2007 Property Tax Bill

[C.E.O.]

I would rather Plainsboro or West Windsor look to Cranbury and say how can Cranbury maintain such a low property tax and still have a very good school than to have Cranbury look to them and say how can Cranbury increase property tax and be like Plainsboro or West Windsor.

[Jeff M.]

I just found this forum and I agree. The township really made a huge mistake. I've lived in three towns where revaluation occurred and it was not until the state or county forced them to do so. This is due to the most harm being done to residents and small businesses.

In Cranbury our town council who is elected by the residents and should look out for our interests did not. They acted out of fear from the warehouses and now the residents are paying the price for their actions. As another poster stated the intent of the industrial zone was to lower our taxes. We deal with the increased truck traffic and hassles to benefit from the ratables. Now, we have the hassles, traffic and support the commercial. Yes, they were complaining. However, that is their job to complain and look out for their profits just as it is the TC's to look out for their residents.

The local shops on Main street are going to be placed in a difficult position as well since the increase will take away from their income. Which, I would have to imagine does not have major profit margins.

In one move the council has jeopardized the financial security of many long time older residents and the small store owners.

Our home on Main street which we bought two years ago has gone up over 60%.

[john]

I dug out my property tax records:

1. Property tax (2002): $8,075 (land: $84,200, improvements: $153,300)
2. Property tax (2003): $8,384 (+3.82%)
3. Property tax (2004): $8,692 (+3.68%)
4. Property tax (2005): $8,550 (-1.64%)
5. Property tax (2006): $9,120 (+6.67%) (land: $84,200, improvements: $160,800*)
6. Property tax (2007): $11,119 (+21.92%) (land: $319,300, improvements: $437,100)

(*improvement: finished basement)

[Jeff M.]

John,

If I may ask, is the first year you listed a new home or a purchase of an existing home? If it is new, I am surprised at the jump.

A revaluation should be a 3rd will do worse, a 3rd the same and a 3rd better. While it is a general rule of thumb, I am wondering how our numbers stacked up against the average.

[john]

Jeff,

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

A huge tax subsidy can't go on forever. Hopefully smart homeowners have used the extra money they have from an artificially low tax rate to invest or save it, which has earned interest and can now be used to off-set the correction of the tax rate now. At least they aren't expecting a retroactive payment of the under payment of taxes Cranbury homeowners have had at Cranbury industrial owners expense.

Also, Cranbury gave people a lot of heads-up on this. It's safe to say that when you received notice of reassessment months ago and saw your house go up by a multiple in value, you should have expected a major tax increase. I actually braced for the worse and expetced an even bigger increase than I received.

I agree it would still be painful to get such a huge increase overnight. But, again, I haven't read any arguments yet that demonstrate that this is inherently unfair or unjust. Only arguments that there was a general expectation that the Township should have continued to screw over business tax payers until they were forced to cease due to legal or State action. If someone has a case for why the previous tax base with decades out of date assessments was fair to maintain indefinitely, I would be curious to hear it.

The real problem is the state of New Jersey itself, which has too high a tax base in general due to the influence and corruption of government unions, etc (and NOT due to small School districts like ours that currently subsidize the large ones).

[guest2]

I think we all can agree the following:

It's fair because my property tax does not increase much.

It's not fair because my property tax increases too much.

It's super fair because my property tax decreases!

[Jeff M.]

There are a few things missing with those who defend the actions of the TC.

1) The local business who won in this case are the wharehouses and other large companies, not local business like those on main street. They have been in operation in older buildings with old re-assessments so they have lost in this case.

2) The wharehouses were brought in for the rateable aspects and to provide a tax base. They knew coming in when the last revaluation was done and when the next one was scheduled to be done. I've worked with on a few redevelopment projects and that is always one of the first questions the finance department asks. Therefore, they knew what they were getting into prior to coming into town.

3) The TC is elected by residents who may or may not be business owners. Therefore, the TC obligation is first and foremost to those residents who elected them to office. Not to a business park owners like Jones Lang LaSalle who is based in Chicago.

4) It would be great if we could have all budgeted for the tax increase. However, I know many people who paid a premium for a home in Cranbury because it was better than a lower price in WW and a higher tax rate. The tax structure allowed them to do that and even a year ago the revaluation seemed far off because as I said earlier most towns wait for a mandate from the state or county. If you are smart when you buy a home you look at the taxes, the price and the last revaluation. This allows you to project when the stability of your tax situation.

5) How do you expect a retired resident on a fixed income to budget for a 50% or greater tax increase? My family has lived in Cranbury for over 100 years and I know my grandmother is now wondering if she can continue with her new tax fees or whether she needs to move out. There are many others in that situation now as well. Is that a fair action for the TC?

6) You cannot justify a tax increase simply because other towns pay a higher rate. Our tax rate was low for the state because- 1) the previous TC had done a solid job of attracting large rateables 2) We have a K-8 school system 3) We do not have many of the added expenses of neighboring towns such as large recreation departments, independent municipal systems, we pay for our trash removal, etc... West Windsor does not have as many rateables and a large school system so they will be higher. Robbinsville just built a new HS. Hightstwon has a lot of internal programs and departments.

You can defend the TC and say we were cheating businesses, but that is a blind arguement. The businesses knew coming in what the situation was and what their share of the taxes would be. If we start looking at fairness, then why not extend it out further beyond simply the financial side. Let's look at the enviornmental impact and traffic impact these wharehouses have placed on Cranbury and question the fairness of that situation. Exit 8A is a nightmare during the day. If anything one could consider the previous tax structure a sort of premium paid to offset their impact.

[Guest]

Jeff, I fully agree with you.
one more thing i want to add is the business properties should be compared with the business properties in nearby townships such as south brunswick and monroe but not the residential properties.

as you said, people moved here paid higher price premium for good schools and assumed lower tax. this sudden and huge tax increase apparently will affect property values, which will bring the values lower than assessed values at least for short term.

[an old house resident]

[Guest]

Reading the posts, I am wondering. Does anyone know if the town originally offer concessions to bring in the rateables? Most towns offer some sort of attraction to the large commercial builders to get them into town. If that was done and we went through the revaluation on top to satisfy their financial interests, then I am really annoyed.

[Another Guest]

[taxes]

The problem is that a former or current TC member like most residents is not a professional appraiser. So they should have known that this was a potential problem or they really did no due diligence in the process and just voted out of fear. All one needs to do is look at the other towns in the area who went through this and speak with their TC members to see the potential impact.

[Guest]