| Author | Message | ||
     jam Citizen Username: Jam Post Number: 27 Registered: 9-2001 |
There are some great discussions in other threads but I cant find any agreement to a revaluation or a way forward. Village officials posted comments noting that a reassessment would create a new set of unhappy residents instead of the ones we have now. True but so what ? I am told that NJ state law requires a regular revaluation and also that South Oranges is long overdue. If this is true, does the village have any choice other than to meet their responsibilities as elected officials ? There are houses that are way undervalued and it seems logical to balance the scorecard - if its done regularly then we maintain a reasonable result. Not doing it now will, as someone else noted, simply delay the pain. Can someone suggest a way to help ? Can we have a village referendum on the issue ? | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 442 Registered: 3-2003 |
We are long overdue for a reassessment. I have been told that village officials are reluctant to do one because the Montrose section in particular is underassessed more so than other parts of town. There are many houses in Montrose selling for over $1million and paying taxes of $15,000 on assessments of $300,000 -350,000. In some cases,probably less. You have probably read that a school tax increase of 9% is being considered by the Board of Education. In another thread, I have asked, in fact pleaded, with the Board of Trustees and the South Orange members of the Board of School Estimate, that if they are going to approve such an increase that it is absolutely necessary to have a revaluation as soon as possible. The tax burden has gotten to large for those property owners who are paying more than they should be paying. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 517 Registered: 9-2002  |
As much as I want a reval to happen, I have come to believe that there is no way, short of a lawsuit, that it will happen here. It is political suicide for a Trustee to suggest it, let alone vote for it. Given how badly Maplewood screwed up their reval, there would likely be terrific pressure not to do one. Also, there is no way a referendum would pass. Would you vote to raise your taxes, or throw to dice and hope they go down? I truly do believe it is a small percentage of the homeowners that are carrying a ridiculously unbalanced tax burden in town. It's the tyranny of the majority. While people may be altruistic about some things, taxes are very rarely one of them. Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 959 Registered: 4-2002 |
Woodstock is correct. Just for the record, I will state that the village is going to have to start considering a reval because the longer we go, the more likely it is to find "unfair" situations. I would like to see the state end allowing appeals because of a drop in value due to market conditions. It would be better to assume that all homes increase or decrease approx. by the same percentage and it was the appeal process that caused a lot of the inequity that exists today. The state should also require that revals be done more frequently (every ten years). Finally, I think S. Orange and Maplewood should be required to do a reval at the same time because of the school funding situation. Of course, the whole property tax system is moronic as is the idea of funding schools with local taxes. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 443 Registered: 3-2003 |
And you know that my argument has been that the people who are lobbying for the school tax increase this year and previous years are the very same people who would probably argue against a revaluation. It can't be put off forever. I think that the South Orange assessments are off more than any other municipality in Essex County. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 363 Registered: 9-2003 |
You're probably right.. and the longer we wait.. the harder the bullet will be when we finally have to bite it. More than one of my friends had to sell their Maplewod home and move to another town when their taxes doubled (+) overnight. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 960 Registered: 4-2002 |
Doublea, Soorangelady: There is never a good time for a reval and no matter what some homeowners will see dramatic increases and others will see lower tax bills. The majority will not see a significant change (<10%). If it was not such an expensive, time consuming and frustrating process revals would be done more often. I would still bet as Woodstock points out that the majority in the village do not want a reval done. It still needs to happen but the timing should not be left to elected officials. It should be by dictated by statute. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4594 Registered: 5-2001 |
It is dictated by statute. A reval (or reassessment) is required every ten years by law. However, this is a law obeyed about as often as the speed limit on the Garden State Parkway.  With the exception of Maplewood, most towns put it off until the county tax board files suit and even then it can go on for years. One of the Caldwells put off a reval for over 20 years after being sued by the county tax board. Still, there is an issue of equity involved in many towns, which certainly was the case with MW. However, in the years since the reval in Maplewood there is some indications things have gone out of sync once again. Homes in the areas near Newark and Irvington have appreciated faster than those above Ridgewood Road, probably because of the lower taxes. | ||
| xavier67 Citizen Username: Xavier67 Post Number: 340 Registered: 6-2002 |
"More than one of my friends had to sell their Maplewod home and move to another town when their taxes doubled (+) overnight." Hyperbole like this (according to the tax reval spreadsheet that was released, not a single house in Maplewood had their taxes doubled "overnight") doesn't help to encourage anyone to do the right thing, which is to do a reval. "Given how badly Maplewood screwed up their reval..." Woodsie: Are you saying the Maplewood reval itself was deeply flawed, or that the TC didn't sell it properly to the residents? In other words, was this an economic or a political "screw" up? | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 518 Registered: 9-2002 |
This actually brings up an interesting point. Because of the absolutely moronic and inequitable manner in which schools are funded in NJ, taxes have a very significant impact on the value of a home. Two identical houses on identical lots with different tax assessments will have different saleable values. But if the assessment doesn't take this into account, there is no way to have an equitable reval, no matter how objective the assessments are. For example, the assessment on my home (and the 55% rate I recently heard was to be in effect in 2004) puts my home's market value at close to $725k. But the $22k tax bill makes my house unsellable at that price. In fact, brokers wouldn't even show it. So the assessment itself has had a negative impact on my home's value, which should lead to a lower assessment. But it doesn't. Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4596 Registered: 5-2001 |
Xavier, even the judge who upheld the reval on the grounds it was more equitable than the old one called it flawed.  I think Vic did as good a job of selling the reval as anyone could have. Especially in NJ, nobody and I mean nobody, is going to swallow the type of increases many of us had. Woodstock, there have been several houses in Maplewood for sale with the same problem, the last one on Wyoming Avenue. The owners were able to get the assessment reduced by the tax board. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 961 Registered: 4-2002 |
bobk: Technically you are correct about there being a statute. However it is not backed up for a lot of reasons including funding. Most towns in Essex county wait twenty years. In fact, the county does not seem to care if a reval is done or not since it will not change the amount of reveune they ultimately collect. Since it is an expensive process there is always the issue of having to raise taxes to pay to do a reval. A municipality should not have to "sell" a reval to the residents. Since it is required, it should just happen automatically and without political interference. This is a good example of how having so many municipalities and so many layers of government have made this process more political and complicated that it needs to be. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 519 Registered: 9-2002 |
Xavier: I believe it was mostly political. I wasn't involved and, to my shame, didn't pay much attention to it. But from what I've heard, the TC lied about increasing the town budget while doing the reval, and did an inadequate job explaining it to the town. You might want to check with maplewoodians to get the real facts. A reval should be completely apolitical, and should be independent of any budget increase. But given that Maplewood's reval was so contentious, the reason is probably not relevant to most SO residents. The thinking would probably be "Maplewood did a reval and it was a mess. What makes you think SO will do it any better?" I cannot agree more with Mr. Rosner. Using property taxes is not the most stupid possible way to fund schools, but it's got to be in the top five. Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 673 Registered: 7-2003 |
I don’t understand. 1) If I buy a house add a new kitchen, pool, finish the basement, repaint and add gold leaf to my ceilings, how does that make it more expensive to run the town or send kids to school? 2) Taxes don’t go up unless you reevaluate the home? When this system went into place they didn’t know that there was inflation? Why doesn’t everyone’s taxes raise %1.5 per year. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 520 Registered: 9-2002 |
Brett, Not sure what the point of #1 is. I don't think too many people in suburban towns would agree that property taxes are an appropriate way to fund schools. As for #2, taxes go up all the time. The tax rate goes up every year, it seems. Since I moved into South Orange four years ago, my taxes have gone from 18k to 22k, with no reassessment. The problem is this: Given that we have a property tax system that purports to be based on the value of your home in relation to all the other homes in town; and given that home values change based on many things, from upkeep to criminal element in some neighborhoods, to the whims of the market; raising taxes a fixed amount every year and not re-evaluating the homes in the community can (and does) create an unfair burden on those people whose homes do not appreciate as quickly as others'. I don't think anyone here is saying that our taxes (as a town) are too high (though I - and I'm sure many others - believe they are). The issue we're talking about is having an EQUITABLE tax system. Let's say you and I both buy houses in different parts of town for the same amount with identical assessments. Now, the part of town you live in starts to decline a little bit. Not dramatically, but enough. And let's say my neighborhood gets written up the the New Yorker as THE place to live, making it very desirable, and sending home prices through the roof. Your house has declined 25% in value, while mine has tripled in value. We are still both paying identical taxes into a system that claims to be based on property values. Yet your property's real value is now worth a quarter of what mine is. So now, not only has your property value gone down, but you're paying the same taxes as someone whose home is worth four times what yours is. Even better, now we both sell our homes. The people who bought your home paid a quarter of what the people who bought my home paid, yet their taxes are still identical. Is that an equitable tax burden? Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 445 Registered: 3-2003 |
I know Mark will respond. Maybe Patrick and Allan will also. What do you see as the expected timing of a revaluation? | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4597 Registered: 5-2001 |
Woodstock, the 10% plus Town tax increase was separate from the reval. For reasons only known to the then TC members they decided this was a good time to increase revenue substantially. The prevalent theroy is that they thought nobody would notice! Brett, taxes are based on market value. Doing the work you described with the exception of painting and the gold leaf which are considered maintenance, increased the market value of your house. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 674 Registered: 7-2003 |
So why don’t they change the taxes when you sell the house? What happens when some old lady’s house that she bought for 30G is reassessed? I’m sorry I had all those parties, maybe if I didn’t my house would still be worth as much as yours. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 446 Registered: 3-2003 |
Brett - N.J. law doesn't allow "spot assessments." This means that if a house is purchased for more than the assessed value, the local tax assessor can't assess it at the higher price. On the other hand, if a house is sold for less than the assessed value, the homeowner can appeal the higher assessment and generally get the assessment reduced. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 962 Registered: 4-2002 |
Brett: Changing the taxes when a house sells would be unfair too and would be considered spot assessing (not legal). doublea: I hate to guess on decisions that need four votes and a lot of public discussion. |
