| Author | Message | ||
     ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1906 Registered: 5-2001  |
Copperfield- the comparison/relationship you give with the two $700k houses (one in Mill which is smaller and one in Mapl which is larger and larger land btw) has been the same for the 14 years we've lived here - although 14 years ago those same $700k homes were $300. A better comparison would be to look at similar size homes in each town and Mapl will be the better value. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4603 Registered: 5-2001 |
If you are going to compare towns you have to compare the monthly cost of home ownership. Lower taxes results in the ability to carry a larger mortgage. The $700k house in Maplewood is probably going to have taxes of at least 18,000. In Millburn the taxes on a $700k property are going to be around $10,000, both on an annual basis. The tax savings of $8,000 works out to be $667 per month. At current interest rates this works out to the ability to carry an additional mortgage of $110,000 plus, so you are really comparing $700,000 homes in Maplewood with nearly $800,000 homes in Millburn, assuming the taxes in Millburn are going to be around $11,000. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6355 Registered: 4-1998  |
Except a 700k house in Maplewood would likely go for $1.2M in Millburn, not 800. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4607 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, you are probably not far off, although that wasn't the conversation. The differential between a house in South Mountain Estates in Millburn and Tuscan here is between 30% to 40%. | ||
| Copperfield Citizen Username: Copperfield Post Number: 18 Registered: 1-2004 |
Come on Crohn- you can't be that disingenuous. Your original point was that the gap between rich and poor has increased in NYC and thus would increase in Maplewood. But that's not true- the poor are priced out of certain areas of NYC- so there is no more gap in those areas of Manhattan and Brooklyn for the simple reason that there are no more poor people. Now in NYC, the underlcass has moved from Manhattan to one of the outer boroughs, so they show up on the same statistics and are part of the same school district. In Maplewood, they'll move out of town- to another part of Essex County perhaps, but out of Maplewood. So the gap won't increase- it'll just disappear. And Maplewood's schools will look more like Millburn's. That's essentially what's happening in Montclair- school supt or no school supt. - people are snapping up anything that goes on the market and changing the face of the poorer sections of town- it's a trickle down effect, but the same thing seems to be happening in Maplewood. And realtors aside, as SportsNut mentioned, a whole lot of people are counting on that. You may not like to hear that- it's obvious you don't - but it's what's happening. People are buying up houses in Maplewood because it's still a "deal" - once it gets too gentrified, there won't be any $300k houses left. And in that real estate frenzy, people will buy pretty much any house on the theory that the price will go up. Just like Montclair. Or to look at it another way, it's why tiny 3 bedroom, 1 bath houses in Millburn can sell for over $500k. You ask who the young middle class families with kids are replacing? They're replacing poor and working class families who are selling their houses for more than they ever thought possible. It's called gentrification and I find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with it. And you can spew out all the statistics you want, but perception is more powerful than facts and since the perception is that's what's happening, chances are it's going to keep happening. Bob K: You are right- I was thinking of South Mountain and Tuscan in the original comparison - but the taxes in Millburn are considerably less- more like $7k on a South Mountain house. Currently,a buyer in that price range is comparing a $700k Wyoming house in Maplewood with taxes of about $18k and a much smaller $700k South Mountain house in Millburn with taxes that are close to one-third that (and a school system that no one's all that worried about.) If the two houses were of similar size, then the tax situation would probably keep the Maplewood house priced proportionally lower- kind of the way monthly maintenance charges on co-ops in Manhattan effect prices there. | ||
| shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 369 Registered: 7-2002 |
FFof: You mention better value. True, you get more house for your money in Maplewood. But if you look at it strictly from the investment point of view, a Millburn house will likely increase in value more quickly than a Maplewood house. Bobk mentions South Mountain Estates. I live there. Bought my house for $310,000 in 1999. A comparable home in my neighborhood just went for more than $750,000 (1920s architecture, about 2000 sf, small property) -- and there were four offers. My taxes are $7,200. That's good value to me. Also, I love being so close to Maplewood Village! | ||
| lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 672 Registered: 3-2002  |
What town does Peter Horroshack live? What about Marilyn Davenport? Do they have children in a district? | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4611 Registered: 5-2001 |
Shoshanna, in the last few years Maplewood appreciation has been at the same rate or slightly quicker than Millburn. However, Millburn seems to hold up better in soft realestate markets, such as the early and mid 1990s. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1908 Registered: 5-2001 |
horo lives in S Orange. shosho -I disagree. There is not one house (okay maybe one) that would suit my family in the Millburn section of Millburn. So to compare the two isn't really applicable. We have a 6 bdrm 4 and half bath house on over a third acre (got any in Millburn estates?). TO find something comparable I would have to go to "Old" Short Hills and spend at least $1.3 with probably similar taxes to mine. ps. SOme find it shocking, but I would take our schools over Millburn anyday. pps. Thanks for shopping Maplewood, but you're not allowed to show your feelings of superiority (if you have them, I know of some who do) while your here or online  | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1909 Registered: 5-2001 |
oh, bobk just reminded me, there was some analysis (NYTimes? or perhaps the Snooze Record) that showed Maplewood appreciating at a rate equal or higher than Millburn over the last 10 years or 5 years? Bobk? | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4612 Registered: 5-2001 |
This is something the late, great LSeltzer picked up somewhere and is probably in the archieves, if you can find it. I refer to Larry in the past tense only as respects MOL, since he decided to stop posting after AJC worked him over. | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1292 Registered: 6-2001 |
ffof, It was the Times, last year (4/13/03) It noted: "And, given that the rate of home-price appreciation in the two towns surpassed those in all but one of the contiguous communities over the last 10 years, the strategy seems to have been successful. While the median price in Millburn, the most affluent of all the towns in the area, increased by 101 percent from 1992 to 2002, the median price in both Maplewood and South Orange rose by 99 percent." | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 344 Registered: 6-2002 |
Out of that 99% increase, according to my in-depth calculation 37% can be attributed to the introduction of Midtown Direct, 35% to low interest rates, 19% to good marketing and publicity, and 7% to the Bagel Chateau, and 1% to the school system. These figures reflect a +/- 3% margin of error. | ||
| shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 370 Registered: 7-2002 |
FFof: No such feelings. Why would you think that there'd be reason for such feelings? There's nothing better or worse about any particular town. It's just important that people like and feel comfortable where they are. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1913 Registered: 5-2001 |
well, let's just say I've run into a few. I'm glad you're not one of them. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1914 Registered: 5-2001 |
wow, good info burch! | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1293 Registered: 6-2001 |
(FYI, Maplewood Library cardholders have access to a couple of full text newspaper databases which you can also access from home/work via the library web page. Comes in handy....) And xavier made me laugh. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 896 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Come on Crohn- you can't be that disingenuous." No disingenuity, jerk, just an inability to follow your poorly laid out argument through the waves of unnecessary hostility. "Your original point was that the gap between rich and poor has increased in NYC and thus would increase in Maplewood. But that's not true- the poor are priced out of certain areas of NYC- so there is no more gap in those areas of Manhattan and Brooklyn for the simple reason that there are no more poor people." In the first place, there is a gap in Manhattan, whether or not you acknowledge it. In the second place, I did not discuss "certain areas" of Manhattan and Brooklyn, or "certain areas" of South Orange and Maplewood. I spoke of New York as a whole and of our community as a whole, and I said that the gap between rich and poor would widen. My argument concerns the possible departure of the middle class from Maplewood and South Orange and its replacement by wealthier people--which, for all your lather, you implicitly acknowledge. I understand you believe the poor will be replaced here by an in-migration of middle class people from NY--but I see no evidence of that happening yet. Rather, the elderly and middle-aged, middle and upper-middle class have been cashing in, along with somewhat younger middle class people with kids who are unhappy with the schools and/or fed up with the taxes. The elderly poor don't seem to be going anywhere, from what I can see (although maybe you can produce some information that suggests otherwise). The middle-aged middle class appear to be selling to middle-class people with very young children who will swell the school enrollment rolls and drive up taxes further. As for the last category, this community's poverty-cleansing gentrification is a long way off--too long indeed to insure that those who find the taxes excessive and school quality worrisome will have nothing to worry about. You say I should forget the stats and look at what's happening locally. Well, in the last two years, four houses on my block were sold by solidly middle/upper-middle class people to younger, certainly less wealthy middle class people. The first owners in all cases fled for better schools and/or lower taxes elsewhere. The new owners will be thinking hard about staying as the costs of homeownership rise, especially if crime goes up (which it will if the economy slips) or the quality of the schools their very young children will be attending in a few years seems to go down. I see no evidence of any trend toward cashing in on the many multifamily rentals near where I live. The houses I see for sale lately are overwhelmingly single-family dwellings in the better-off, heavily taxed parts of town--Maplewood, in particular. "In Maplewood, they'll move out of town- to another part of Essex County perhaps, but out of Maplewood. So the gap won't increase- it'll just disappear." If Maplewood's lowest priced housing stock were like South Orange's, or as in short supply, you'd maybe be right. But it isn't--Mwood has far more apartments (not converted multi-family houses waiting to be sold to your desperate buyers who'll want to live there once all the $300K "deals" are snapped up) and these won't be turning into clones of S.O.'s Third St. development anytime soon. "And Maplewood's schools will look more like Millburn's.' Not "more like" enough to matter any time in the next ten years. (I assume you're speaking purely of socioeconomic status. If you mean the SOMA school district is going to become predominantly Jewish and Asian, you're crazy.) "That's essentially what's happening in Montclair- school supt or no school supt. ..." No, you're simply wrong. Suburban schools with excellent reputations attract gentrification, not the other way 'round. The trend you cite is very much a response to local policy, along with a variety of quality-of-life intangibles that can be endangered by a rapidly rising tax rate. Moreover, I don't believe the poor have simply left Montclair. Rather, they all seem to attend one very badly performing elementary school. "...it's a trickle down effect, but the same thing seems to be happening in Maplewood. And realtors aside, as SportsNut mentioned, a whole lot of people are counting on that." Plenty of others are not interested in paying the price while they wait for that trickle. And some of us despair that gentrification will spell increasing class and/or race antagonism in our community. Again: the middle and upper-middle classes will be the first to go, even as others are coming in. The rich could move in in droves and the poor would be with us for quite a while yet. "People are buying up houses in Maplewood because it's still a "deal" - once it gets too gentrified, there won't be any $300k houses left. And in that real estate frenzy, people will buy pretty much any house on the theory that the price will go up. Just like Montclair." You assume far too much. Maplewood will cease being a "deal" relative to other NY-commutable suburbs if the taxes are considered comparably high or the reputation of the schools is too low. The trend toward gentrification will slow, and we'll still have two Title One schools. "Or to look at it another way, it's why tiny 3 bedroom, 1 bath houses in Millburn can sell for over $500k." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Millburn has not had a Springfield Avenue, an Irvington Avenue, or a floundering downtown redevelopment in recent memory. Nor has Millburn much proximity to high crime municipalities. Home buyers take these things into account. (You will notice, incidentally, that the salvific gentrifications of Newark and Irvington are not exactly on schedule.) "You ask who the young middle class families with kids are replacing? They're replacing poor and working class families who are selling their houses for more than they ever thought possible." That's certainly not what I've observed--that is, I haven't seen the poor, or their landlords, cashing in. What I've seen is newcomers replacing elderly residents and middle-aged residents who used to be middle class, but have become comparatively lower-middle as the cost of living has gone up. I've seen middle class people with babies replacing middle class people whose kids are out of school. All these folks are two-earner households, and they'll be hit hard by high taxes if there's a bump in the economic upturn. I know one new family that threw in the towel after only three years; they went out of state and built a house. They were replaced here by people who earn somewhat less. In fact, I think it's safe to say that most of the middle-class people who have moved into my neighborhood lately earn a bit less than the folks who left, simply by virtue of being younger. "It's called gentrification and I find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with it." Indeed, having lived in Oakland and Philadelphia, I am quite familar with it. And in no place where I've seen it at work did the poor "disappear" from anybody's school systems or larger communities except where a) there was a very sustained gentrifying trend over decades (and even San Jose and East Palo Alto belie that exception, if you take Silicon Valley as a whole), or b) there was never any housing for the poor in the first place (e.g., Chestnut Hill, Phila.). S.O. might nearly fit the second description, but Maplewood doesn't. If your scenario were to play out owing to a very strong economy over time and continued low interest rates (hardly guaranteed), the poor would simply congregate more in certain parts of town--chiefly Maplewood--because until the gentrifying trend hit some sort of apogee, for the poor the cost of moving or the loss in terms of educational value wouldn't be worth it. Nor is the crappiest real-estate in town on anybody's radar yet. "And you can spew out all the statistics you want..." I haven't "spewed" anything. I offered you one piece of statistical information that happens to contradict what you believe about poverty in New York City. You, on the other hand, have been spewing Reaganite "common sense" as though it represents an inevitability. However, I certainly agree that perception can be more powerful than fact. As my initial post about the school budget implied, certain measures the superintendent may undertake could have an effect on public opinion that overrides the tax cost--which is what I meant in saying that the important question is whether we're getting our money's worth. Whether a beneficial perception will last is anyone's guess. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6360 Registered: 4-1998 |
There's a lot of emotion about these subjects, but comments like
are clearly out of line. Please: no personal attacks. Thanks. | ||
| mellie Citizen Username: Mellie Post Number: 388 Registered: 4-2002 |
enrollment flat budget up 9% is that right ? |
