| Author | Message | ||
     bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3962 Registered: 5-2001 |
If the 2004 equalization rate is really going to be .5546 the salespersons claim of under $500,000 makes sense based on a $900,000 sale price, barely. Isn't a change from .63 to .5546 in one year unusual? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 371 Registered: 3-2003 |
mrosner: There are always people who are unhappy with a revaluation. The only thing that woodstock and I have been requesting is that our assessments be the same as comparable houses. I have said repeatedly that my tax situation might not change, but at least my assessment won't be outrageously more than a comparable house. After all, this is the reason for periodic revaluations. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 372 Registered: 3-2003 |
In the interest of fairness, I suggest the following: 1. Any member of the BOT who votes in favor of a 2004 municipal budget increase greater than the cost of living also vote in favor of a revaluation. 2. Any South Orange member of the BOE or South Orange member of the Board of School Estimate who votes in favor of a special question on the 2004 school budget request that there be a revaluation. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 576 Registered: 5-2001 |
Why can't someone come up with some creative solutions? Is it mandated by the state how we MUST do things? For example, could the Village simply reassess each property as it is sold? You buy a $900,000 house, you pay $45k in taxes. You buy a $300,000 house you pay $15k in taxes. Wouldn't that incent people to stay in their houses longer (like people who have rent controlled apartments & don't want to give up the cheap place)? I'm sure there must be downsides to this, but nothing will ever get solved, unless the Village agrees to lock themselves in a room with a white board & brainstorm new ways of looking at things. Most people are tired of hearing that South Orange has such high taxes because of the lack of ratables. I think it is more likely attributable to things like the bungled Shop Rite project, the Animal Shelter fiasco, the Midas Real Estate deal, paying $1.2 million for the "benefit" of the quarry development etc. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 818 Registered: 4-2002 |
doublea: A reval does not change the revenue for the village. It is tax neutral. It is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to go forward with a reval. Too much misinformation is already out there and your post would lead some to think that a reval would mean a smaller tax increase. You have made a fair argument for doing a reval already and your last post does not help your cause. I guarantee you that after a reval there will be people who will argue that their assesment is grossly unfair and will show the assessor many comparable houses to back-up their arguments (see any one of hundreds of posts on MOL regarding the reval in Maplewood a cople of years ago). The whole property tax system is unfair. A reval might make it less unfair, but it is not going to be a fix to the bigger problem. It will just change the names of the people who will complain (and I don't doubt that you and woodstock have legitimate gripes). | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 373 Registered: 3-2003 |
mrosner: Thanks for saying I've made a fair case for a reval. My last post was a little harsh but there was a point to be made. Granted that a reval doesn't change the amount of tax revenue paid but how it is distributed. The point is that if the S.O. members of the BOE and BOSE are going to approve special questions, and will most likely will be lobbied to do so, they should have the courage to say we have to have revaluation to make sure that any increase in taxes is fairly paid by our residents. They have to have the courage to say it's not fair that some of our residents are paying a disproportionate share of the tax increase which would be remedied by a revaluation. A revaluation will not solve the high tax problem but it will equalize the pain, at least insofar as making sure that houses that are comparable are paying the same amount in taxes. Enough from me at least for a while. Incidentally, since this was a Pulte thread, Pulte hit a 52 week high yesterday | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 579 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Perhaps you missed my post above at 1:54pm (since you were posting at the same time). Is there a reason why the Village cannot reassess each property as it is sold? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 823 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: The state dictates how the system works. No reassesments when a house is sold. That system is worse then what we have. What animal shelter fiasco? T | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 580 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark - Not sure if you are kidding. See posts in the Animal Shelter thread starting last Friday from Richard Bell etc. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 374 Registered: 3-2003 |
mhd: In response to your question above, if a house is sold for more than the assessed value, N.J. does not allow a municipality to assess it at the higher price. This is called a "spot assessment" which is not allowed. On the other hand, if a house is sold for a price lower than the assessed value, the homeowner can appeal based on the lower price and most likely will win, as was the case in the early '90s. | ||
| Jeff Alexander Citizen Username: Jalexander Post Number: 37 Registered: 5-2003 |
Actually, doublea, that isn't exactly true. When I bought my house, the company that sold it to me had applied for permits to do some basic work. The town came in after the work was done and "revaled" the property to EXACTLY the maximum amount allowed under the formula (huh, coincidence, eh?). I fought it and lost. Maybe the town was allowed to do it because of the permits, but they worked me over good.. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3984 Registered: 5-2001 |
I also believe a taxing authority can revalue on sale if unpermited work is discovered. Jeff, are you the guy where the seller put in a cheap kitchen? What did they do, take the sale price times the equalization ratio? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 375 Registered: 3-2003 |
Jeff: I'm not exactly sure what your situation was, but on a house that has not had any improvements since the last assessment, the town can't assess at the higher sales price. I have heard of situations where the previous owner has made substantial improvements, or put in a new kitchen, but never had the final inspection. Then when the house is sold and the building dept. inspects for a certificate of occupancy, the value of the improvements is added onto the assessment. As a matter of fact, there are many properties in town that that have had improvements made, and took out a building permit as required. However, the homeowner never calls the building department for a final inspection. It is the final inspection that triggers the notification from the building department to the tax assessor so that she knows the work has been done, and then comes out to inspect to determine what additional assessment,if any, should be made. There are a lot of these situations in town, on top of all the work which has not been done with the required building permit. This in itself is probably a good reason for a revaluation. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 826 Registered: 4-2002 |
Jeff: Since you bring it up, I am curious. What did the work cost to be done and was the new assesment fair in relation to what you paid? I have had some discussions with a few people who had major renovations and in every case the assessment was less than the actual cost of the work and in every case the homeowner felt that the value of the home increased at least as much as the assesment. By the way, I don't agree that a homeowner should be penalized for upgrading or maintaining a home, but that is the property tax system. doublea: I think we discussed this before and as far as I know the follow-ups for final inspections are being done and have been for some time. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 376 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark et al: For the record, I'm glad that people are improving their houses. I think we all are - it's good for the town and certainly improves property values as well as makes South Orange a beautiful place to live. We certainly want to encourage people to improve their properties and not discourage them because of a potential tax increase. That is the reason for the five year tax abatement on qualified improvements up to $25,000. I am glad to see that information on this abatement is now posted on the Village website and suggest that any resident who has questions call the tax assessor. She actually is quite helpful. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 828 Registered: 4-2002 |
doublea: Just want to point out that evey town in N. J does the calculations the same and it is the properyt tax system that seems to penalize a person for maintaining or improving their homes. | ||
| Jeff Alexander Citizen Username: Jalexander Post Number: 38 Registered: 5-2003 |
For the record, the assessment was SUBSTANTIALLY more than the work that was performed - the assessor (wasn't a woman - someone different 3 years ago?) even admitted it at the appeal. The seller had bought the house at foreclosure, and replaced a demolished kitchen and bathroom with the cheapest possible components - the cost was nowhere near what the assessor claimed or $25,000. The whole thing was a shakedown - we went in there with pictures, etc showing the low quality of work and were told that it didnt matter because of the price we paid for the house.. So basically, the point of the exercise was to sock us the maximum amount that we could be socked. Was a real nice way to say "welcome to south orange". | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 22 Registered: 10-2003 |
We have wandered from the original post - has anyone discussed the allegation that Pulte is in bed with the assessor or is Pulte misleading potential buyers? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 377 Registered: 3-2003 |
Howard: I think John Gross's response to my question explains the $25,000 in taxes that Pulte has been using. The assessment percentage for 2004 is 55.46%. Applied to a sales price of $900,000 would result in an assessment of $499,000. Then using the 2003 tax rate of 5.28 would result in a tax of $26,347. | ||
| Howard Levison Citizen Username: Levisonh Post Number: 23 Registered: 10-2003 |
I understand the tax calculation and have no issue but it is the implication of the email message to woodstock that concerns me re: "The accessor has really been working with us. Please feel free to contact her, in fact she encourages it. Her name is Ellen and her # is (973)378-7715 Ext 7729. Yeas she is bringing them in under $500,000." |
