If you need to know one piece of information about that Greenburgh reassessment, study this map released by the Greenburgh Town Assessor....closely: Assessor's Map of Reassessment Change by School District
Yep: so much to learn, so much to infer.
Let's just summarize. Here are the percentage change in assessments within each Greenburgh school district (I'm not listing Pocantico and Valhalla since they mostly lie outside Greenburgh). For perspective, I'm also listing mean household income for each school district.
School District Reassessment impact mean household income*
Irvington: 18.02% $132,270
Hastings: 15.68% $127,802
Edgemont: 9.7% $184,792
Dobbs Ferry: 5.94% $113,804
Ardsley 3.46% $141,932
Tarrytown -0.47% $ 71,473
Elmsford -9.63% $ 92,089
Greenburgh -10.75% $ 94,873
The map and the accuracy of these numbers can be questioned, however, because the properties colored in the map do not appear to include commercial and condo units. Do the school district assessment percentages listed on the map accurately reflect the impact of reassessment on all properties or just residences within each school district? I've asked this question and expect and answer shortly.
If the percentage changes are accurate, the numbers are troubling. The drops in assessed values in the Elmsford and Greenburgh school districts and the large increases in Irvington, Hastings and Edgemont indicate that for decades property taxpayers in two of the least affluent school districts in Greenburgh have been subsidizing the tax burden of some of the wealthiest. Some databases show Edgemont as the 7th wealthiest school district in New York state and among the top 10 in the United States. Yet, two school districts with about one-half of Edgemont's mean household income have been paying its bills for years. Proponents of phase-in want to extend this outrageous injustice for 5 more years.
The map shows increases in shades of red and decreases in shades of green. Gives a new meaning to GREENburgh Central School District, doesn't it?
source for mean household incomes by school district: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2015/12/16/schoolmhi.html
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Reassessment-gate: A Modest Proposal
As outrage spreads rapidly among homeowners with decreased reassessments over the Town Board's plan to phase-in reassessment over 5 years, one Hartsdale resident came up with the following solution that is Swiftian in its brilliance and simplicity: if Edgemont, Irvington and Hastings homeowners want Hartsdale and Fairview to continue subsidizing their taxes, then they should open their schools to our kids! Can't beat that for proposal!
Friday, March 25, 2016
Urge Town Board Members to Oppose the Proposed Five Year Phase-In of the Reassessment (Rule 1904)
Greenburgh homeowners recently received their property reassessment notice in the mail with the calculation of an estimated property tax change. For those of you who received notices of reductions, be aware that the well-earned savings you anticipate for next year are about to be taken away!
Supervisor Feiner now informs us that the Town Board plans to cave into pressure from Greenburgh's most expensive neighborhoods to phase-in the reassessment over 5 years ("Rule 1904") instead of implementing it immediately as has been done in every other New York town that has reassessed (See: Town notice of 5 Year Phase of Reassessment ). This phase-in means that homeowners who have been overpaying for years (even decades) will continue to over-pay their fair share for five more years and, conversely, the under assessed will continue to pay less than their share for the same time period. In simple words, the previously overassessed have been subsidizing the underassessed for years and, at the Board's behest, will continue to do so for 5 more years.
There is a troubling social justice aspect to adoption of the Rule 1904 phase-in that many residents will find uncomfortable to discuss. It appears that the over-assseed homes may lie disproportionately in Greenburgh neighborhoods with mixed income families with higher percentages of minority home owners. These are the neighborhoods that have been hit hardest and recovered the least after the market crash in 2008. There, housing values have declined the most. In contrast, the lobbying effort urging adoption of the Rule 1904 phase-in on behalf of long-time under assessed homeowners appears to come from Greenburgh's most expensive and sought-after communities. For example, the Edgemont Community Council has taken the lead in pushing for adoption of Rule 1904. By moving to perpetuate the inequity in property assessments for another 5 years, the Town Board appears to favor a reverse Robin Hood approach to this economic issue: in Greenburgh, the lower value neighborhood homes subsidize the most expensive. (For those interested in the deleterious legacy of unfair housing practices and government policies on minority communities, I suggest that you read many articles on the subject by The Atlantic magazine's Ta-Nehisi Coates.)
I urge you to contact the Town Board members immediately to insist that Greenburgh reject Rule 1904 and instead implement reassessment immediately. Fairness and justice should prevail in Greenburgh.
Supervisor Feiner now informs us that the Town Board plans to cave into pressure from Greenburgh's most expensive neighborhoods to phase-in the reassessment over 5 years ("Rule 1904") instead of implementing it immediately as has been done in every other New York town that has reassessed (See: Town notice of 5 Year Phase of Reassessment ). This phase-in means that homeowners who have been overpaying for years (even decades) will continue to over-pay their fair share for five more years and, conversely, the under assessed will continue to pay less than their share for the same time period. In simple words, the previously overassessed have been subsidizing the underassessed for years and, at the Board's behest, will continue to do so for 5 more years.
There is a troubling social justice aspect to adoption of the Rule 1904 phase-in that many residents will find uncomfortable to discuss. It appears that the over-assseed homes may lie disproportionately in Greenburgh neighborhoods with mixed income families with higher percentages of minority home owners. These are the neighborhoods that have been hit hardest and recovered the least after the market crash in 2008. There, housing values have declined the most. In contrast, the lobbying effort urging adoption of the Rule 1904 phase-in on behalf of long-time under assessed homeowners appears to come from Greenburgh's most expensive and sought-after communities. For example, the Edgemont Community Council has taken the lead in pushing for adoption of Rule 1904. By moving to perpetuate the inequity in property assessments for another 5 years, the Town Board appears to favor a reverse Robin Hood approach to this economic issue: in Greenburgh, the lower value neighborhood homes subsidize the most expensive. (For those interested in the deleterious legacy of unfair housing practices and government policies on minority communities, I suggest that you read many articles on the subject by The Atlantic magazine's Ta-Nehisi Coates.)
I urge you to contact the Town Board members immediately to insist that Greenburgh reject Rule 1904 and instead implement reassessment immediately. Fairness and justice should prevail in Greenburgh.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Impact of Reassessment on "Upper Manor Woods" [UPDATED 3/31]
What was the impact of the town-wide reassessment on our neighborhood?
This post will examine "Upper Manor Woods" (UMW) which I'm defining as the 163 single family homes on Mercer Ave, Caterson Terrace, Charlotte Place, Findlay Ave, Holland, upper Lakeview, and upper Jane]
Overall, UMW saw a decrease in total assessed value of 1.9%.
Of the 163 UMW houses I surveyed, 76 houses had assessment increases; and 87 had decreases in assessed value.
I. First, the changes in percentages:
A. Significant Increases (more than 5%): 28%
The largest single house increase was 35%.
20-26%: 8 houses
15-19%: 8 houses
10-14%: 13 houses
5- 9%: 15 houses
That's 45 houses (28%) with significant increases (significant defined here as 5% or higher).
B. No significant change ( -5% to 5%): 34%
0- 5%: 30 houses
-5- 0%: 25 houses
That's 55, or 34% of our sample. Of course, when the mean total property tax is already about $19,000, a change of only 5% approaches $1,000 in either direction. Yet designating this -5 to +5 ranges as not significant is the only way to make sense of the 1/3 up, 1/3/ the same, 1/3 down reassessment scheme explained by the Town Board.
C. Significant Decreases (exceeding -5%)
-5- -10%: 10 houses
-10 - 15%: 21
-15- -20%: 11
-20 - -25%: 9
-25 - -30%: 2
-30 - 35%: 5
-35 - 42%: 5
63 houses had significant decreases: 39%
The largest single decrease was 42%.
II. In terms of assessment dollar value:
one house had an increase in excess of $200,000.
$100,000 - 200,000: 17 houses
$50,000 - 100,000: 16 houses
$25, 000 - 50,000: 13 houses
0 - $25,000: 28 houses
Decreases
-$25,000 - 0: 18 houses
-$25,000 --50,000: 13 houses
-$50,000 - -100,000: 31 houses
-$100,000 - -200,000: 21 houses
-$200,000 : 2 houses had declines in excess of $200K in assessed value.
We report, you decide.
This post will examine "Upper Manor Woods" (UMW) which I'm defining as the 163 single family homes on Mercer Ave, Caterson Terrace, Charlotte Place, Findlay Ave, Holland, upper Lakeview, and upper Jane]
Overall, UMW saw a decrease in total assessed value of 1.9%.
Of the 163 UMW houses I surveyed, 76 houses had assessment increases; and 87 had decreases in assessed value.
I. First, the changes in percentages:
A. Significant Increases (more than 5%): 28%
The largest single house increase was 35%.
20-26%: 8 houses
15-19%: 8 houses
10-14%: 13 houses
5- 9%: 15 houses
That's 45 houses (28%) with significant increases (significant defined here as 5% or higher).
B. No significant change ( -5% to 5%): 34%
0- 5%: 30 houses
-5- 0%: 25 houses
That's 55, or 34% of our sample. Of course, when the mean total property tax is already about $19,000, a change of only 5% approaches $1,000 in either direction. Yet designating this -5 to +5 ranges as not significant is the only way to make sense of the 1/3 up, 1/3/ the same, 1/3 down reassessment scheme explained by the Town Board.
C. Significant Decreases (exceeding -5%)
-5- -10%: 10 houses
-10 - 15%: 21
-15- -20%: 11
-20 - -25%: 9
-25 - -30%: 2
-30 - 35%: 5
-35 - 42%: 5
63 houses had significant decreases: 39%
The largest single decrease was 42%.
II. In terms of assessment dollar value:
one house had an increase in excess of $200,000.
$100,000 - 200,000: 17 houses
$50,000 - 100,000: 16 houses
$25, 000 - 50,000: 13 houses
0 - $25,000: 28 houses
Decreases
-$25,000 - 0: 18 houses
-$25,000 --50,000: 13 houses
-$50,000 - -100,000: 31 houses
-$100,000 - -200,000: 21 houses
-$200,000 : 2 houses had declines in excess of $200K in assessed value.
We report, you decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)