Let's look at these alleged million-dollar houses and compare their assessments and estimated full market values for the current year with their assessments and full market values last year.
317 Allen Street2010 Assessment $1,199,700
Full Market Value $1,365,623
2009 Assessment $295,000
Full Market Value $378,593
345 Allen Street 2010 Assessment $1,043,800
Full Market Value $1,188,162
2009 Assessment $305,000
Full Market Value $391,427
15 South Fourth Street2010 Assessment $1,064,700
Full Market Value $1,211,952
2009 Assessment $480,600
Full Market Value $616,786
249-251 Warren Street2010 Assessment $1,263,100
Full Market Value $1,437,792
2009 Assessment $180,000
Full Market Value $231,006
For an overview of what's been happening with Hudson property assessments over the past decade or so, see Sam Pratt's four-part analysis on his blog, SamPratt.com: Hudson Tax Assessments Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.
I hear that Slocum has agreed to reduce the assessment of at least one of those properties down to the $800-$850 range. However, the spot reduction of a handful of assessments hardly makes the new rolls fair.
ReplyDeleteAll this proves, Carole, is the insanity of the situation. Whether the assessment is a million bucks or a hundred thousand bucks, you can not increase its assessed value by more than 10 percent during the worst recession since the Great Depression. --peter
ReplyDeleteDid I say, Peter, that I was trying to "prove" anything else?
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to compare last years’ assessments for these properties with mine. Another piece of the puzzle not included is the square footage for each building. Otherwise we can’t make a real comparison. Of course there’s also condition etc. and no way to know what criteria the assessor has used. I can access a real property info site that is not available to the general public and find out the footage. I don’t know how anyone else is supposed to find this out. I think more information used to be on the assessment roles as I don’t remember having this problem before. Here’s what I have come up with: Wurlitzer has 8678 sq ft. (I believe that is two buildings), Polenberg 8187, Lamont 7361, Galloway 6000, myself 5272 (assessment $579,900), Sam Pratt/Forman 4900 (assessment $724,700), Thompson 4278 (assessment $649,100), Meyer 4216 (assessment $580,900). I have the land sizes and values too, if anyone is interested, there is quite a range. As I seem to be the comparison used this year for a lower assessment, it is interesting to see that for quite a few years I’ve been assessed and paying as much taxes as Galloway and Lamont, and quite a lot more than the Polenbergs, for a smaller house with less land. I feel the fool for not checking, or grieving, more often.
ReplyDeleteThe inequalities are what make everyone see red, along with any raise, or possible raise, in taxes. How to make sure that we are all assessed fairly would seem doable but I have yet to see this happen. It’s also not fun to rat on your friends and neighbors but if we don’t then we pay their taxes! Plus all the time and effort spent on research. I’ve certainly spent (wasted) a lot of time over the last week trying to get some perspective on the situation. As long as our taxing system decrees that we pay property taxes to raise funds we are stuck. The more valuable our property the more we pay, whether or not we have fixed up wrecks and improved neighborhoods. In a strong economy this would not seem so unfair but with everyone stretched to the limit every dollar counts.
I will be doing all that I can to make sure that we have an assessor who is capable of making fair assessments so that we all pay our fair share. There also needs to be more information available to the general public, with clear criteria for valuations.
Sarah Sterling
The Sq. Ft. of the land and the building (correct or not is another matter ) is available on columbia.sdgnys.com if you go to the tab "report". 241-241 Union has been changed by hand at City Hall, and not on line, to a higher assessment.
ReplyDelete"The inequalities are what make everyone see red, along with any raise, or possible raise, in taxes. ... It’s also not fun to rat on your friends and neighbors but if we don’t then we pay their taxes! ... As long as our taxing system decrees that we pay property taxes to raise funds we are stuck."
ReplyDelete"Stuck"? No, we are not stuck.
Not to pick on an alderman here, but notice how gingerly any of us addresses a "possible raise in taxes," as if this were something in the natural world like the rising tide. (Perhaps it is another "man-caused disaster"?)
The budget is not a separate issue from our property tax assessments! although it is easy to see that people are refusing to connect the dots.
[Exhibit A: How in the world did that school budget pass, and no discussion that I could detect connecting these issues!?]
We come across as utterly helpless in determining our fates when no one acknowledges that the setting of the millage rate - which is within our means - also decides the significance of these assessments.
Note how the inevitable increase in the millage rate would amount to a tax increase, but without anyone's having to acknowledge that our taxes have been raised.
Hypothetically, our taxes could remain unchanged from last year though our assessments have risen.
If Hudson has been undervalued for years - an unhappy circumstance from the state's point of view - then perhaps our penalty is to have to cut back on some of our more foolish services and to improve those extant services which warrant improvement.
T. O'Connor
Two local realities are that:
ReplyDelete(A) Mil rates and budgets seldom if ever go down; and
(B) Even if they do, unfair assessments still are unfair.
If a municipal budget goes down and/or the mil rate goes down, but you’re assessed at 50% more than comparable properties, then you’re still paying part of your neighbors’ taxes and more than your fair share. There might be fewer complaints, but it still wouldn't be right. So all of the above need fixing.
"Mil rates and budgets seldom if ever go down."
ReplyDeleteYes, and whose fault is that?
TO'C