patching...
Breaking: Astorino Vetoes Clinic Access Law Passed By Westchester County Legislators »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Letter to the Editor: Reval in Town of Mamaroneck

Ralph Engel, a member of the Pine Brook District Property Owner's Association, shared a letter with Patch written to the Town of Mamaroneck board in response to the planned revaluation.

 

Editor's Note: The below letter does not necessarily represent the views of Patch media.

Because of the very real importance of reassessment and the significant effect it will have upon many of our 600 member households, as we discussed with Valerie many months ago, and as she approved, the Pine Brook Association planned to have a special meeting, with Valerie as well as the reassessment people present, for the purpose of explaining the reasons for and methods to be used as to the reassessment, and for explaining to the reassessment company various facts that relate to all or parts of the Pine Brook neighborhood.  We wanted to give our members a chance to ask questions and to provide input before the process began. 

We had also planned to do a special mailing to those families, produced together with the Town and the reassessment people, explaining matters. Of course we agree that every Town property owner needs to be educated as to what is going on, why and how, not just Pine Brook Association members. It had been our understanding that the Pine Brook meeting would take place before the reassessment people began their work, so that we would have a chance to have input into their methodology.  Clearly that will not happen. 

Since there will be six "workshops", at least one of which I will attend, it may no longer be necessary or even appropriate for the Pine Brook Association to hold a separate meeting or to do a mailing, although the mailing we just received does not describe the methodology to be used in any detail, other than to make it clear, as you confirmed, that no homeowner has to do anything to cooperate with any of this.  Thus at least some homeowners who do cooperate will do so at their peril. There is not a single word in what we received as to how multi-family dwellings and commercial properties will be reassessed, despite the fact that we all know that the Town's tax losses from certiorari proceeding, at least until the last few years, related largely to them.  What will be done to make them fair, to the extent that state law allows? What is planned to keep assessments fair, and accurate?  Will properties be reassessed annually, every X years, upon sale, or every 43 years (since the last reassessment was in 1968)?  What about apartment houses, co-ops and condos—will they be reassessed as rents rise, etc., since they are typically assessed based upon alleged rents? Why would any homeowner respond to the questionnaire we just received? 

For example, why is the homeowner asked to set forth the architectural style of his or her house—what does that have to do with anything, and how is it even remotely possible that the reassesssment firm, if it does anything at all, cannot find that out for itself?  Moreover the types of styles listed evidences the lack of knowledge of our Town by the reassment firm; for example, English Tudor, a very common style of house in the Town, especially in the Unincorporated Area, is not even included amont the listed styles. The questionnaire asks the homeowner to set forth the number of bathrooms, the number of bedrooms, the portion of the basement that might be habitable (with various options as to that, which are probably ununderstandable to many Town residents, and with nothing as to the fact that there are laws that can make a portion of a basement non-habitable space, and thus worth less than if it were habitable space, even if its ceiling is at least six feet high), etc.  If someone with eight bedrooms answers the questionnaire and writes down 4, will his or her house be assessed as if he or she has four bedrooms, not eight?  If not, why not? We would certainly like to know exactly how the reassessment people will ascertain what is in a house if the homeowner does not let them in. 

Certainly they may guess at the number of bathrooms from the number of stacks visible on Google Earth, for the houses the roofs of which are visible, but how will they know whether a homeowner just did a $100,000 kitchen renovation, with no permit, thereby increasingthe value of his/her house, or not?   Were plywood floors replaced by oak, or marble?  Was the interior just redone, or not touched for the last thirty years?  There may be a chimney, and a fireplace, but does it work?  Is the bathroom worth more because it was redone, or because it is the original bathroom in a 100-year-old Victorian and this potentially worth more than if it had been redone?  How does anyone tell any of this without entering the house—I assume we have not hired a batch of "peeping Toms"? 

If there is no way to accurately ascertain the above, how is a reassessment which only accurately deals with the inside of some houses, and not of others, fair, to say the least? At this point it seems that the only homeowners who should cooperate with any of this are those whose homes are in such poor shape, or who have done nothing to improve them in years and years, that they hope to get their assessments reduced as a result.  Anyone who has kept his or her home in decent shape should not let the reassment people into his or her home, and should not respond to the questionnaire. Also, there is not one word as to what a homeowner who disagrees with his or her valuation is to do to get it corrected, and there will surely be many who disagree.  As I said before, to my mind all of this should be done fairly and accurately, and after soliciting and responding to community input, or not at all.  

Ralph Engel

Related Topics: Revaluation and town of mamaroneck

mlloyd01

5:05 pm on Monday, November 21, 2011

The letter raises many good points. Yet, the problems identified won't be solved if they do what they keep doing what they did before. Even assuming perfect information and cooperation by residents, the revaluation will be outdated immediately. Yes, the values may be better than the data which presently drives tax assessments, but for how long? How soon before economic changes, home sales and renovations render the data as obsolete and "unfair" as the current data? The problem lies with the idea that a "fair" system of distributing government costs is based on estimated value instead of some other method. Does a house in Orienta with 4 bedrooms, 3 1/2 baths and 1/6 acre of property create any less government cost than the same house in the Flats or the Village? Yes, residents of greater means have a greater ability to absorb indirect costs of government. Yet, to estimate "property value" is costly, time consuming and inherently arbitrary. Some factors that appraisers use to determine that value, actually, mirror estimated value and don't change regularly (and are visible): acreage, square feet, doors and windows. If there is a desire to use factors that can change easily, like bathrooms and bedrooms, and neighborhood desirability the relative priority of those should be small so as to lower the cost to fellow residents of any cheating. Also, there should be a severe penalty (back taxes) that dates back to when the work was completed. Simpler is better and fairer.

Reply

LMP

2:02 pm on Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The writer’s very good letter reminds me of Paul Newman’s line, “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” The Town acts in hidden silence while attempting to portray an image of openness and its unbiased interest in all its the residents. The movie wasn’t real either.

But beyond that, are the questions of accuracy and fairness and equity. How many have sold or attempted to sell a home? Did you get what the broker told you it was worth, or more, or less? Accuracy would mean the broker and the assessment both equaled the selling price, the fair value. If you were a buyer, did you ever find that once you completed the sale, you got less (or more) than you bargained for, that you got a money pit after having thought, with the help of professional advisers, that you paid more (or perhaps, in days gone by, less) than its fair value? Do you expect those varied people who will “assign” a value to your home now, for real property tax purposes, to be more accurate?

Reply

LMP

2:03 pm on Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The Town doesn’t charge for water that way, it charges you for how much it supplies to you. Funny, all those taxes don’t include giving you water. Utilities don’t care about the size or value of your house, they charge based on what you actually consume. Businesses, e.g. your TV and communications companies, don’t carry what your house is worth, they sell you the services they can based on what it costs them and what they can get you to pay. So why does the Town feel it knows what you want and spread the cost based not on what the home owner wants, not what they can afford, but on the supposed value of a house you own, live in and may not even be able to sell?

Accurate, fair, equitable, apple pie, and they’ve always done it that way ! ?

“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” Listen up, Town Board !?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Ralph

11:17 am on Thursday, November 24, 2011

That is not a Town decision, it's New York State law, and also the law in most of the rest of our country.

LMP

2:04 pm on Tuesday, November 22, 2011

As to fairness and equity, supposedly what the Town is trying to achieve (emphasis on supposedly), did you put your money in the largest house you could afford or did you put some in the house and some in the bank? The “value” of the house is taxed each year. The same money in the bank isn’t. Oh, if you get any interest from the bank you may owe income taxes on that, but you’re not getting much interest now, while your house probably isn’t paying you any either and it likely is losing value. Now if you paint the house you’ll pay sales tax on that, and that could increase the “guess” of house’s value and the associated property tax. Leave the house messy and keep the money in the bank, and there’s no sales tax, and maybe decrease the “guess” of the house’s value. Same money different taxes? Fair? OK, but you get services from the Town associated with having the house. But does the “value” of the house relate in much way to the amount of services you receive? Equitable?

Reply

Leave a comment