts of Maplewood that border Springfield Ave, and build a shopping mall on the order of the Mall of America. That should lower taxes and handle the shared services issue!  | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1208 Registered: 8-2002 |
Well - or could we "oust" Seton Hall -- turn it into condos and McMansions -- the added tax revenue would be a huge boost! /p | ||
| marinab Citizen Username: Marinab Post Number: 136 Registered: 8-2002 |
I agree with the subtle differences about SO and Maplewood. I live in Maplewood and sometimes it feels a bit manicured and more suburban. i love the funkiness and integration of south orange--even the businesses that are cropping up around a slightly ennervated downtown have a sense of personal style--i feel more at home there, coming from the city. i'd like to move there for a big houses, but worry about the upcoming reevaluation ... on the other hand, i find i use both towns almost interchangeably. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 922 Registered: 12-2003 |
"Why would anyone live in SO or MW with taxes so bloody high?" $700,000 gets you a tiny two bedroom co-op in NY/Brooklyn (with an $800-a-month maintenance charge), or a beautiful house in Maplewood/South Orange. Also, point of order on the South Orange assessments coming up: Taxes aren't going up. Taxes are staying the same. The division of taxes is changing. Some people will pay more than they pay now, some will pay the same, and some will pay less. | ||
| marinab Citizen Username: Marinab Post Number: 137 Registered: 8-2002 |
But isn't that similar to what happened in Maplewood? Some areas taxes actually went down, and in my part of town, at least, they went way, way up, because presumably the values of the homes went up too. On the other hand, since THAT reevaluation, values of homes have gone up everywhere in Maplewood, on all sides of town. I think I've heard it's Montrose that will probably be hit the hardest, but there may be other areas, too. | ||
| Pizzaz Citizen Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 1928 Registered: 11-2001 |
Revaluations need to be more systematic and occur more often. In my opinion, at least, biennially. If the market increases in some parts of town increase at a faster rate than other portions of town then there is a disparity of what one pays in real estate taxes vs. what one should pay if tax assessments were properly equalized by current market values. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 5819 Registered: 5-2001 |
Revaluation caused everyone's taxes to go up in Maplewood because revaluation is a costly process and because so many homeowners fought their revaluation assessments through three separate appeals processes. Then the proportionately higher taxes in some parts of town literally forced a significant number of the empty nesters (especially those on fixed incomes)out of their homes. Given that the average house in Maplewood is in the 3 to 5 bedroom range, they were replaced by families with young children placing an additional strain on the school system, recreation, and other municipal services. This also lead to an increase in everyone's taxes. Hopefully, South Orange can learn from Maplewood's experience and do it better than Maplewood did but everyone's taxes are still apt to go up as a result of revaluation. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 599 Registered: 5-2001 |
Joan, I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions. Everyone's taxes can't possibly go up as a result of revaluation. Revals only redistribute a fixed tax burden. Therefore, by the laws of mathematics, if some peoples' tax burden rises, others must fall. Longer term, you may argue, an indirect side effect may be forcing out empty nesters and thereby introducing more families with children into the community, which could potentially raise taxes by increasing the student population in the public schools. But there is no objective evidence that many of those empty nesters would stay put otherwise: it's a well known fact that retirees in the NYC area tend to fly southward till the land runs out. And what about the empty nesters living in the houses that saw a reduction in property taxes as a result of the reval? What has been the trend in these houses? | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1172 Registered: 3-2003 |
Joan - How long have you lived in Maplewood and how many revaluations have you been through? The reason I'm asking is that generally speaking, other counties in N.J. do a far better job of having timely revaluations than Essex County. For instance, I have a house in Monmouth County. I've had 5 revaluations/reassessments since 1987. I just had a revaluation two years ago and Monmouth County has ordered a reassessment in 2 more years. I think you will find this to be the case throughout most of N.J. In fact, if I recall, Somerset County does a reassessmnet every year. Residents in these municipalities, as well as public officials, don't particularly like them, but they realize they're necessary. In general, a third of the properties end up paying more in taxes, a third pay less and a third pay the same. Other than Newark, which hadn't had a revaluation in 40 years, and Caldwell which fought a reval for 20 years, Maplewood raised more of a fuss than most other municipalities that undergo a revaluation. I'm not commenting on whether it was justified or not. But I think if you do a little research, you will find that for the most part revaluations take place throughout N.J. without too much of a fuss, and a reval generally doesn't result in everyone's taxes going up. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 5825 Registered: 5-2001 |
Argon: Everyone's taxes went up because the town's expenditures went up significantly as a result of reval. These expenses included the administrative cost of hiring the contractor who did the reval, overseeing the contractors work (which needed oversight), publicizing the reval (which was done very poorly in my opinion), hiring two consultants to review over 900 appeals of CVI's real property valuations, training in use of the new software which was provided as part of the revaluation contract, legal fees for all of the real property valuations which were contested in court and for the court challenge to the entire reval process, paying the difference in school taxes owed between CVI valuation and the valuation determined by either the town consultants or the court for the first year because appeals weren't addressed until after the new rates were certified, etc., etc. etc. This is not to imply that everyone's taxes went up at anything approaching the same rate but hardly anyone ended up with a lower dollar amount in taxes in the year immediately following reval. At the upper extreme, some people saw their taxes go up by 50% or more. Spitz: We moved into Maplewood just after a reval was done (approximately 24 years ago). The most recent reval is the first one that was held while we were in the house, resulting in a period of about 20 years between revals. I am sure that almost anyone could have handled the reval better than Maplewood did. I just hope that South Orange can avoid the mistakes Maplewood made. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 600 Registered: 5-2001 |
I believe the lesson here is not that revals raise taxes, but rather that procrastination makes little problems into big problems. Since revals are required by law, one could argue that Maplewood's taxes were artificially reduced all those years that the normal expenditures for conducting a reval were not included in the budget. One could also argue that the people in relatively more expensive houses enjoyed reduced tax rates for years at the expense of those in the less expensive houses, who essentially paid more than their fair share of taxes. I personally think most of the anger surrounding Maplewood's reval is misplaced. Blaming it on the people who finally did have the courage to actually have the reval done is counterproductive. Each village administration which came before, which ignored this growing problem, is truly to blame. One thing I think SO can learn from Maplewood, is to not kill the messenger, as Maplewood did. What administration in its right mind is going to undertake another reval voluntarily for another 20-plus years? Another is the point I made about procrastination. A third is that, in general, our methodology for paying for essential services in these towns, and in this state, is essentially flawed and inequitable. SO is not off to a good start in this regard, having already procrastinated on this item for years, allowing a series of small adjustments to progress to a major undertaking.... I'm not holding out too much hope. It ain't gonna be pretty when those new million-plus McMansion townhouses in the beloved quarry are given some special status or another... and then there's Seton Hall... gonna be ugly all around. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1142 Registered: 5-2004 |
Also, don't try to hide a tax increase in a reval... | ||
| Minimalist Citizen Username: Minimalist Post Number: 18 Registered: 12-2004  |
so wait, newark hasn't had a reval for 40 years? that sucks, right? no wonder maplewood fought it for so long and south orange is doing the same. i'm under the impression that this is negatively affecting us if we do a reval and they continue not to. i'm not entirely certain - am I wrong? | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1173 Registered: 3-2003 |
Several years ago, the court ordered Newark to have a reval. Probably the main reason Essex County wasn't as aggressive in ordering other municipalties to do a reval was the fact that Newark hadn't had a reval in 40 years. Now that Newark has had a reval, the Essex County board of taxation has stated that it intends to be much more aggressive in ordering municipalities to have revaluations, bringing Essex County in line with other counties. Essex County has in fact demonstrated this more aggressive approach by its order last year to several municipalities to have revaluations by 2007 and 2008. South Orange was ordered to have a reval done by 2008. SO was able to get the date extended to 2008 from 2007. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2036 Registered: 4-2002 |
Part of the problem is the cost of doing a reval. The estimated cost is $500,000. That alone would represent a tax increase of 3% I know we can spread out the cost but one way or another we have to pay for the reval). The timing of a reval also makes a difference. In an ideal world it would be done when the market is relatively stable. If prices are increasing quickly then another reval should be done relatively soon. If housing prices drop, then those who file an appeal and win see a reduction in their property tax bill resulting in other problems. ((Trustee Rosen always paints the bleakest picture of what would happen in this scenario and will let him explain in detail if he wants). Of course, the real problem is the property tax system and specifically how we fund schools in NJ. Maybe Corzine and Forrester will deal with the problem and have the political clout to effectively change the system. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1174 Registered: 3-2003 |
As long as N.J. relies on the property tax to pay for municipal, county and school taxes, revaluations are necesary. As a matter of fact, even if some other source of funding is arrived at for education, property taxes will still most likely remain as the source of funding for municpal taxes, still requiring periodic revaluations. Even in a lot of the states that do not rely on property taxes to fund education to the extent N.J. does, there are still property taxes and revaluations and reassessments. The exceptions are Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Alaska, which have the royalties from oil and gas production. If oil is found off the N.J. coast within the three mile limit, maybe N.J. can get rid of the property tax.  |
