Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"]It really amazes me. I've lived in town for 40 years and I know people who are in their 80's that still call me a newbie (in good humor). I refer to homes as still being those belonging to people who passed away many years ago, though they have changed hands a few times since then. However, one thing I did notice is that when I moved to town and even until about 15 years ago there was a respect shown for the long term residents in town. I realize I sound old and crotchity, but it was the case. Yes, new people moved in, but it was a rarity for them to get onto the TC right away or for them to start making comments about change without having lived here a while. They came because they liked the small town and what it represented with a pharmacy, a dentist, a hardware store, etc...Not solely because of a low tax, the school or because they could affored a bigger home. It seems there is a new attitude among some who move here in recent years that they want their stamp on the town today and we long time residents should either accept it or move on. Don't like the revaluation? Too bad, sorry it's a fact of life hit the road and move to Florida, but stop your complaining because I got mine and I can afford to pay the new taxes which are only fair. I think this is the minority of new comers, but they are also the ones who are most vocal and make the comments about accepting the taxes because it is NJ or it is just fair based on other places in the state. Curiously, these residents still chose Cranbury. So I wonder what appealed to them that they feel a need for change or why they blindly accept things as a fact of life. It is annoying because a lot of people worked hard to make the town what it is today and make it a town people people sought to move to. Instead of acting like you got yours with comments like I had a XX% increase and making it sound like not a big deal, perhaps one could understand the viewpoint of someone who has lived here for 60 years and got over a 60% increase like one resident I know or others on Main Street who were hit very hard. Why should these seniors have to leave because you accept your increase? Many former TC, School baord and planning/zoning board members worked hard to ensure the town was fiscally responsible for many years. This work is being undone now.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
LoveCranbury
Posted: Sat, Aug 18 2007, 4:09 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
Cranbury wrote:
The last thing we want is more residential. The increase in kids and services is too tough. The wharehouses at least have minimal burden on the infasturucture compared with homes. The issue is just that their ratings are too low. For example, if they were not in Cranbury and on 8A what is the impact to their bottom line financials. I think that is why other towns have issues attracting these rateables. The solution then becomes to rate the business as having a higher land value for the access it grants. With an increase equal to the residential given the property demands. Just one example, with the cost of gas now, the property should have a higher value as the trucks don't have to go as far to make their dropoffs, wages for the drivers are lower because there are less miles, etc...All of that makes the property attractive and of a high value.
You MUST READ THIS POST, you missed my main point about warehouse valuation
http://www.cranbury.info/viewtopic.php?t=1796&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=65
Guest
Posted: Sat, Aug 18 2007, 1:31 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
Yes, warehouses and farm lands are much better than residential homes.
BTW, I think
LoveCranbury
was describing a way of estimating property tax of a commercial property by assuming how many residential homes can be built on the property.
Cranbury
Posted: Sat, Aug 18 2007, 1:24 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
The last thing we want is more residential. The increase in kids and services is too tough. The wharehouses at least have minimal burden on the infasturucture compared with homes. The issue is just that their ratings are too low. For example, if they were not in Cranbury and on 8A what is the impact to their bottom line financials. I think that is why other towns have issues attracting these rateables. The solution then becomes to rate the business as having a higher land value for the access it grants. With an increase equal to the residential given the property demands. Just one example, with the cost of gas now, the property should have a higher value as the trucks don't have to go as far to make their dropoffs, wages for the drivers are lower because there are less miles, etc...All of that makes the property attractive and of a high value.
LoveCranbury
Posted: Sat, Aug 18 2007, 1:06 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
It is hard to value commercial, did you read the post on this forum from the Rutger's Study on this question? Saw it in the "2007 Property Tax Bill" thread. It has lots of good details about this.
Here's an idea to valuate commercial, let me know what you think of it. What if you use a benchmark formula.
For the same piece of land (acreage). Instead of building the warehouse, what if you built a residential community in its place (Like Cranbury Green on the same space) What would have been the combined taxes if that land was residential instead? I know this is a what if scenario, but I make these types of valuations and assessments all the time at my firm. I know its a far out idea.
Someone else had a good post about how Cali and Penn is using a split rate to equalize the valuation. I don't know enough about who sets the policy for local taxes (is it the county, the state or Cranbury) that has control of how these property values are calculated? Maybe the tax assessor can post something to help us understand this.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Aug 17 2007, 9:11 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
I honestly believe it is very difficult to appraise commercial properties as they do not turnover as often. As a result appraisal companies tend to assess residential more often. Due to this issue they are more likely to assess residential higher because of familiairty and higher turnover means higher residential prices in a town like Cranbury. With commercial there is less turnover therefore the belief that there should be less inflation in prices as they are not sold as frequently. It's in accurate as a commerical owner still knows the real estate market and will sell based on the market's increase. So commercial properties tend to be undervalued relative to the market.
resident2
Posted: Fri, Aug 17 2007, 8:29 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
I am fine with revaluation. But I would argue that the results of this revaluation are skewed towards residential property.
We need to set up a committee to review the whole process.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Aug 17 2007, 8:07 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
This is shaping up like the way Bush characterized the War in Iraq -- "If you're not with us, your our enemy" -- i.e., either you are 100 percent in blind-trust agreement with whatever he says or you are supporting terrorism; if you question the validity of risking our troops lives pulling them out of a region where the terrorist are based to invade a country that had a dictator that didn't abide by the terrorists because they competed for his authority with the people are his celebrity as the #1 America resister and instead create a brand new breeding groud for more terrorists, you are "against the troops."
Guess what -- you can think it is a real problem that the taxes are going up so much for many residents, older and newer (if they are in older homes), and still believe that the reassessment was the proper civic policy. You can think it is wrong to say the Council's duty was to stonewall the first reassessment in over 20 years and still think it is a serious blow to those impacted by it. That doesn't mean we don't "respect" the older residents or are coming into town half-cocked to take over the town with our new fangled ways. And it doesn't mean we don't care because "we can afford it." It means we respect a civic policy that doesn't try to evade the law just to avoid a bad situation for many residents.
I am totally supportive if there is a move to reduce costs to lower the tax burden or even a movement to change state law as it relates to tax assessment. Let's do like some other states and cap tax increases to individuals or like California and fix the rate to the purchase price, or something. All fine. I would support that. I agree the people who pay far more for their houses are obviously better equipped to pay the higher taxes, or they shouldn't be buying.
I just don't think it is good civic policy to ignore legal requests from business and some residential constituients to reassess after 20 years and avoid it until it becomes a matter for the courts just to delay something which is inevitable. Eventually the courts or state would compell a reassessment.
If the Township had the discretion to say, "Let's do a reassessment, but let's make sure the older homes do not get assessed at a level which will raise the taxes dramatically, or let's make sure the industrial zone assessments assure they maintain their portion of the overall tax burden." I would even support that. But they didn't have that discretion. They had two options -- stonewall the reassessment at all, or let the chips fall where they did. That's it. It seems like some people are under the impression they had more discretion about the results of the assessment or the legal right to assure that the business paid more regardless of it. And that's just not the case.
newer resident
Posted: Fri, Aug 17 2007, 1:31 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
I am a newer resident (moved in about 5 years ago). Since I moved in, I feel that the TC had done a good job, and that's why I did not give it a second thought when the news of revaluation came. I trusted the TC will do the "right thing" for us (given the previous track records). Now, I feel that Cranbury is heading towards a different path that is quite different from the past...
Guest
Posted: Fri, Aug 17 2007, 12:56 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
It really amazes me. I've lived in town for 40 years and I know people who are in their 80's that still call me a newbie (in good humor). I refer to homes as still being those belonging to people who passed away many years ago, though they have changed hands a few times since then.
However, one thing I did notice is that when I moved to town and even until about 15 years ago there was a respect shown for the long term residents in town. I realize I sound old and crotchity, but it was the case. Yes, new people moved in, but it was a rarity for them to get onto the TC right away or for them to start making comments about change without having lived here a while. They came because they liked the small town and what it represented with a pharmacy, a dentist, a hardware store, etc...Not solely because of a low tax, the school or because they could affored a bigger home.
It seems there is a new attitude among some who move here in recent years that they want their stamp on the town today and we long time residents should either accept it or move on. Don't like the revaluation? Too bad, sorry it's a fact of life hit the road and move to Florida, but stop your complaining because I got mine and I can afford to pay the new taxes which are only fair.
I think this is the minority of new comers, but they are also the ones who are most vocal and make the comments about accepting the taxes because it is NJ or it is just fair based on other places in the state. Curiously, these residents still chose Cranbury. So I wonder what appealed to them that they feel a need for change or why they blindly accept things as a fact of life.
It is annoying because a lot of people worked hard to make the town what it is today and make it a town people people sought to move to. Instead of acting like you got yours with comments like I had a XX% increase and making it sound like not a big deal, perhaps one could understand the viewpoint of someone who has lived here for 60 years and got over a 60% increase like one resident I know or others on Main Street who were hit very hard. Why should these seniors have to leave because you accept your increase?
Many former TC, School baord and planning/zoning board members worked hard to ensure the town was fiscally responsible for many years. This work is being undone now.
op
Posted: Fri, Aug 17 2007, 12:53 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
I'm the original poster and I agree that the tax increase is negative for all residents and that property values could be affected. I also assume that I couldn't get today what I paid for my home a couple years ago and the tax increase is one (of many) contributing factors to that.
It is not that I think it is good that taxes have gone up. I never said or implied that. It is that I think the basis for the re-distribution of the taxes was ethical and fair. Two very different things. I have repeatedly stated that the overall tax burden is too high. And I am supportive of the posts that have started questioning various services or amenities and whether we need to look as the Twonship's expenses.
The only thing I object to are posters who are basically articiulating that since their taxes have been held low by the 20+ year old assessment, that they now have a "right" to expect that the Township should do whatever it takes to keep them paying a disproportionately low portion of the local tax burden, at the expense of the law, owners of newer homes and businesses. Its akin to a squaters argument on land use -- I have been living rent free on this land for 20 years so you can't make me pay rent now even if it is privately owned. Precedent doesn't make it right. Cranbury choose to benefit residents by deferring a reassessment for 20 years and you have therefore benefitted from artificially lower taxes. Sooner or later, that was going to change -- it was never a permanently sustainable policy.
The result is residents who have paid these articfically lower taxes seem to be confusing the tax distribution with the overall Township tax burden. If cranbury had a low tax burden overall and suddenly increased it 50%, you should be outraged and talking about chasing the Council out of town. But that's not the case. What's happened is Councils and perfectly happy to benefit for the here-and-now residents have deferred their short term cost and our long term expense, both through the delay of a proper reassessment and the reliance on a building debt. Now both are changing and of course it is going to make a huge difference. This is the tax bruden equivilent to what our grand kids will be dealing with on the environment or our kids on social security and the national debt -- years of short term gain at a long term painful cost...
Don't be so proud of the history of Cranbury's lower taxes. They were an illusion and you are now seeing the result of the reality they were delaying. I am totally with you on the goal of a community with an honestly lower tax burden. Let's stop perpetuating anger and denial about what has happened -- because it is utterly unreversible anyway -- and if you trully want Cranbury to be the model for the area in terms of lower taxes, start addressing the budget, not your entitlement to play less for it than your neighbors.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Aug 17 2007, 10:24 am EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
The property tax increase will affect ALL residents. You will know it when you try to sell your home.
The current low mortgage rate will not last forever. Once the 30-year mortgage rate regresses to the mean of around 8%, then you will appreciate the effect of low property tax has on potential buyers.
Guest
Posted: Thu, Aug 16 2007, 11:32 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
Quote:
I sympathize for old timers to the Township who had a major increase. There are stories in many publications, state and national, about people being forcibly displaced by rising taxes. This is not a Cranbury story -- it is everywhere. It just took longer to be noticed here because of the outdated assessment.
I dont understand your point, why did you say "This is not a Cranbury story"? Is there some part of the Property tax alloted to the State of NJ?? I always thought that the property tax was for local/county/school/muni, am I wrong that these issues we are talking about here are indeed Cranbury ones?
And I don't need your sympathy for us old timers that have lived here for generations, and built the school and town and historic homes you enjoy so much in Cranbury. Frankly your attitude accepting the increase disturbs me. The lower the property taxes are in Cranbury, the higher all our home premiums are period (old or new) Dont you agree the extra 16% you now pay could have been better used to enhance your quality of life? I sure do.
I've seen a lot in my life here in Cranbury, but I wont be forced out by people like you, or these rising local taxes. I will go because this Cranbury community just got too big for itself (growth), luckily I do like some of the recent ideas made by other locals here on the board. The assessment is not the main problem, its revenue neutral. Look at the big picture and read the recent posts. It is encouraging that there still are some residence in our community that want to keep it from getting out of control. I think I will stay a little longer and figure out how to get these sharp people and ideas into our local government planning in Cranbury. You can go ahead and keep paying your extra 16% happily year after year, but I couldn't.
Guest2
Posted: Mon, Aug 13 2007, 9:18 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
Thanks for sharing the info.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Aug 13 2007, 8:49 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
Guest2 wrote:
Guest wrote:
Guest2 wrote:
Now that the revaluation is history. Do you think the resulting tax hike is fair?
I think it is unfortunate, but fair relative to the NJ tax base in general, which is ridiculous. Cranbury taxes were artificially low for all but newer home owners so the correction is severe. But the root problem is the overall tax level, not the distribution of who pays for it...
May I ask what's your rate of increase (or decrease)?
16% But then I have a new-ish home. I also set my expectations when I bought it that things would change a lot when they inevitably reassessed, as I had researched the basis for the impossibly low residential taxes for this area. And even after the increase my taxes are less than my previous NJ home, which was worth 70% as much.
I sympathize for old timers to the Township who had a major increase. There are stories in many publications, state and national, about people being forcibly displaced by rising taxes. This is not a Cranbury story -- it is everywhere. It just took longer to be noticed here because of the outdated assessment.
Guest2
Posted: Mon, Aug 13 2007, 6:56 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
Guest wrote:
Guest2 wrote:
Now that the revaluation is history. Do you think the resulting tax hike is fair?
I think it is unfortunate, but fair relative to the NJ tax base in general, which is ridiculous. Cranbury taxes were artificially low for all but newer home owners so the correction is severe. But the root problem is the overall tax level, not the distribution of who pays for it...
May I ask what's your rate of increase (or decrease)?
Guest
Posted: Mon, Aug 13 2007, 6:39 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: but...
Guest2 wrote:
Now that the revaluation is history. Do you think the resulting tax hike is fair?
I think it is unfortunate, but fair relative to the NJ tax base in general, which is ridiculous. Cranbury taxes were artificially low for all but newer home owners so the correction is severe. But the root problem is the overall tax level, not the distribution of who pays for it...