Josephine Posti updated her blog the other day with this post, Property Appeal Information. Posti writes:
The Board did decide, however, to send representatives to all commercial and residential appeal hearings, so that the appeal results would only be based upon valid evidence.
Is Posti accusing the County of basing appeal decisions on "invalid" information? According to her, is the County incompetent? Does she know that evidence other than "VALID evidence" is being considered?
Posti takes a shot at the Commission:
We need to better understand the Municipality's position on helping to pay for the current practice that the District has been fully funding on its own for six years.Josephine continues about Commissioner Fraasch's ward:
How would homeowners in the other wards feel if they knew that a large number of homeowners in one ward are appealing their assessments and the Municipality and District aren't sending representation?Sounds like she is pitting one ward against another. Class warfare? The majority of Commissioner Fraasch's ward falls in the range as identified on Blog-Lebo and in James Fraasch's letter to Judge Wettick here.
Finally, Josephine's parting words:
I'm looking forward to hearing more discussion from the Commission on this issue as well as the issue of whether they would like to re-implement their practice of appealing recently sold residential properties that sell for substantially higher than their last assessment.Nice try, Josephine. In a Commission meeting, Dave Brumfield said that you were going after the under assessed properties next year. It is rumored that you have no intention of doing that. Which is it, are you or aren't you?
18 comments:
I believe you had some valid targets mentioned in previous comments if they wanted a place to start.
Hmm. I wonder why Josie didn't file an appeal THIS TIME like she did last time. Maybe it's because she paid 300k for her house but as of the new assessment, total value is 151k.
Posti, stay out of everyone's business. And further, who are you to stir the pot with the commission? What, people not returning your phone calls these days? Maybe it's because of your demeanor, attitude, vicious tone and the fact you've alienated a good portion of the school board and the commissioners with your little tantrums.
That's quite an insinuation, the school board has to send "their observer" because the county might accept invalid information. I didn't think assessments worked like that.
Really one can base their appeal on invalid stuff.
And why would the school board's guy have better info than the county?
Seems to me that Posti is saying the county people are stooges!
Boy, this woman (Posti) really thinks she's brighter than everyone else, doesn't she.
Methinks it's absolutely hilarious that the current SB president is blaming a single commissioner for holding out when, in 2006, the then Commission voted UNANIMOUSLY to end the agreement.
Current commissioners should reach out to former commissioners about why they reached that conclusion.
Additionally, you can't say out of one side of your mouth that you just want the assessments to reflect market value when you don't do a dang thing about those homes that are demonstrably underassessed- starting with the SB Presidents home.
That, my friends, is not applying the law equitably and begs to be fought seriously in court.
Albert Brenneman
Albert, I believe it also applies to our super Super's home.
Elaine
3 good posts were submitted under this thread concerning the PK RTK. Please resubmit them under Charlotte Stephenson's letter. Thanks.
Elaine
Seriously, ex-board member wrote to Judge Wettick in an attempt to correct the inequities in the assessment.
Apparently Posti and Dr. S want to protect THEIR UNDER ASSESSMENTS while sending in observers to make sure their over assessed neighbors pay every last possible dime.
Not your obligation to see that everyone is treated fairly- eh JoJo!
Case in point---
Ms. Posti writes on her blog:
"One of the reasons discussed by the Board in deciding not to file appeals based on residential sales is that it would involve a very substantial number of appeals, and it is the obligation of the County, not local governments, to correct assessments on such a wide scale basis."
From Allegheny County -
Here is some basic information for residential property owners and homeowners in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to help defend the school districts and municipalities from raising your property taxes.
Are you sure you want to attend the hearing?
If your property got appealed, it is most likely because of a recent purchase price being higher than your current assessment. The school district or municipality filed the appeal and has the burden of proof. Most homeowners will do more harm than good by appearing and fighting the appeal. The reason is because the homeowner can be cross-examined to actually prove the school district's case in chief. Questions may be asked including: Q: Did you have an appraisal? Q: Did you make improvements? Q: What was the listing price? If the owner fails to appear, the school can have difficulty putting these facts into evidence. We will advise most of our clients NOT to attend these hearings, and then we can cross-examine the school's evidence, which often times does not meet the burden of proof required.
Apparently since the county has posted information for residents advising them on how to handle school district appeals, some districts must go after under assessed homes. Apparently those district's feel it is an obligation of the district to see that everyone pays their fair share.
But let's assume that in this case, miraculously Posti got it right for once. If she believes that it is the county's obligation to fix under assessed properties what action is she taking with the county to see that they fix those properties?
Moertel presented more than enough evidence to show that MTLSD is losing substantial revenue from under-assessed homes. Could she be mute becuase she knows her property and the supers could get hit hard?
Dominick Gambino of Diversified Municipal Services: "people coming to Pittsburgh from outside places who think we are a bargain, [and] are willing to pay asking price" on big-ticket homes here. "Those are the properties that are getting a break." http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/12036/1208070-455.stm A school director who came to Pittsburgh from an outside place has a house that is 2013 assessed $41,900 below the 2003 purchase price. Who do you think Mr. Gambino is talking about? Anon
I need to make something clear because it's not obvious and lots of people get it wrong: The reassessment will not affect tax revenue. It affects only how the corresponding tax burden is distributed across the community.
While you might end up paying more (or less) in taxes because of the reassessment, the school district won't take in more (or less) than before. If you end up paying more under the new assessment, it will only be because other people end up paying correspondingly less. The total tax revenue must remain the same (to within an inflationary index).
All of this, of course, applies only to changes in property taxes because of the reassessment and ignores any tax hikes that may take place concurrently. Tax hikes have their usual effect: everybody pays more.
Cheers,
Tom
And Anon, that school director is more than anxious to pay Dom $150 to make sure that somone trying to get their over-assessment lower by $10,000, $20,000 or more.
But no-no-no-no, that SB director won't go after under-assessed properties! Isn't that funny?
Tom, no one is implying that the district will take in more revenue, I think the majority of us understand the redistribution point. At least I hope so.
The point is that while Posti and Dr. S are more than willing to increase school district spending, dole out pay raises and additional vacation time, and instituting 4 day work weeks, they obviously don't want to see that their homes are assessed for what they paid for them on the open market.
Posti claims under assessed properties are the obligation of the county to correct (her's, Dr. Tim's).
But unlike ex=director James Fraasch, President Posti sees no reason to use her bully pulpit to lobby either Wettick or the county to correct the obvious inequities you uncovered, Tom.
How come their is no open letter to the county in The Almanac from Posti on this matter-eh?
I think I got it right Tom.
If a property was purchased for $100,000 and is assessed for $1,000 then the district is losing revenue.
That loss has to be made up somewhere and unfortunately the 2 people that bought houses say for $100,000 that are over assessed for $150,000 are making up for that lost revenue.
The directors aren't concerned in an 'equitable' tax burden. They only care that they get SD money and obviously want to make sure as little as possible comes from them.
"Passing the buck" in Posti's case really is a double entente.
Here's the conundrum Tom.
Ms Posti paid $300,000 (using figures bandied about) for her home. It is assessed at what, $147,000?
Now there is nothing preventing resident Posti going to the county and declaring "my home's under-assessed, I paid $300,000 and that is what it took for me to buy it!"
"my taxes will go for educating the kids!"
Now you're right, who in their right mind would do that!
But, Posti finds it perfectly acceptable to take $150 of homeowner's SD taxes (remember the SD doesn't make any money. Oh wait they do now... They charge kids $50/yr to park in the school lot) and fight against anyone of them that thinks the county over valued their property.
So now, if Gambino successfully argues against the homeowners appeal they're not only out the over-assessed amount but the $150 (sort of speak) too.
Odd how that works isn't it?
Don't forget this expense too. If the homeowner subscribes to Gambino's service, it is another $75 a month on top of that.
Elaine
Don't forget that the county government used approx. $20 million in taxpayer money so that they could referee assessment hearing to fix the real value of your home, while the school district pays $150 to guarantee your numbers are 'valid'!
Hahahahahahahaha!
In theory Tom is right but my experience in Lebo was the opposite. (We spent six years in Lebo but moved out of state recently.) What we found is that it matters who you know in terms of assessments. We were "sued" by the district within two weeks of closing on our house. In the end, between that and the tax increase to pay for the (non construction) of the Mt Lebo Taj Mahal HS, our taxes increased almost 50%. Seriously. The funny part was that I brough dozens of examples of larger (and much nicer!)homes in my neighborhood that were assessed for half of mine and was told that comparables don't matter.
With the reassessments it is pretty easy to go in and see that it once again wasn't a fair process. And of course, the district will go after every new sale of homes to people from out of state. (Anyone want to check into that trend?) So the new assessments are fairly meaningless.
The process isn't hard. States throughout the US can do it right. But, Pennsylvania is Pennsylvania.
Post a Comment