| Author |
Message |
    
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 326
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 1, 2003 - 11:19 am: | 
|
The sign that Pulte put up says "starting in the 900's." At present, assessed value is 62.94% of true value. Thus a home sold for $900,000 should be assessed at $566,000. The tax rate is 5.2 per 1000, making the tax $29,400.
I don't see legally how they could be assessed lower unless there is a town-wide revaluation. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 327
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 1, 2003 - 11:24 am: |
|
What I was trying to say above is that only with a town-wide revaluation, which brings everything else up to true value, might the taxes on the new homes be lower. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3716
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, November 1, 2003 - 3:45 pm: |
|
If they are going to be in the $1,000,000 price zone they are still going to be at the top of the tax range. My perception, and it may be wrong, is that more expensive houses tend to have lower effective tax rates than less expensive houses in SO. Although because of the timing of your last reval and all the tax appeals, it is sometimes hard to tell. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 460
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 2, 2003 - 2:50 pm: |
|
After a town-wide reval, supposedly all houses will have the same effective tax rate. Right now that's not the case, because many of the more expensive houses are that way because of massive appreciation over the past ten years. So a 70 year old house that is now worth $1,000,000 can have taxes equivalent to (or less than) a new house worth about half that amount.
By performing a reval, if done properly, everyone's effective tax rate will be the same, leveling the playing field. As it is, there is extremely wide disparity between house values and taxes here in SO, just like there was in Maplewood.
Was Maplewood's reval based on a court order (or lawsuit), or did the TC finally see how unfair things were and decide to take pre-emptive action?
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3733
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 2, 2003 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Maplewood wasn't even on the Tax Board's radar screen. When the CD got to a point where South Orange's has been for years the TC ordered the reval either out of fairness, for political advantage with their power base or a combination of the two.
Caldwell, or maybe it was West Caldwell, kept an order to revalue in court for over twenty years before finally starting the process. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 330
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 2, 2003 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Caldwell, in defending its case, has cited South Orange as an Essex County municpality that requires a revaluation more than Caldwell does. Caldwell had a coefficient of deviation for 2002 of 14.24, and 16.00 in 2001. South Orange was 16.42 in 2002 and 19.78 in 2001. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 742
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 3, 2003 - 11:20 am: |
|
My opinion is that a reval is such a sensitive subject and because it has such an impact on property taxes, the state should decide and force all towns to do a reval at the same time (at least on a county wide basis) and for each town to have to adjust based on market fluctuations every two years.
It is clear the property tax system is NOT working and needs fixing. A reval solves some inequities, and creates others. The majority of residents probably do not want one, yet that should not be a consideration in the decision about when to do one. Timing is important and a reval works best if it is not done at the peak of the market. Revals need to be done on a regular basis and not every 20 years (or longer).
The number one question for every candidate running for the state senate should be about property taxes and what they plan to do for towns that do not have a large base of commercial ratables.
We can cut the municipal budget, have 0% increases for several years and it will still have a minimal affect on out tax bill because of the amount we need for our schools.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3757
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 7:55 am: |
|
There is tremendous polictical risk in ordering a reval as I am sure the five members of the Maplewood TC at the time of our reval will tell you. All of them are now "retired" or "lame ducks".
The problem with doing an entire state, or a county for that matter, is staffing at the various companies such as Certified Valuations who do this work.
I can't believe that Pulte expects taxes in the $25,000 to $30,000 range on the quarry townhouses. There has to be a loophole here somewhere, possibly square footage or construction (as opposed to sale price) cost. If this is the case and imagine there will be quite an uproar from residents in lower priced houses who are paying the same or higher taxes. 
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 331
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 8:46 am: |
|
If the taxes are based on less than the sales price, I won't have a "smilely" face when I sue. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 466
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 9:04 am: |
|
Doublea - you won't be alone either. I can guarantee my entire block (plus the other two or three new houses bult in SO in the past five years) would join in. We all spoke about this a couple of years ago when my wife and one of our neighbors (who has since moved to Short Hills, to a house he paid twice a much for with much lower taxes) went in front of the finance committee, and were basically told "Sorry, nothing we can do."
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 332
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 9:13 am: |
|
I think bobk got the response he expected, but that's all right. We're all very serious. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3761
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 9:21 am: |
|
Sometimes the Devil takes over my keyboard and all sorts of things end up being posted.
As some of you know among my "hobbies" is following home sales around our two towns. I just don't see how Townhouses, no matter how high end are going to sell with those type of taxes.
Mark, sorry to start a fire here. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 473
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 9:30 am: |
|
I'm not sure I understand....are you guys saying YOUR taxes are in that range already (and I assume your house did not cost around $900K)?
How can that be?
From what I understand the quarry duplexes will be assessed at approximately 63% of the sales price. So, a sales price of $900,000, means an assessment of $567,000. At a tax rate of 5.1% (?), the taxes would be about $29K per year, the first year.
I thought the Jessica Way houses sold in the $400-$500K range, but wouldn't that mean the assessed value would be 63% of that? |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 333
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 10:10 am: |
|
mhd: The 63% that you refer to and which I referred to in an earlier post is the percentage of assessed value of true value (market value) that exists in 2003. This percentage varies over time, and if houses were really assessed at true market value, the assessment percentage would be 100%.
Thus, a few years ago, the assessment percentage was close to 100%. A new house sold for say $500,000 back then would be assessed at 100% or
$500,000. The problem is that an older house that had been assessed at say $500,000 in 1991, and then appealed in the the early 90's when prices collapsed, could (and did) have its assessment lowered to $300,000. That older house today has a market value greater than the newer house, but is paying substantially less in taxes.
Thus, you have houses that are being sold for $1mm + that are assessed in the $300,000 range. In the meantime, newer houses such as on Jessica Way, had been assessed around $400,000 in some cases, and don't have a market value of $1million.
Even though I have an older house, I have a similar problem. My house had been assessed at $450,000 in 1991. Comparable houses, which had been assessed at $450,000 in 1991, appealed in the early 90's when prices collapsed, and had their assessments reduced to $330,000. The assessment of my house was not appealed until 1997, by which time house prices had started to rise again. I had to use comparable prices and my assessment was reduced to $400,000. Thus, two houses, comparable in most respects, with a $70,000 difference in assessments.
The above is why Woodstock and I have been asking for a revaluation. Assessments are just too far out of line.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 334
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 11:33 am: |
|
The interesting think about the Pulte homes is if in fact there is no town-wide revaluation, whether propspective buyers are going to be told taxes are going to be in the $30,000 range. The full assessment doesn't take place until a certicicate of occupancy is issued, and when a prospective buyer is looking at one of the units, it is not fully assessed. I think this is what happened to Woodstock? |
mim
Citizen
Username: Mim
Post Number: 299
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Don't some of the condos in The Top have similarly huge tax bills? I think I recall reading, at the time of Mwood's reval, that one of them was taxed at $39,000/year, the highest in town. Staggering. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 323
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 12:20 pm: |
|
My neighbor does some work for someone in The Top -- who owns a duplex penthouse. Taxes of $80k per year!
In terms of Pulte sales -- they have to make an estimate of taxes available -- for the buyers and mortgage company. I guess it depends what their accountants come up with.
Pete |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 467
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 12:23 pm: |
|
When I bought, I was given a tax range (from the builder's realtor) of about $14k based on what other houses on the street had gotten assessed at. My actual tax bill was more like $19k at the time. Now it's over $22k. And I paid MUCH MUCH less than (starting at) $900k for my house.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 478
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Doublea,
Even if there were a reval, wouldn't the Pulte duplexes STILL have the highest taxes in town (or very close to the top) and still be in the $30K or likely even higher range?
If they actually sell close to $1 million (with upgrades), they have got to be at the top 2% of all properties in town, right? (with 5000 households in town, I can't imagine there are more than 50-100 properties that would sell for over $1 million, right?)
Although, somehow I guess they will try to hide that fact in their glossy marketing materials, along with the existence of our neighbors of Newark and Orange. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 468
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 12:31 pm: |
|
MHD,
You'd be surprised. Check out the sale prices of houses in the area, particularly Newstead, parts of Montrose, and - I don't know what you call the area between Wyoming and Ridgewood between SO Ave and, say, Redmond. Lots of houses in the 700+ range. Two houses on Wyoming went for well over a million each in the past year.
Yes, they would be among the more expensive properties in town, but they wouldn't be as many std devs from the mean as you might expect.
Also, peraonlly, I wouldn't care if I paid the highest taxes in town, as long as I understood that I had the best property in town. Most people plunking down a mil on a house have an understanding that their property taxes are going to be pretty darned high.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
kevin
Citizen
Username: Kevin
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 12:36 pm: |
|
I don't live at The Top (which is in Maplewood), but a realtor friend looked this up for me.
There is a 2 bedroom, 2.1 bath unit currently available at The Top which is listed for $750,000.
Current taxes are $22,629. There is a note in the listing which mentions the taxes will be going down starting in Jan '04.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3763
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Kevin, that condo has been for sale for a very long time and it appears the owner convinced the tax board to lower the assessment. There was a house on Wyoming in Maplewood where the same thing happened. A couple of units at the Top are assessed for over $1,000,000, which means a tax bill moving towards %35,000. Most of the people who bought these units pre-reval had taxes in teh $10,000 to $12,000 range. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 335
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 1:43 pm: |
|
mhd: If there were a reval, as Woodstock says, they would pay the same taxes as other houses in the $1mm range. This would be less than $30,000. How much less, I can't say - I'm guessing around $25,000.
I think now that this issue is out there, maybe the Village administration should address it.Two years ago I went before the BOT to request a revaluation. I was told by a BOT member in a private conversation there would be a reval in 2007. Subsequent to this, Woodstock told me and posted on this board that he heard there would be reval when the quarry houses were built. What he heard and what I heard then made sense. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 479
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Doublea,
Very interesting. So, Bobk...I guess that answers the question - Pulte will hide the fact that we border Newark & promise lower taxes "coming soon" to sell these units. They'll then skip town & laugh all the way to the bank.
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 469
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 11:08 pm: |
|
MHD,
Why do you assume Pulte will do anything so deceitful? I can't speak for them around here, but in other parts of the country, they've got a decent reputation. They're a very large company, not some fly-by-night "skip town" builder.
Heck, my builder didn't skip town (he lives here) and 4 years later I still don't have all the items that are in my contract.
I can't imagine anyone could "hide" Newark. It's not Pulte's duty to do the buyer's due diligence for them. Anyone moving to South Orange knows what towns border us. If they don't, shame on them for not doing enough background work on the place they plan to live.
I'm surprised you would make assumptions about how Pulte will sell these properties. Have you spoken with anyone from the company? Do you have any idea what they plan to do?
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 480
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - 7:39 am: |
|
Woodstock,
From my post on Oct 31: On Pulte's website describing the development:
"Towns around South Orange are West Orange to the north, Milburn, Short Hills and Maplewood to the south, and the South Mountain Reservation borders the west."
You think it was an "accident" that they left off what borders to the EAST?
Have you seen the deforestation that took place on the site? Did you sit through the Planning Board meetings where they refused to call these units "multi-family", so they would not be subject to certain buffering?
I have spoken to several people from the company and they were less than interested in doing anything to appease the surrounding neighbors.
They even refused to perform tests on the soil to ensure there was no contamination from the years of blasting.
Please don't make assumptions.
If you are assuming that this will help your taxes, it will do as much for your taxes as Jessica Way did for all of ours...nothing positive. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 471
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 6, 2003 - 7:22 am: |
|
MHD,
I'm not sure if you've had any experience with larger new home construction projects. I don't mean this insultingly at all, but Pulte is not doing anything any other developer wouldn't do:
-Not entioning Newark and Irvington in the marketing. Um. It's called Marketing! It's not "full disclosure." No product's advertising (other than prescription drugs which are required to) mentions the negative of the product. I'm sure Pinto ad in the 70s didn't say "They have a tendency to explode." And more recently, I don't think Bridgestone/Firestone noted in their ads that their tires have a tendency to have their treads separate from the tire itself.
-Clear cutting - Unfortunately, this is the way all builders work these days. It's cheaper to remove all the trees, then plant new, smaller trees, than to work around older trees. I agree, though. I hate the sterile look they give a neighborhood, including my own. But at least I have a forest in my backyard.
-Not calling them "multi-family - again, a sound business decision. Perhaps not one that takes the best interests of their neighbors in mind, but it's not sleazy or slimy. They're not getting away with something. Argue with the planning board, who allowed them to do it.
Performing soil testing - I don't have enough informastion about this. Are they removing large amounts of soil? Perhaps they are removing enough (and replacing it) that they feel there is no need, since it will be replaced. Again, ask the planning board (or whatever agency is responsible for oversight of a project like this).
As far as taxes, I am quite sure that you taxes would have been higher if Jessica Way was not built. How do I know this? Because my taxes are higher (and PROPORTIONALLY higher) than almost every other house in town (a few exceptions, notably doublea's). Basically, I AM subsidizing your taxes. Just because your taxes didn't go down, doesn't mean that if my house wasn't built, they wouldn't have been higher. They absolutely would have been. There is only one child on our street in the MSO schools system. Yet as a block, we pay well over a hundred thousand to the school district.
So don't even THINK that your taxes were not positively affected by my house being built. Ok, maybe positively affected isn't the greatest term. But it did lower the potential negative impact.
If you need me to work out the math for you, I'd be happy to.
But I never said, nor did I ever assume, that my taxes would be lower if the quarry was developed. Might it stabilize taxes? Perhaps. A lage development like that, however, puts more of a strain on town resources than a single new block (or single house). So I'm not holding my breath.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page