| Author |
Message |
    
Psychobabbler
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:16 am: | 
|
Given what's happening in Maplewood I have a couple of questions:
1. When was the last reval conducted in South Orange?
2. Did getting work permits for home improvements result in tax increases for you?
Thanks. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:37 am: |
|
I live in Maplewood, but I'm pretty sure the last South Orange reval was in 1991. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Last reval in S. Orange was in 1991.... and there were a lot of unhappy people.
Improvements to homes means a tax increase.
I wonder if I take a bathroom out of the house or tear down a deck if I would get a decrease in my taxes. |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:01 pm: |
|
What will Maplewood increase do to S.O. school percent "contribution?"
S.O. has paid far more, by percent than the number of students it sends, by percent, so ?
DWM |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 2:28 pm: |
|
When South Orange did thier reval they only allowed small increases and decreases by comparison. Than the Montrose area was under taxed by comparison to Newstead area. They lowered Newstead a little and upped Montrose a little. In years to pass Newstead owners were able to appeal and win. This was gradual way of getting taxes more in line and did not ruin the Montrose Area in its doing.
Was it fair? I think so, Newstead taxes were still higher than what they sould have been but they got reduction. Montrose got raise but it did not kill them. |
Mammabear
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 4:03 pm: |
|
There are two reasons that the municipality makes us all get permits for home improvements...
1. For our own protection, i.e. to make sure all things are done properly and "to code".
2. To earmark us for a tax increase due to our improvements. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Thomas, When SO had its reval my next door neighbors' taxes went from $5500 to $10,000. They appealed on the facts of the case and got a small decrease. But a lot of houses in Montrose saw big increases.
DWM, I believe that the percentage of the school budget that is paid by SO is fixed by state law, the same one that says we don't vote on the school budget. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 5:55 pm: |
|
There is no "fixed percentage" in the law. The amount raised from each town is to be based on the comparative values of the properties in each town - which are to be "equalized" to the extent the valuations occurred at different times. That is why the revaluation in Maplewood may result in a change in the percentage raised from each town.
The end result is that the district is considered a single entity, with property in both towns taxed at equivalent levels. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:00 am: |
|
Nohero, Thanks for that info.
It should be pointed out that one of the reasons that there were a lot of appeals in the SO revaluation is that it was done in a declining market, so that by the time it was completed the houses that had been assessed early in the process were worth less. The complainers in Maplewood should be glad that this isn't their problem. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 11:14 am: |
|
Kathy- It seems like it is actually the same problem when you consider that Certified apparently overassessed so many properties by $100 or $150M. And there is no evidence that the market is actually still climbing where you might see house price meeting up with these new inflated assessments. |
Newurbanist
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hi all,
Just wondering... And hoping to avoid anything like the debacle in which Maplewood is currently engaged.
Since the last assessment in S.O. was in 1991, and they're supposed to be done every ten years, are we in S. O. to expect a reassessment in the near future?
Anyone know if the Board of Trustees has started to make any plans? |
Kathy
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 12:15 pm: |
|
When the 1991 reval was done in SO, it was seriously overdue--the previous one had been done in the early '70s. So I wouldn't expect one any time soon. |
Newurbanist
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Thanks for the reply, Kathy.
I'm confused though. If we are not to expect one "any time soon", then wouldn't we just be in the same mess when the reassessment does happen as Maplewood is in now?
Isn't reassessment supposed to occur every 10 years? |
Kathy
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:11 pm: |
|
What is happening in Maplewood makes it obvious why nobody wants to do a reval--the potential problems are staggering and everybody is busy pointing fingers at everybody else. The problem is that the longer you wait, the bigger the problems can get.
Of course this doesn't have to happen. If values have risen fairly evenly across the town, then everybody's assessment goes up a similar percentage, their tax rate goes down by a similar percentage, and their taxes stay approximately the same. But when some areas have appreciated much more than others, there will be a shift in the tax burden, which those shifted to are obviously going to be unhappy about. |
Notehead
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 4:21 pm: |
|
I'm dumbfounded by the illogic of it... we put considerable expense and effort into making our homes and properties nicer, and the town rewards us for improving the neighborhood by taxing us out of the homes we've made. C'mon, will South Orange really have any additional expenses if I put in a bathroom upstairs?! I would be grateful if somebody could point out what I'm missing here.
Obviously, the only thing to do is to ignore that ancient fuse-box, those horribly inefficient appliances, that asbestos insulation, those drafty windows, that wasted attic space, and save those dollars so that we can move into more modern homes in areas with less horrendous tax policies. I do hope that this becomes a key issue in our next local elections.
Personally, I think that taxes should be based strictly on purchase price, with minor increases based on inflation for as long as you own the property. That would make home improvements much more feasible, and even more importantly it would provide incentive to STAY here, which would foster the sort of family and community values that everyone says are going down the tubes. I'm afraid that within a few years half my neighbors' homes could be two-family rental conversions owned by some stranger who doesn't even live around here. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Capping home assessments at the last purchase price is part of what destroyed California's property tax base and with it its public education system.
If you don't think that taxing the current value of property is fair, then you don't want a property tax. Maybe an income tax would be fairer. |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 11:25 am: |
|
Notehead.... making the tax based on purchase price is what revals are for. Not everyone sells their house, so the houses have to be assesed. If you make an improvement, the resale value goes up. It is a stupid system, but not much choice till we get a Governor with guts and a public who will wait for the plan to be put in action (i.e. Florio). I would much prefer an income tax based system which would be a lot fairer. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 4:33 pm: |
|
I believe South Orange pays more for the schools based on the fact that more school real estate lies in Maplewood rather than by the number of students sent. Back in the early 80s, First Street School and Fielding (BOE offices) were shut. For a time Montrose and Newstead were also closed. First Street (corner of First and Valley) was sold outright. At that time the district was faced with declining enrollment, deteriorating schools and desegregation. That's when the Jefferson-Marshall pairing started. CHS lies within Maplewood, with the exception of part of the playing field on Valley. (A&P is in Mplwd./Pathmark in SO) |
Tracks
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 10:05 am: |
|
Mtierney.... South Orange pays more than their fair share because the formula is based on the total assesed values of the town. Where the schools are located has nothing to do with the formula. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 10:40 am: |
|
If what you say were true, then Maplewood after its incredible reval might bear the entire school budget! Maplewood is 4 square miles in area; South Orange considerably smaller. It had always been noted that Maplewood had more property off its tax roles because school real estate. Anybody out there know what the deal is for sure? |