2007 Property Tax Bill

[aResident]

[Guest]

[Guest]

One question that I would like to ask each TC member and people involved in the revaluation is: what is their rate of increase?

[Guest]

i would assume they have the same rate. but you never know if they have back door deal with the businesses.

[Jeff M.]

I would think their rate increase would be the same. You can go to the town office and see everyone's property tax information as it is public record. I don't think the TC members would do anything that is even the slightest bit illegal which that would be. I just don't think they approached this in a smart manner or took the time to analyze the issue. I'm sure they work hard, but I'm not sure that the members who voted for the revaluation took the time to understand the issue and the potential adverse impact. Rather, I believe they simply voted out of fear or desire to go the easiest route.

I also think and hope that the town will choose to show their disapproval at the next election for the individuals who decided this was the proper move.

[Blazer]

This isn't a complaint about my assessment at all, I know my home has appreciated and I think the assessment is fair. And yes I have an older home and knew my assessment and tax would go up. But I have an issue when the tax burden is shifting from the warehouse side onto the shoulders of residence in the name of tax fairness.

I'm worried that this new assessment has made it even more attractive to build warehouses on the other side of Cranbury. I'm worried that in 10 years, that my quaint town of Cranbury will be located in the middle of THAT old warehouse district off of RT130 . And I'm mostly worried that we as Cranbury Residence are just accepting this change and not looking to the future to fix this inequity. I found some info about split rate tax, that is being used to fix just these types of problems between Industrial and Residential tax burden. I think it addresses some of my concerns about the future of my lovely town and I want to keep it this way for another 10 or 20 years. I am very worried of these changes.

Will the commercial district ask for another tax assessment because the buildings depreciated and values dropped so it again is not fair between Cranbury residential and commercial in 10 or 20yrs? Is the current tax plan fostering these older warehouse to improve the building instead of moving out of here (or suing the township for tax fairness?) I'm still doing my research but I would like to know what % revenue changed between the commercial side and residential?

http://www.transcoalition.org/ia/splittax/01.html#body

"Commercial property value never increases at the same rate that residential property values do. Over time, this causes a dramatic shift in the proportion of the total tax burden that the residents pay. The legislation for the split rate tax was created for only one purpose: to act as a correction factor for this burden-shifting, and it is in use in many communities in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania where this shift in tax burden has been recognized."

[Guest]

Cranbury has a tradition of maintaining open space. There is 6-acre land requirement for a home site. And many current homes in Cranbury have large lots (acreage or more). I don't think tax land more than improvements will work in Cranbury (I may be mistaken though).

I still don't know why we have to shift tax burden to our residents just to please the commercial owners. I believe Cranbury still will attract warehouse business regardless. It's a mistake to shift tax burden to residents; many of us cannot generate income growth as the commercial businesses do.

[why]

According to this Cranbury Press article:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18660896&BRD=1091&PAG=461&dept_id=425419

Former Mayor Alan Danser said:

"...he doesn't think the revaluation was necessary in the first place."
"I think it's a shame that it was done," he said.

The reporter did not ask Mr. Danser why he thought so. If you can access Mr. Danser, can you ask him why? Thank you.

[Jeff M.]

I do not know Mr. Danser. However, I do know he was the town's mayor for several years and the town had no property tax increases for the municipal budget at that time.

My guess and ONLY my guess is that Mr. Danser probably feels like many here that the revaluation was not necessary because there was no mandatory requirement nor was there any real threat from the wharehouses. Yes, they threatened legal action, but that was really a non-threat. The TC really did no homework on this issue.

Tax appeals are constantly occurring and any of the wharehouses could have appealed to the county for re-assessment the same way that an individual may appeal. I looked this up a few days ago as I have a friend in Washington Twp who is appealing his revaluation for his business to the county. Therefore, the town did not need to do a complete revaluation, but they could have said to the owner of a wharehouse simply go to the county office and get a judgement. Instead, the town council revalued the whole town.

[Guest]

I agree with danser that we shouldnt have done it. I could get a premium for my newer house with lower taxes if I sold before the assessment. I read posts here about others, now I know the realestate market has changed but this assessment has really screwed things up for anyone who is selling a newer house too. I do feel sorry for anyone who bought a house 30yrs or older recently, they really got hit hard. Just about everyone I have talked to has gone up, some at 10% many at 25% others over 50%.

So what was the driver to reassess now? If it was not the lawsuites by the big commercial warehouse who wanted to pay less tax?, that's what was reported by the meeting minues in the Cranbury Press.

[guest3]

So whose property tax has decreased besides the commercial warehouses? What the mayor/the TC members were thinking when they determined the tax rate? Were they assuming that most residents will happily pay the bill? Is the mayor or any of the TC members related to the owners of the warehouses?

[Jeff M.]

The driver was exactly that. The TC was threatened by the wharehouses that they would sue. It's easier to make that threat and see if the town revalues the whole town than for every wharehouse to go to the county. What happened is exactly what the big business wanted. The small town TC caved because of fear and agreed to reassess. What the TC should have done is said that is fine if you feel you are being treated unfairly, appeal to the county (all of you if you want to) then after doing that come back and see us. Instead the town council felt the easier approach was to do a whole revaluation. The county would likely require one in another 5-10 years so the TC felt justified. However, this was a big mistake because there were other options.

I also met an unnamed TC who tried to tell me that the spending is decreasing so that is good news for us. However, my taxes and tax rate are still going up regardless. So it is a shell game.

[Guest]

Give me a break.

The Township hadn't been reassessed in over 20 years. it was due. It is proper public policy, period. Everyone seems to have lost perspective because of sticker shock -- propogated by how long it had been since they had been reassessed. This forum is like a bunch of people justifying a crime to themselves any way they can because its in their own economic interests. See the forest through the trees. Not reassessing would have been wrong.

[my view]

If revaluation means big tax hike, then the TC should have informed the residents before it proceeded to do it. I believe many residents were under the impression that the revaluation would not cause a big tax hike.

I agree that revaluation is a good idea, but using revaluation to shift the tax burden to the residents is not a resident-friendly policy.

[Guest]

yes, give us residence a break not the warehouses. I to am OK with my individual assessment. I'm not OK as a resident having to pay a bigger portion of the tax and all the money making warehouses just got another big tax break.

This is not the last assessment that you will go through as a resident here in Cranbury, its going to happen more frequently. Based on the comments in the CP it looks like we are all in for more frequent tax assessments, some say 5yrs may be the next. And yes, if you have a New house or old, in both cases you will be paying a bigger part of the tax pie. Its because your house appreciates and the warehouses buildings depreciate. Hence the tax burden keeps shifting over time to you as a resident. It doesn't matter that warehouses make millions in revenue and own large tracts of land in Cranbury, frankly the 2mil Warehouse on 5 acres overtime is paying less in tax then you in a new million dollar house on 0.5acre. I for one would rather incent and have more 2mil dollar homes in cranbury on 5 acres then more warehouses.

In the past we corrected this inequality by the fact that our last tax assessment was in 1984. We can't go back in time and stop the assessment, that ship has sailed. But we as residence should be asking ourselves why we weren't informed of the big picture (Tax shift burden) And how big a shift it was, but it will keep getting bigger over time. So my questions deals with what we can do to help the TC with this inequity for the future of Cranbury.

I for one was under the impression that the the assessment would make it a FAIR increase for residence and warehouses. And the TC said that there would be a CAP on the increases, do you realize how hard this hits retired long time Cranbury residence (not fair)?

We use to have three really good reasons to boast to our friends why we live in cranbury. 1) the school, 2) the town 3) the taxes and now the premium for my house has been reduced because of #3.

So I'm going to the next meeting to find out why.

[Jeff M.]

Guest,

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There was nothing improper or illegal in the way the town had been operating. There is no law requiring a reassessment. There was no management outside the law or any other improper action.

It was in the Resident's interest to continue with the way it was until such time that the town was mandated by the county. The wharehouses had an option and could have appealed to the county for a lower assessment. If the town had been doing anything improper then they would have been forced to do a reassessment just like Washington Twp, WW and Hightstown.

The town council is not responsible and answerable to the wharehouses. They are accountable to the residents many of whom have lived in town longer than my 35 years of being alive. Now, some of these individuals are in a position to be losing their home. Is that a fair action to support a big commercial interest?

Perhaps you have enough money where you feel this is no big issue. However, there are many long time and senior residents who can not afford this action. So where the wharehouses could have appealed for a reassessment to the county if they felt they had been treated unfairly and received a lower assessment. Our seniors now have no option to get a reduction, but have to pay a higher burden. How is this fair to a fixed income individual?

Our emergency services spend more time responding to wharehouse calls than resident calls. Our police force has grown to deal with these issues. Our roads are congested due to the wharehouses. They are rateables and these outcomes were expected for their tax dollars. However, as the other poster pointed out wharehouses depreciate so the residents will shortly be supporting these companies and services.