Author	Message
Guest	Posted: Tue, May 20 2008, 2:18 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury taxes Another view of the tax increase for Cranbury: Property tax increase in percentage as compared to the previous year and ranking among the 25 towns: 1) 2001 - 2000: 5.17% (10th) 2) 2002 - 2001: 8.64% (8th) 3) 2003 - 2002: 6.19% (11th) 4) 2004 - 2003: 6.17% (9th) 5) 2005 - 2004: -0.76% (24th) 6) 2006 - 2005: 7.57% (12th) 7) 2007 - 2006: 16.93% (2nd)
Guest	Posted: Tue, May 20 2008, 2:01 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury taxes Based on the tax data, I did some number crouching using Excel. Cranbury's property tax increase in percentage and ranking among the 25 towns: 1) 2007 to 2000: 60.79% (ranked 7th in increase percentage) 2) 2007 to 2001: 52.88 % (ranked 7th) 3) 2007 to 2002: 40.72 % (ranked 8th) 4) 2007 to 2003: 32.52% (ranked 8th) 5) 2007 to 2004: 24.82% (ranked 8th) 6) 2007 to 2005: 25.78% (ranked 2nd) 7) 2007 to 2006: 16.93% (ranked 2nd) As you can tell, from 2005, Cranbury's property tax increases a lot more than most towns' rate of increase.
Guest	Posted: Tue, May 20 2008, 1:05 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury taxes As requested, here is are the actual average taxes for each township in Middlesex County 2000-2007. I think the formatting may come out unreadable in this text box so if you want to read it from the source go to http://www.nj.com/news/bythenumbers/ and select "Taxes in Your Town" from the menu on the right and select our County (this site is run by the Star Ledger). If you play around with the other stats be careful as not are as up to date. For example, the "tax trauma" stats have not been revised since 2005. As this shows in absolute dollars Cranbury has the highest taxes in the county. The "rate" is low because of the value of our homes. Two years ago we were #3. Now we're even worse than Plainsboro. Since 2000 our average tax has increased 61%, 17% of that last year alone. _____ Town 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Carteret $3,967 $4,087 $4,398 $4,704 $4,879 $5,271 $5,535 $5,961 Cranbury $5,687 $5,981 $6,498 $6,900 $7,326 $7,270 $7,820 $9,144 Dunellen $4,332 $4,475 $4,654 $4,822 $5,121 $5,406 $5,982 $6,617 East Brunswick $4,718 $5,054 $5,501 $5,947 $6,312 $6,804 $7,210 $7,764 Edison $4,424 $4,695 $5,013 $5,325 $5,574 $5,795 $6,254 $6,466 Helmetta $2,912 $3,346 $4,330 $4,472 $4,173 $4,425 $5,055 $5,242 Highland Park $5,825 $6,093 $6,509 $6,808 $7,107 $7,428 $7,879 $8,354 Jamesburg $3,645 $3,788 $4,396 $4,946 $5,034 $5,323 $5,435 $5,680 Metuchen $4,829 $5,061 $5,458 $5,718 $6,004 $6,466 $7,058 $7,530 Middlesex $4,140 $4,304 $4,723 $4,956 $5,089 $5,393 $5,855 $6,209 Milltown $4,758 $5,018 $5,200 $5,358 $5,598 $5,858 $6,253 $6,456 Monroe $3,022 $3,218 $3,548 $3,926 $4,327 $4,556 $4,912 $5,364 New Brunswick $3,813 $3,877 $3,854 $4,184 $4,448 $4,554 $4,765 $5,261 North Brunswick $4,195 $4,450 $4,818 $5,114 $5,469 $5,817 $6,366 $6,662 Old Bridge $3,931 $4,195 $4,617 $4,985 $5,251 $5,424 $5,683 $5,992 Perth Amboy $3,305 $3,335 $3,392 $3,416 $3,500 $3,766 $4,526 $5,835 Piscataway $4,069 $4,257 $4,450 $4,737 $5,048 $5,304 $5,530 $6,114 Plainsboro $4,531 $4,731 $4,946 $5,215 $5,915 $7,537 $7,837 $8,093 Sayreville $3,599 $3,787 $4,149 $4,391 $4,582 $4,767 $5,127 $5,454 South Amboy $3,265 $3,280 $3,337 $3,408 $4,446 $4,167 $4,510 $4,752 South Brunswick $4,305 $4,620 $4,963 $5,400 $5,782 $6,240 $6,723 $7,281 South Plainfield $3,898 $3,975 $4,152 $4,305 $4,417 $4,779 $5,138 $5,277 South River $3,359 $3,405 $3,532 $3,657 $3,846 $4,279 $4,600 $4,881 Spotswood $4,173 $4,337 $4,551 $4,880 $5,110 $5,330 $5,755 $6,208 Woodbridge $3,722 $3,823 $4,070 $4,289 $4,485 $4,742 $5,011 $5,310
guest1	Posted: Tue, May 20 2008, 10:08 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury taxes Quote: Tonight Mayor Stout made a statement at the meeting that Cranbury is very fiscally responsible and proved it by stating we have the lowest tax rate in all of Middlesex and Mercer County. Technically true. But it is an outrageously deceptive statistic. What he is quoting is the rate of our taxes to the value of our properties. It is a fair measure of the HISTORIC prudence of our spending as a small town. But by other measures Cranbury’s tax situation is far worse. First, we may have a low tax rate, but we have the highest property taxes in Middlesex County in absolute dollars. What matters to you more in the end, your “rate” or how big a check you are writing? We write the biggest individual checks in the entire county. I agree that using the tax rate statistic this way is deceptive, and I was extremely disappointed that Jason Stewart, who I believe is the person who was trying to make this point between rate and absolute dollars, was cut off by David. I was very happy (albeit surprised!) to see Tom take the position he did, and he took that position because of COAH. He has been trying for a very long time to rally our community together to fight this COAH thing. We all need to pay much more attention to this, especially the bills he mentioned - decreasing the builder's portion (I'm sure, thanks to the strong builder's special interest groups), and the one to eliminate RCA's. We are far from done on this front.
Guest	Posted: Tue, May 20 2008, 8:45 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury taxes Folks, Look at the property tax from another angle. Lower property tax --> more attractive to home buyers --> higher price for your home --> more money for your retirement. I am against the reasoning that Cranbury's property tax is low, so there is a room to increase. This is a very irresponsible way to run the town. I wish Cranbury will have better leadership in the future.
Guest	Posted: Tue, May 20 2008, 8:06 am EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury taxes The tax rate is applied to the assessed value of the homes to come up with taxes paid. Could it be the Cranbury has the lowest rate since we just had an assessment at the peak of the real estate market making the assessed values relatively high? I beleive in real numbers paid, we have one the highest tax rates in the state. iIf someone has real numbers, it would be interesting. I found a site on Cranbury which compares it to other towns on a number of factors. It shows Cranbury as having the lowest rating for property tax affordabilty. I am not sure where this site gets it information but it is interesting to read. http://www.citytowninfo.com/places/new-jersey/cranbury [url] It was brought up Monday that we are below the maximum debt allowed by a community. Just because we are below the max does not mean it is OK to keep borrowing until we get to the max. Also, even if our taxes are lower than some other towns like West Windsor, it is not OK to raise them to that level. I think that message was delivered loud and clear.
Guest	Posted: Mon, May 19 2008, 11:07 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Cranbury taxes Quote: More importantly, in the last two years (during Mayor Stout’s term), we have the fastest rising tax rate in Middlesex County. If it continues to grow at the recent rate and others Townships do the same, we won’t even have the best rate in the County by next year. So, again, which is more important in the end to evaluating CURRENT fiscal policy, the historic rate or the recent trend? I made a mistake by voting for Mr. Stout because of his promises to "separate the town’s needs from wants, to keep taxes as low as possible." I was hoping he would vote against the PNC purchase, a purchase without knowing its intended use is definitely a want not a need.
Guest	Posted: Mon, May 19 2008, 10:38 pm EDT    Post subject: Cranbury taxes Tonight Mayor Stout made a statement at the meeting that Cranbury is very fiscally responsible and proved it by stating we have the lowest tax rate in all of Middlesex and Mercer County. Technically true. But it is an outrageously deceptive statistic. What he is quoting is the rate of our taxes to the value of our properties. It is a fair measure of the HISTORIC prudence of our spending as a small town. But by other measures Cranbury’s tax situation is far worse. First, we may have a low tax rate, but we have the highest property taxes in Middlesex County in absolute dollars. What matters to you more in the end, your “rate” or how big a check you are writing? We write the biggest individual checks in the entire county. More importantly, in the last two years (during Mayor Stout’s term), we have the fastest rising tax rate in Middlesex County. If it continues to grow at the recent rate and others Townships do the same, we won’t even have the best rate in the County by next year. So, again, which is more important in the end to evaluating CURRENT fiscal policy, the historic rate or the recent trend? Put it in a different context. A new CEO takes over a company that for the last 40 years has seen a steady increase in its stock value of an average of 20% a year. However, two years later that company under the new CEO has lost 40% of its stock value a year. Do you think it is meaningful for the CEO to quote the aggregated 42 years of the stock performance in defending his record? Of course not. Any investor would laugh him out of the room for such an approach. What matters is the policies of the years under his leadership. So far during Mayor Stout’s tenure we have directionally erased a majority of our historic tax advantage. With the current debt alone we will continue to see increases disproportionate to the State and County averages in the years to come, and this is BEFORE considering the possible impact of the added COAH requirements. It gives a totally false sense of our tax situation to cling to a historic rate divorced of our recent trend. I can only hope neither he nor others on the Township Committee actually think that way when pursuing policy.