tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post1571676868894642503..comments2024-03-28T17:55:31.180-04:00Comments on The Gossips of Rivertown: Assessment AngstCarole Osterinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16010623982526286408noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-83604159990793726742019-04-06T16:29:45.776-04:002019-04-06T16:29:45.776-04:00Myrtle
KD,You apparently failed to read item 4 of ...Myrtle<br />KD,You apparently failed to read item 4 of the petition closely, as it requests consideration for a less onerous assessment, that is an assessment not above 20% incerease for long time property owners. The case you cited concerned a village where long time property owners were not reassessed at all, only new purchasers were subject to re-assessment. The petition in Hudson does not purport to be a legal document, it intends to show the thoughts and concerns of numerous citizens, and thus has value.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04617542755509244129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-5930487147513004982019-04-06T15:01:25.398-04:002019-04-06T15:01:25.398-04:00Carole, you are generous to describe the petition&...Carole, you are generous to describe the petition's fourth request as "a bit unrealistic." It is unquestionably illegal to assess differently based upon the duration of ownership. To quote one case that touches on this kind of discriminatory assessing, "we conclude that the respondents' practice of selective reassessment of only those properties in the village which were sold during the prior year contravenes statutory and constitutional mandates. * * * The respondents' disparate treatment of new property owners on the one hand and long term property owners on the other has the effect of permitting property owners who have been longstanding recipients of public amenities to bear the least amount of their cost. We can conceive of no legitimate governmental purpose to be served by perpetuating this differential treatment * * * This approach lacks any rational basis in law and results in invidious discrimination between owners of similarly situated property. Thus, the respondents' method of reassessment violates the equal protection clause of both the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. 14th amend.) and the New York State Constitution (N.Y. Const., art. I, § 11)." Krugman v. Board of Assessors of Village of Atlantic Beach, 141 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y.S. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2nd Dept.).KDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08053807230269358798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-80450680595300639032019-04-06T10:08:17.656-04:002019-04-06T10:08:17.656-04:00I'll send it right over, Vince.I'll send it right over, Vince.Peter Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16077048678660809331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-90091754745851299252019-04-05T20:07:45.831-04:002019-04-05T20:07:45.831-04:00Actually, Carole, Mayor Scalera did not do in 2010...Actually, Carole, Mayor Scalera did not do in 2010 "exactly what the petition is now requesting." There were several reasons he changed his mind, one of which was that the school district had already "certified" the roll, making the rollback almost impossible. But as you point, it was late July and well past the all the "grieving." The citizens who signed our petition are grieving now, in April, giving the Mayor and Common Council ample time to scrap the current, fatally flawed assessment and do it right. As to our request to put a cap on assessment increases for current owners (we thought 20 percent was reasonable), it is only unrealistic if you buy GAR's arbitrary and capriciously drawn nine "neigborhood" boundaries. That allows a single block or a few outlandish sales to dictate the value of dozens of properties that just happen to be on the wrong side of the street. The impression that "actual changes in property value" have caused these huge assessment increases a creative, but fake, way of inflating value. In fact, housing sales in Hudson, taken as whole, have been relatively stable these last several years. The City needs to scrap these Neighborhoods--a form of property gerrymandering that is as unfair and unequal as the same practice is in the political world.Peter Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16077048678660809331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-24191686484513298002019-04-05T19:35:06.253-04:002019-04-05T19:35:06.253-04:00Please add my name to that petition !Please add my name to that petition !Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05548912912359709568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5723709701684173708.post-55974647088486057832019-04-05T18:23:02.017-04:002019-04-05T18:23:02.017-04:00That this firm got hired *again* by Hudson after t...That this firm got hired *again* by Hudson after the previous mess-up should raise eyebrows. And GAR has had problems with at least one other municipality which hired it. Taghkanic got a big refund from them after they discovered irregularities related to GAR keeping a retainer for services not performed.<br /><br /> <br />https://www.sampratt.com/sam/2012/05/the-170000-question.htmlSam Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139366555091167364noreply@blogger.com