I believe that it is our City’s mission to proceed in a transparent, equitable manner so that issues important to all City residents are addressed in a rational, fair and open manner. I also believe that all of us need time to investigate the allegations set forth in the resolution to determine their accuracy and merit. By way of example, while the resolution’s conclusion is that the City’s contract with GAR should be terminated and the City should commence legal action against GAR seeking monetary damages for negligence and the failure to uphold professional standards, the resolution itself fails to cite any specific actions and/or omissions on the part of GAR that would support such legal action. The Common Council apparently recognized this fatal problem with the resolution in scheduling a special meeting for Wednesday, April 24, 2019 to discuss this matter further.The entire veto message can be found on the City website by clicking here.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAROLE OSTERINK
GAR Associates did nothing more than rationally point out that assessments were low and must be brought up to today's price level. it is NYS law to do so.
ReplyDeleteIt is a reality that many may not like, but it is real nontheless. Yes, prices have gone up in the last 10 years.
the irony is that hudson voters are anti tax when it pertains to them individually, but seem to be pro spending money when they cast their votes for many candidates.
It costs alot of money to run all the programs everyone seems to want. and this is all paid for with tax dollars from your bank accounts.
J. Kay, it's not only not a reality, it's not true. Among the many myths tossed around by dissenting aldermen the other night was that all GAR did was "point out that assessments were low" or that NYS law says they "must be brought up to today's" prices. I'd leave to see the the State law, or the GAR contract, that says such a thing. Thanks.
Deletehttps://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/assess/reassessment/fairassessments.htm
Deletethe point is -- many properties in hudson have not been reassessed in 10 years. there is supposed to be a level playing filed, where all assessments are equal --
that has not been the case in Hudson.
I believve that overturning a veto requires 8 votes; I believe Tuesday's Resolution received 7.... Also it has been learned that City attorney Andy Howard left a key fact out of his interpretation of State law forbidding the Council and the Mayor from overturning an assessment roll: it has to be an official assessment roll. What we have now is preliminary, essentially a "work product," not an official roll.
ReplyDeleteGAR was not engaged to "point out that assessments were low" and if they did "nothing more than" that, they certainly did not provide the City with $150,000 worth of services. The valuations provided by GAR, pretty much across the board, are done willy nilly, are largely arbitrary, and generalized to the point of absurdity. In point of fact, this very issue is the focal point of the Common Council resolution.
ReplyDeletethe GAR analysis is based on sales of properties in Hudson. It compares similar properties in a similar location. It is how it is done in real estate analysis.
DeleteIt's high time the landed gentry of Hudson start paying their fair share.
ReplyDeleteYour taxes are too high. The assessor is just the messenger. You voted in an progressive establishment which has a clientele that doesn’t pay taxes. But you do. This is why people like you are leaving.
ReplyDeleteExactly right. the assessor is the messenger. And the message is higher values.
DeleteRick Rector and the Town Council can set the percentage of value i guess.
NYS i really expensive to live in -- its the Democratic way. Tax Tax tax and then spend spend your money.
We live in the age of the algorithm. Increasingly, the decisions that affect our lives - are being made by mathematical models. In theory, this should lead to greater fairness- everyone is judged according to the same rules, and bias is eliminated. But as Cathy O'Neil reveals in Weapons of Math Destruction, the opposite is true.
ReplyDelete