Congratulations to Adrian Soriano and Scott Livingston, and to all the people who stood together with them and fought for fairness and transparency.
Mt. Lebanon Municipality had held the line at 85%. That 1% difference represents that the Mt. Lebanon commissioners were wrong. The commission targeted constituents unjustly. I am embarrassed that our commission treated you so poorly. The commissioners went after a large group of the taxpayers who worked together and democracy prevailed! How refreshing!
Congratulations Newcomers! I hope this brings peace back into your lives and optimism to the rest of us.
103 comments:
The Mt. Lebanon Commision should withdraw the appeals for 2014. Period.
What years were impacted by the settlement?
And HOW do we pay for this? Take out a bond like our DEMOCRAT commissioners? Our taxes will be over 50% higher than the houses around us even though many of these homes are larger and have had numerous expensive renovations. When we purchased this "Money Pit" we planned our budget. Now how do we all of a sudden add thousands and cough it up in a matter of weeks? And will this happen again next year? Will the commissioners go after the remaining amount? Can I demand that my neighbors pay "their fair share"?
Question... To a democrat what is the meaning of "Fair"? Brumfield why not add a Non-Democrat tax? I know you believe that to be fair.
So how does this fix things?!
The newcomers aren't assessessed the fair market value (the sale price on an open market) and we have homes - Linfante's for example that are apparently valued way under fair market. There homeowners in places like the Manor that actually had their home values drop in the last assessment.
The system is flawed, the politicos admit its flawed, it will always be flawed and yet we put up with it.
Mr. Suley, you never came back to the conversation on the 777 Casino Drive property and how under Senate Bill 76 the taxing bodies won't lose tax revenue as you suggested.
You know, it is still unfair that one resident pays a higher rate and tax than his or her neighbors who live in closely comparable homes. This is NOT a victory, it is a simple accommodation to a few the protects a manifest unfairness for many others. Even those who get an 84% resolution are still out in the cold compared to their comparable neighbors. This is a mask, not a cure. Shortsightedness again carries the day. True reform is needed, system-wide. The commission has once again pulled the wool over the eyes of the naive.
Linfante has now guaranteed she will not have to pay her fair share. So, too, for Brumfield and all the others. Good work? NO!! Fair? NO!! Just another political trick for the unwary.
So now the commission doesn't have to listen to any more discussion of tax fairness, right?
We have all been had, with the collaboration of
Scott's ego. Nothing is solved, the unfairly over-appraised have LOST!
"Fairness" has just been defined as "you pay more and are grateful" -- what a piece of double talk this "settlement" is
Just another closed door, backroom deal in Mt. Lebanon. This is a political joke.
I get it, we negotiated with the mugger and agreed that he only take our watches! What a win?!?
How disappointing that Linfante got her private deal by dividing and conquering. When do those are still treated unfairly get our say? This is now off the table as far as the commission is concerned.
This is an unfair, rigged, travesty, as private political deals often are.
Elaine: What transparency from a back-room deal announced in the middle of the night? This does not represent what most of us wanted. I am disgusted.
7:09 AM, I don't know how to ask this without sounding sarcastic, but I want to know sincerely and without sarcasm, what did most of the newcomers want?
Elaine
Special treatment for one lawyer, while every other point of view was left out of the conversation. This is no more FAIR than the original back-room deal that landed us higher taxes than the house next door. Who ordained that paying 84%, or any number above everyone else, is fair?
Elaine: What people who are treated unfairly want is to be treated the fairly, which means to be taxed on the same basis, like for like, not at 84% of some number that leaves us paying still double what is paid on similar homes. FAIRNESS is equal treatment. That is what "most" want.
Those of you who are apparent newcomers and complaining about this, how about you step forward and speak up outside of an anonymous blog comment? I don't see anyone complaining using your name in the emails. If you are not happy with Scott's work, you are not obligated to take it!!! Do your own negotiating. Or pay an attorney. Those or us who have always been willing to pay our fair share are satisfied.
Those who "settled" this without public participation did so for themselves, there are other points of view, and we are still paying on assessments that are not level with the comps.....this happened because the public was not involved, just a select voice that was chosen because it led with an offer that legitimized the inconsistent and unfair assessment of some according to the accident of the timing of their home purchase.
7:22 : "Special treatment for one lawyer, while every other point of view was left out of the conversation."
What are you talking about?? He did not get special treatment. At the BOV level, we are all free to negotiate our settlement. He did this for the group who wanted him to. If you are not happy you are still free to fight it on your own.
I'd now like to appeal the Commission to be taxed at only 84% of my assessed value. If it is fair for them, it is surely fair for me.
"I'd now like to appeal the Commission to be taxed at only 84% of my assessed value."
Good luck. This is where people are confused. The 84% is of sales price or what your house would sell for now -- not assessed value. The majority of the community is still taxed at less than 84% of their value.
Another case of "Lets you and they fight" by our elected officials. Read the the above comments, we're fighting amongst ourselves- you want a break on property taxes, go get them like I did!
Have we forgotten how we got to this point? How much time and money has been wasted to get us to this point?
Is this how you want to spend your lives? Watching whether your neighbor is getting a "fairer" deal than you?
The system stinks! If its not fair for one, its not fair for anybody. The State Constitution demands it.
No, like idiots as long as "I got mine" I'm happy. Trouble is that next reassessment they may decide to take yours.
I think the majority of newcomers were thrilled with the outcome and grateful for the work of the individuals who worked so hard on a settlement.
Newcomers - please don't forget that there are a significant number of neighbors in Mt Lebanon who are taxed at above 84%. I bought a new home in 2013 and the county (not as a result of an appeal) assessed me at 93% of my purchase price. My friends purchased a home in 2009 and was assessed by the county at 150% of her purchase price in 2012! (Reduced through her appeal to 108%) My point is that I hope you continue to speak out about the overall taxation rate…I don't mind paying the property taxes, but the local government should use the $$ efficiently and prudently. Where they can save $$ for the community, they should. We don't have open checkbooks for pet projects, as our money is better spend on food, clothing, retirement and the basics, and some of us are barely hanging on.
I hope the newcomers continue a level of engagement to "encourage" local leaders to be smart with our money, rather than just viewing each home as a piggybank into which they can dip their fat fingers.
A win for fairness... my ass!
Here's how friggin' dumb and complacent we've become.
"Pennsylvania assessment laws require that real estate be valued according to its "actual value" and at a bona fide rate and price for which the property would separately sell."
If you read the following document they footnote the actual PA laws behind the above statement.
http://www.lgc.state.pa.us/deskbook06/Issues_Taxation_and_Finance_01_RE_Assessment_Process.pdf
So here we are. We have a lawyer arbitarily establishing a tax rate that is in violation of our state laws and people are good with that!
Why don't we just scrape all our rules and regulations?
Want a pizza, get the solicitor to say its OK if you only pay 84% of the tab.
Want a new $30,000 car, give the dealer $25,200. Its OK.
Your boss, wants to give you 84% of your salary... hey its OK.
Your kid's teacher onky wants to teach 84% of the week... no problem.
Yep, we're all too tired to think!
7:35 The commission took this to the back room with people who offered to pay an unfair premium as compared to comparable homes....of course the commission took that deal, it is a looser for the newcomers (they may pay a little less than the initial hit, but they are still paying disproportionately more than they should be paying) -- and now, because this was not done in public, the debate is closed...you simply do not understand the consequences of this deal that redefines fairness as unequal taxation...so, go ahead, subsidize Linfante and the other tax slackers (I define a tax slacker as anyone paying less than they expect their neighbor in a similar home to pay)... you are fooling yourself (but I am glad you are feeling better).
84% of purchase price as an assessment results in what percentage of the assessment paid before your close of escrow? figure it out, you have been taken to the cleaners, while your neighbors are taking advantage of your family! How can you be satisfied with that?
Jen: As a realtor, you should be aware that your company has just modified its sales documents to warn that local officials can challenge the assessment after you buy a home, how does that square with your view that this is fair? Your own company is protecting itself from liability by warning its customers that they cannot count on even assessments. You are not correct.
9:04 Your point seems to be that all are underassessed unless you pay the full current sales value, if that can be ascertained (ask Kristen about that one). Think again. We all need to be assessed on the same basis - one rule, one tax. No "edge" for anyone.
Yep, keep bickering amongst yourelves... "I'm paying 150% more than my neighbor!" "I'm happy I'm not only paying 84% which is alot closer to that other guy that is paying 83%, they were going to tax me on my sale price."
To be honest, the SB and commissioners are only pawns in the game, this is on the clowns in Harrisburg- the Gov., the Senators and Reps. But the SB and commissioners as pawns are alltoo happy to play along.
What about Commissioner Bendel and School Board Member Capucci doing major additions to their homes without reassessment? Does there seem to be any connection with being an insider and being insulated from tax?
The unfairness is on the commission, as it is they who have acted to stick it to only the select few, themselves excluded.
9:24 AM, here is where I am getting confused. Over the years, we added two additions and my infamous porch roof and got reassessed every time. I thought it was that way for everyone, except for my commissioner at the time. Would it be equitable to look at building permits issued in Mt. Lebanon and see if those homes were reassessed accordingly?
Elaine
Yes, it would Elaine if we're going to stick with this asinine system.
Except if you have ever gone through an appeal you will quickly learn your neighbors house doesn't matter.
You could have identical houses in every detail except your neighbor has granite counter tops, marble floors, Pella windows and you have the original formica counters, cheap rubber floor tiles and the original casement windows.
They're assessed $30,000 lower than you are, but you're not allowed to use that as evidence you are assessed too high.
Lets review this story.
Judge Wettick rules the 2002 assessments are out of whack and orders a new one.
The county follows his edict and spends at least $12,000,000 reassessing. Which then finds the reassessments is flawed and after appeals etc., decides not to certify the numbers.
The court orders the certification or somebody is going to jail.
The county still unhappy obligizes, because no one wants to go to jail.
People can lose their homes, but hey that doesn't matter.
Then the MTL commissioners decide, 'HEY, we can fix the system in our little bubble and make some money to boot, so it spends a bushel of money going after 'recent' sales. Recent sales happening to be newer than their 'recent' sales.
The municipality wins more money from the "newcomers." who now are pissed.
So to shut the newcomers up, the municipality that won their appeals (meaning the actual sale price is justified to be tax) turns back the newly won appealed value to 84%.
And this is determined to be a win for fairness.
You know their is a great movie out their called "Idiocracy".
I'm beginning to think it isn't far off the mark for what the future holds for our kids.
You are all fighting like rats in a cage. A system based on funding public entities (like schools and municipalities) through property taxes will never work, and never be fair.
84% is indeed a victory for The Newcomer's within a broken system. Now it is time to fight the larger systemic inequities, which go beyond the arrogance and incompetence of our local rinky-dink commission.
EG:
As a result of the 2012 reassessment my little Cape Cod was assessed higher than my one neighbor's two story Federal Style home, complete with finished basement! My "comparables" weren't, for the most part, even in my Ward. I appealed, using photos of comparable homes on my street, a spreadsheet showing deviations amongst what I used as comparables, and projected fair market value (much less than the County's number). The "judge" was impressed. I lost.
The whole system is apparently based on Ernie Kovacs' board game "Droongo."
9:19 I have no idea what you are talking about or why you think I am a realtor. I am not.
Those of you who do not see this as "fair", what did you really want to happen? How do YOU define fair? Did you think you should go back to the assessment value pre-purchase? Really?? I would have LOVED that but realistically I never expected it and feel like where I am now is pretty fair. I do not feel like my neighbors are taking advantage of me. Sure most of them pay less but that is not their fault. Are some people still
"luckier"? Yes but I am not going to make myself miserable thinking about all those lucky folks who pay less. And there are lots of neighbors who still are at 100% or higher. Are there houses that are still way way underassseed? Yes. The system is a mess. So I settled for an amount I thought was reasonable based on my house. Group or not that is what we intended to do through our attorney.
No one is claiming that this "fixes" things but it is sure fixing things for a lot of us who had our lives and budgets on hold for over a year now. This settlement was actually for a small number of people compared to the number of appeals.
@9:04 here.
9:22 all I'm trying to say is that PA State law REQUIRES that all property be assessed at its actual value.
I'm not determining if this property is too high, too low or just right.
This little backdoor agreement proves that properties in MTL are not assessed at actual values!
The solicitor and Livingston Agreed on a 84% of Fair Market Value settlement. Can you not read?
84% of FMV is not actual FMV! Is this the case for each and every Lebo home... I doubt it. I think some are over 100%, some especially in the higher valued neighborhoods are under even 84%.
But lets assume as you have its true, then everybody is yes underassessed, which is in violation of the PA law on assessments.
no victories for the "little people" until we get new officeholders here....bring on the election!
Let's make this clear: this is not a backdoor agreement. All cases at the Board of Viewers may negotiate a settlement before their hearings.
Richard - that was noted by Tom Moertel back in the day. People with modest homes got socked while the expensive homes actually saw their assessments go down.
Since when are laws followed? But a smart lawyer with some strange idea that they might want a career in politics could take off over this. Rich Mt Lebanon residents DO NOT pay their fair share in taxes. A quick drive down Hoodridge with a camera would prove it. Where else can you purchase a home for $800,000 and pay taxes on only $450,000. Now add a lawyer back room deal and "certain" not all newcomers get a break and only pay 84%. I'd love to hear what Miller and Smith think about this back door deal? Oh... They have to wait for the democrat talking points to come from DC first!
Let me ask this 2:06, maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Are these people getting the 84% - newcomers that had their homevalues appealed by the municipality... lost and had their resssessments raise to the purchase price. Which was the amount used to figure their most recent taxes due for for the SD, municipality and county?
Which now are being revised in an agreement between Solicitor Weis and Livingston????
Since when does Solicitor Weis have anything to do with assessment values?
Negotiations at the Board of Viewers level are common. I really don't get why this is being called a back room deal. If my lawyer negotiates my settlement prior to my BOV hearing, is that a backroom deal? No, it's common practice and encouraged by the board of viewers. This is the same situation. The county still has to accept the values.
On the Board of Viewers.
http://triblive.com/mobile/2553121-81/county-property-board-lynch-appeals-assessment-selected-administrator-attorney
Educate yourselves on the process before making accusations. It's not "certain" people. It's the people who got involved and asked to be represented. This thread has gotten ridiculous as it so often does when anonymous people sound off about issues they don't really understand. The settlements go through the county. Like it or not, that is the process. As messed up as the whole process is, this is just part of it.
3;08 Now you are into the meat of it ... this is not about fairness, or determining what the correct basis ought to be for taxing the [entire] community... this is all about politics and the exaction of someone's notion of "social justice" -- you remember, take from the rich and give to the poor -- only here they are taking from the middle class to give to the Democrats...it is none of the municipality's business, if the assessments are off, then the citizens of the county and the state have to take things up with those governments, the rest is just a rouse for our commissioners to play a base game of vindictive and personal politics (and to raise revenue, of course -- but note, raising revenue is not just for the municipality, imagine how much further the 1.54 mills of additional school taxes goes if assessments are also increased) -- it is a very cynical and abusive business....
Wouldn't it be interesting if the commissioners actually worked on the county (their buddy Rich) and the state (their buddies Miller and Smith) instead of spreading unfairness among the villagers?
3:49 you admit the whole process is messed up. Then you defend it, what the hell is wrong with you?
I don't care about one property owner here, one property owner there... The system is as you say... MESSED UP!
Its is suppose to fair, everybody's equal, the Bill of Rights, The Federal and State Cinstitutions and all that nonsense.
I know I'm being rediculous.
3:43 - AND? what is the point of that article?
OK lets not call it a backdoor deal, lets call it a deal- fine?
Her's how the system works.
The county assesses all the properties and gives them a value.
Homeowner doesn't agree with that value they can appeal and maybe win- maybe not.
Then the SB or Muni can take a shot at establishing the value for homes oh say... Purchased in 2012 and underassessed by $50,000 or more. They won't appeal the properties underassessed by $49,999.99 or homes underassessed by any amount in 2011 or earlier- just those in 2012 they think are worth $50,000 more than the assessment.
The muni might not win those appeals, but in most cases they do.
So now the newcomers think they've been had, bitch moan and hire an attorney. Which gets to sit down with the muni's attorney and hash out a value before the Board of Viewers (yet more attorneys) get to look at the property.
Now those two attorneys get to "settle" on a value of 84% for not one home but many newcomers homes. They didn't say this one we'll settle on 81%, this one 98%, that one 66%-- they are all "settled" at 84%.
And now people believe this is a fair and honorable system for collecting taxes!!!!
Lets look at another situation.
You build two identical in every detail- houses on virtually identical lots right next to each other.
Think for tax purposes they're billed exactly the same?
No no no Mein Herr. One house is your primary residence so its taxed at a $15,000 lower that the second house which you rent. So if you as the landlord pass the taxes onto the renter for the $15,000 extra value he's paying more to the taxing bodies to live in an identical house.
Its absurd and has nothing to do with actual values. It all deals to keep people from getting really pissed and throwing some damn tea in the habor.
I mean river, we're not in Boston.
To the first comment at 3:49: This deal is not about the newcomers in the group that was palatable to the commissioners (or more aptly, pliable by them), this is all about the fact that no one is any closer to any notion of fairness given the results vis-a-vis the disparity of taxes paid by people living in essentially similar houses. This deal does nothing about that problem which is the real problem.
The county will only tell the commissioners that it is the court that made them do it. It becomes a circular firing squad. The answer is that each politician has to take responsibility for their own office, and the execution of their duties as an individual. But they won't, they never do.
I do not believe it is a fair and honorable system but shall I not accept the deal and pay 100% so that you don't talk down to me on an anonymous blog? Shall I reject it and wait for the system to be revamped? This is real life and real money to me.
What the hell is wrong with me? Can you read? We know you can't spell.
5:49 and I assume the same person at 5:51, don't deal with the issue - switch gears and fight over typos.
Nobody is asking you to 100%, its not about you! I'm happy you got you deal, really I am.
Read 4:26's comment. There aren't any typos in it I believe, but I'm sure you'll find a problem with it.
I happen to believe the property assessment system as it now stands is... what did you write... "messed" up.
It cost over $12,000,000 is assessed the houses. Countless millions in appeals. We have a Board of Viewers with each member making $60,000/year, A solicitor involved, your attorney involved and we still have inequities.
Can't you step back and look at the big picture?
Instead of resorting to the typical anonymity vs. spelling errors debate, can we move past that and try to stay on topic?
I am curious about the second comment at 1:21 AM, for starters.
Also, can the appeal be taken to a higher court?
Was it 84% across the board, or is that an average?
Will you have to go through this annually?
Will the people who lost already be able to take advantage of the 84% settlement?
Elaine
Another question Elaine.
The people that get this 84% settlement-- are they paying more, the same or less than they would had the municipality hadn't appealed their reassessment?
No 5:49, I'm not going after you to pay more!
I'm trying to understand if you are now paying a fair amount now compared to someone with comporable home but bought in say 2004 or 2005.
5:49 with giving away too much information, I don't need to know who you are , can you multiply the amount the home was assessed at before the municipality appealled your value by this year's millage rate- then figure if you taxes are higher, lower or the same under this settlement.
You see if its higher, you're still getting hosed and the 2005 underassessed homeowner that didn't get a municipal appeal is getting off cheap.
A 30% assessment increase was about the break even point.
at 84% my taxes are still considerably higher than we purchased the home. And that is indeed the case for everyone affected. We were all reassessed at 100% of our sales price. The issue for me is that we have said all along we wanted to pay a fair amount compared to our neighbors. On average, Mt. Lebo homeowners are at 80%. So yes we are still paying more but it's a heck of a lot less than 100%.
Elaine, This ONLY applies to people who asked to be included and who are at the Board of Viewers level. Not even close to everyone.
But the newcomer prior to 2005 that was underassessed by $50,000 or more is still paying less in taxes than the 2006 and up that gets the 84% settlement... correct?
We would not be in this situation if your realtor had properly explained the taxes.
So I am paying full taxes so a newcomer can pay 84%. That is pure nonsense for me to pay your taxes after I helped build this community. Stop complaining and pay your taxes or go through the appeal process like everybody else. Mount Lebanon is not for cry babies.
7:59: you don't say! You must have been here awhile since you helped build the community! Thanks! What are you paying 100% of? Your sales price of 10, 15, 20 years ago? Or what you could sell it for today? I doubt you are near 100% of fair market value.
I still stand by Elaine's title of that spurred this discussion - "A Win for Fairness." Does that mean we have reached fairness? No. But it is the first significant move in this direction in a long time.
One other thing... this blog/discussion board would be a lot better without the Democrat-bashers. Not that I love Democrats... or Republicans... but this whole FoxNews vs. MSNBC thing is getting old.
Let's stick to the facts, so we get closer to the truth...
7:59 Any newcomer would love to have your 1960 2 story 4 BR 2.5 bath brick colonial with a FMV of $204,000. Stop complaining.
Wow, 8:50 PM! I'm impressed!
Elaine
I think you're right, 8:50 PM!
Elaine
Am I missing something. How does anyone know who 7:59 is?
PA SB 76 would eliminate the need to envious of anyone's assessed value... There would be any assessments.
Pay your taxes or go through the appeals process like I did using sales prices of comparable housing in Mount Lebanon.
If you are a long time reader of this blog, you pick up lots of little hints along the way. I think 8:50 PM figured out who this bicentennial homeowner is.
Elaine
9:15: you realize that being at the board of viewers level waiting for our court date means we ARE in the appeals process? Did you even read what is going on?
See? There was another hint.
Elaine
Yes 9:15 you are in the appeals process and I wish you all a successful outcome.
If you are interested, the reassessments started in 1994 and a Pitt professor was written up in the newspapers saying an assessment of 85% to 115% of assessed value was a fair assessment. I am still not sure why he came up with 85%-115% but that is a little history of where the 85% figure probably came from. Until this recent reassessment we could appeal our assessment versus the assessment of comparable housing so the professor was claiming if the assessed values were in a range of 85%-115% of each other then the assessed values were fair. His opinion, not mine.
Now, with the new assessment the standard is comparable housing sales prices not assessed values. I do not know why it changed from assessment valuation of comparable houses to sales price valuation of comparable housing but I do think the change has caused unfortunate anxiety and I don't think the newcomers should pick up the entire load.
For the record, I don't see 100% of sales price as a solution, nor do I know where the $58,000 came from. But I do believe we each need to pull our weight to make this boat float and that means those who pay $600,000 for a house should not be assessed at $350,000.
I guess people are justified when they joke about "close enough for government work."
A tolerance fair and equitable value range of between 85% to 115%... And that's acceptable to you people.
Let's see how fair it is for Homeowner A that bought a $100,000 house in 2013 and Homeowner B that bought a $100,000 house in 2013.
A gets an assessment value of $85,000. At MTLSD's 2013 - 22.61 millage they pay $1,921.85 in school tax.
B gets a $115,000 assessment.
They pay $2,600.15 in school taxes for 2013.
A pays $678.30 less in 2013 SD taxes then B. How can this possibly be fair?
5/30 at 5:49 This "deal" leaves those to whom it is offered still paying disproportionate taxes (though, for them, it is better than nothing, true enough). Further, this "deal" does nothing for all the other over-assessed families. On top of that, it proves the lie that the commission is concerned with "fairness" because this "deal" does not, and cannot, give relief to the many (even larger number) of others who are over-assessed. You see, the problem is that the commission is seeking a cosmetic cover for their unfair and mean=spirited, even selfish attempt to take advantage of the larger property tax mess. It is true, this is not the commissions role or purpose. Sure state law allows them to file such appeals, but the fundamental question is whether they should do so or not. The mask that the policy is not about revenue (and certainly not about the fiasco of a high school renovation) is just false. Let's not lose sight of the larger picture here, which is much more significant than the small and irregular relief from Lebo tax policies it offers to the few. This entire matter has been gamed by the commission which won the contest because of the lack of concern by both sides for the entire community (you may say that the private group had no obligation to concern itself with others, and you may be right, but shame on the commission for using this group to distort their unfair policies while falsely claiming to "cooperate" with the community in seeking relief from draconian tax policies). This "deal" is, for the commission, a masterstroke of dissemblement and disinformation. One can only trust that the vision of the citizens is clear enough to see through this distraction to the underlying problem.
Fair means one standard for all. We are all taxed based on the relative impact on each being comparable. The present system is not fair from a state perspective, from a county-wide perspective, or from a municipal/school district perspective. Moreover, the current appeals process and negotiation game are a travesty of justice.
The commission is the tail of the system trying to wag the dog, not in the interest of fairness, but in a purely venal effort to pay for the calamitously ill-conceived and poorly executed high school debacle and the various municipal fiscal misadventures. The signal tell-tale is the failure of the commissioners to lead by example by insisting that their own assessments be the first to be challenged.
I said, "I am still not sure why he came up with 85%-115% but that is a little history of where the 85% figure probably came from." I did not express a fairness opinion.
9:01 I know you didn't express a fairness opinion, I was speaking in general terms, more along the lines of 7:59's post.
As I understand it, there is a bill being discussed in Harrisburg that will provide some sort of property tax relief for seniors.
While in the not to distant future I'll probably reap some kind of benefit if passed I still wonder how this meets the equality standard of the state constitution.
Also 9:01 looking at two houses on our street that are so similar in almost every detail- I find the professor's claim of an acceptable valuation range of 85% to 115% plausible.
I wasn't slamming your comment. I was just analyzing the info you presented and trying to put real numbers to it.
After all, as 5:49 wrote— this is real life and real money. Percentage are abstracts, the picture becomes a lot clearer when you talk in dollars and cents.
This "I got mine and the hell with the rest of you" mentality is exactly why we can't fix the problem. Divide and conquer. Take your deal, you are no better than the commissioners.
Even if it were "fair" it is too little, too late. The only remedy for the low-brow government we are getting is to come from elections. Let's vote! (I forgot, voting is disfavored by the school board and the commission). It is a long a complex history.
11:13 AM, unless they are independently wealthy, I don't think they had a choice. To say that they are no better than the commissioners is really unfair.
Elaine
Elaine: Not at all unfair. One can stand and fight for reform, or one can "take what I can get." The short term, short sighted way out always feels good at the moment. By now, however, most of us have learned that delayed gratification usually produces a greater prize. I don't "blame" anyone, but the meddling and mendacious commissioners for pitting us all against each other instead of building a solid consensus to promote a sense of community and a sound fiscal policy. The tax too much, they spend too much, and they listen too little.
Elaine: With regard to the newcomers and their settlement, - If they end up paying less tax than others in similar homes, then they are guilty of the same social "crime" of which they complained in the first place. You see, the difference in their case is that they made affirmative arrangements to pay less under the guise that it was "not fair" that all were not treated equally. It is very easy to confuse what feels good with what is good.
I am all for the individuals protecting their families as best they may, but this "victory" will make fundamental reform of our local public policies more difficult. It is a shame that it all came down to a "closed end" deal. The larger issue of reform remains.
The state legislature passed a bill to give gambling dollars to the schools. That is how they sold it to the public. When the bill passed various state government departments took the lion's share of the money and sent us $118 of property tax relief for each primary residence. They were no more honest than the sports mentality in Lebo. I would not trust the legislature to do anything the teachers union didn't ask (contribute to campaigns) them to do.
On a second note, did you know if you did not appeal your tax assessment this year you will have a second chance to appeal next year? It may or may not be better for you but if you did not appeal, you have a second chance if you are not offered or do not want the settlement. Be sure to consult a lawyer before you make a decision. He can help you with personal details of your assessment that I cannot.
This settlement should be a lesson that the commissioners can be beaten of turf and field sign revenue if residents organize.
This deal is not the result of organization, it is a vindication of manipulation. By agreeing to be splintered off, the chiefs of the group played, and lost the bigger goals, on the commission's rules. Welcome to the world of realpolitik.
If the commission were beaten, where is the "fairness" or any plan to achieve it among residents living in similar homes? This is not a solution, this is a band-aid, at best.
9:24 I agree, the bigger goal was not achieved, but the newcomers in this group did beat the municipality in that they aren't paying taxes on 100% of their sale price.
Because this settlement occurred in no way prohibits going for a solution for everyone.
There is no way to know if they would have achieved the same result before the Board of Visitors, without leaving everyone else in the lurch. What is sure, they feel good. Good for them. The battle for fairness and tax equality goes on. Hopefully, with their own bellies full, the group that settled will not abandon the continuing fight. There is much work yet to be done!
"A solution for everyone" will require that the group not let up as we all seek reform. It is the true measure of "sticking together" to see if they stick with the program now.
Anyone else see ANOTHER Property Tax lawsuit coming? Of course our wonderful democrat commission will scream "Fairness" and at the same time drool over how much more money than can steal. Same with the School Board! It's time to DEMAND an outside audit of both!!! If there's nothing to hide then there shouldn't be a problem with this.
"Pay as you Throw" -- keep in mind it is not essential services, but personal preferences that drive the budget under this commission. This deal only gives them more room to play.
Pay as you Through is really Pay as you Turf.
Just watch before you respond
The county needs to give up on the property assessments and leave it up to the townships. The system is flawed and the lawyers are the only only ones who reap the benefits. The only way for proper property assessments to work is if ALL homes get assessed and it can't work off of purchase price. The dwelling gets a price per square foot, and the land gets a price per acreage. Once those numbers are calculated than a millage rate is set and you done. Mt. Lebanon has 6 wards, so every 6 years each ward gets reassessed. If everyone is assessed on property and dwelling value which is usually less then purchase price, than the new comers would be in an up roar. Fair market value is not the purchase price of the house. That CRAZY to think that is what fair market value is. I would urge you to find other states/towns that tax you this way. I can't find one! I find it hard to believe that a city of 8000 lawyers can't come up with a way to assess properties. My house was built in 1932. You would think by know we would have a system in place that works.
No, Mt. Lebanon has five wards, but I understand what you are saying.
You should come to the commission meeting next Tuesday, if you feel strongly about this. I don't think this is going to go away anytime soon.
Elaine
I cannot believe that you, the Newcomers, feel that 84% is a good deal...Does this mean you are going to turn the heat down? You have a long way to go. Keep the heat on high!
Constance Spicuous Consumption
No, I meant "Pay as you Throw" -- garbage collection affects everyone, turf only harms a few (helps no one), so, the issue is what is the priority claim on municipal funds, garbage contract or turf??
So what happens to those of us who appealed (our assessment was higher than any comparable or neighbor) and we were RAISED by $50,000 after the appeal? I am now into our 3rd appeal (which I had to pay $119 for) and our mortgage is up $500 since the time we bought in 2008 (keep in mind we live in a modest four square home)...we cannot sell it as our taxes do not match any property that would be on the market at the same value. I cannot get anyone at the county (executive office) to help and no one in Mt. Lebanon.
I also want to know why folks who lie to the county about what is in their house (by omitting the info -you know the typical "3 bedroom, 1 bath" house in Mt. Lebanon that is actually a 4+ bedroom, with master bath suite)....why are these folks not penalized with a fine? The Right to Know folks refuse to answer me, as well as the County Executive's office...so my assessment was raised $50K AFTER I appealed the first time and we are being forced out of our house (which we can't sell as no one will buy due to the taxes -no comparable house on the market has similar taxes). The damages that have been done to us are horrific. Yet the folks who have lied get to kick back with a $500 less mortgage each month? I just bought in 2008...live in a modest home...yet folks in much nicer homes get to pay less than me in taxes with no penalties???
Post a Comment