Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Assessments in Rotterdam
Rotterdam NY...the people's voice    Rotterdam's Virtual Internet Community    Inside Rotterdam  ›  Assessments in Rotterdam Moderators: Admin
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 18 Guests

Assessments in Rotterdam  This thread currently has 7,571 views. |
4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Recommend Thread
marymagdelene1234
March 16, 2011, 10:38am Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
1,200
Reputation
58.33%
Reputation Score
+7 / -5
Time Online
3 days 8 hours 33 minutes
Quoted from huskyhowls
you guys rock!!  thanks!!

I printed the grievance form and will do my homework and show up on May 25 for the firedrill.  I also called Frank and will send him a letter contesting my assessment.  If we are ever to do anything about the unfairness in assessments, we have to build a case against the assessor.  If you have a grievance, also send a letter to Frank.  He was assessed for an ice shanty!


Send a letter to Frank?  Frank who?  The one who cannot read or the one who wants "his" assessment to be lowered
to $250,000 on his million dollar mansion, so the taxpayers can foot his assessment bill?  Besides Napoleon is way too
busy micromanaging the town to answer any questions posed by the public.
Logged
Private Message Reply: 30 - 59
Really
March 16, 2011, 11:30am Report to Moderator
Guest User
Quoted from TippyCanoe
and some apartments assessed at 5x less then their sale value  WTF  - You and I have to pay more to cover for visitors - give me a break
i dont give a sh!t which assessor is on duty


Ok reality check, visitors? Maybe there are people out there that rent vs. own and do so for years, so again, stupid comment.  Give an example of these apartments assessed at 5x less then their sale value, not that I don't believe it, would just like to do my own research... thanks

Logged
E-mail Reply: 31 - 59
Really
March 16, 2011, 11:37am Report to Moderator
Guest User
Quoted from 1226
There needs to be a simple algorithm for assessments that uses the square footage of the lot and the footprint of the home. That would prevent all kinds of unfairness between homes in the same area, and it should ignore the home's value based on realty comps. Increasing the assessment by putting up a shed or fence just discourages people from improving the outside of their homes, and having a run-down eyesore shouldn't be rewarded with a lower assessment.


gonna have to come up with a better "algorithum"  A 2,400 sqft home that is two stories has an approximate "foot print" of 1,200 sqft, so should somebody in a 1,200 sqft ranch pay the same tax as the person with a 2,400 sqft colonial? and forget the sale/mkt value of a home, really?  so the house that is worth 100,000 but is completely outdated and run down should pay the same as the house worth 225,000 that is modern and new and has a much longer life and modern amentities?  I think that one of the two owners would have something to say about that.......square footage of lots, again, run that by the owner of the rural lands of the town that have zero infustructure to ever see a value equal to the lot in the heart of town, bet they would be happy with your idea.....

ok, back to the drawing board

Logged
E-mail Reply: 32 - 59
55tbird
March 16, 2011, 12:20pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
3,211
Reputation
91.67%
Reputation Score
+11 / -1
Time Online
209 days 13 hours 13 minutes
I don't think you should be penalized for adding amenities to your home, just like I don't think you should benefit from letting your home look like a sh!thole


"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 33 - 59
bumblethru
March 16, 2011, 12:25pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
30,841
Reputation
78.26%
Reputation Score
+36 / -10
Time Online
412 days 18 hours 59 minutes
Quoted from marymagdelene1234


Send a letter to Frank?  Frank who?  The one who cannot read or the one who wants "his" assessment to be lowered
to $250,000 on his million dollar mansion, so the taxpayers can foot his assessment bill?  Besides Napoleon is way too
busy micromanaging the town to answer any questions posed by the public.


Whether FDG can read or not is not the issue here. However, fdg apparently got the wink and nod for years. And fdg is NOT the only one. There are many additions and pools and sheds in rotterdam that got the wink and nod from JM and NH in exchange for votes/support. They were just part of the water boys for the dem party!! You'd have to go back decades to find them all. Just FOIL for the rotterdam permits over the last few decades!  

Perhaps this is just one reason why the dems are denouncing FDG.......perhaps? Ahhhhh....the web the dems weave!



When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.”
Adolph Hitler
Logged
Private Message Reply: 34 - 59
Rasputin
March 16, 2011, 12:37pm Report to Moderator
Guest User
The so-called winks and nods were vetted out during reval.  The mertz, lazzari and tomassone winks were quid pro quo just a short 2-3 years ago.  Perhaps the reason the Reps denounced JM and didn't reappoint him?  Perhaps?  And we had five assessors after Norm retired in the late 90's.  Wasnt that when Lazzari, Signore and Vellano ran roughshod with Macisaac?  Perhaps?  

Face facts Bumble........you condone dishonest assessment practices when it suits your fancy.  Perhaps?  Ahhhh the web Carolina Lazzari weaves.  Go BM.......Bahahahaha
Logged
E-mail Reply: 35 - 59
bumblethru
March 16, 2011, 1:03pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
30,841
Reputation
78.26%
Reputation Score
+36 / -10
Time Online
412 days 18 hours 59 minutes
Quoted from 778
The so-called winks and nods were vetted out during reval.  The mertz, lazzari and tomassone winks were quid pro quo just a short 2-3 years ago.  Perhaps the reason the Reps denounced JM and didn't reappoint him?  Perhaps?  And we had five assessors after Norm retired in the late 90's.  Wasnt that when Lazzari, Signore and Vellano ran roughshod with Macisaac?  Perhaps?  

Face facts Bumble........you condone dishonest assessment practices when it suits your fancy.  Perhaps?  Ahhhh the web Carolina Lazzari weaves.  Go BM.......Bahahahaha

Oh there's certainly not enough fingers in rotterdam to point blame. However.....these merry bunch of idiots that sit on the present rotterdam town board and tj hooker are trying to revive the 'good old boys club' by bringing the wink and nod group back!!!

Hey....no time like the present for rotterdamians to build that shed, put in that pool, raise that roof, add that family room!!! The wink and nod clan is back!!!


When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.”
Adolph Hitler
Logged
Private Message Reply: 36 - 59
Ozzie Peternell
March 16, 2011, 1:15pm Report to Moderator
Jr. Member
Posts
118
Reputation
100.00%
Reputation Score
+1 / -0
Time Online
1 days 21 hours 26 minutes
We should clean out the Republican/Cons building inspectors. Just a thought.   Who are these guys anyways?  Isn't that office full of cronyism and winks and nods today?
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 37 - 59
bumblethru
March 16, 2011, 1:30pm Report to Moderator
Hero Member
Posts
30,841
Reputation
78.26%
Reputation Score
+36 / -10
Time Online
412 days 18 hours 59 minutes
Quoted from Ozzie Peternell
We should clean out the Republican/Cons building inspectors. Just a thought.   Who are these guys anyways?  Isn't that office full of cronyism and winks and nods today?


that is what the dems/cons laughable revitalize rotterdam was suppose to do. All they seemed to accomplish was bringing back one of the 'wink and nod' boys!! And keeping the rotterdam taxpayers on the hook for an awol town clerk!!

At least the reps are re-grouping and looking for 'new faces' as opposed to the old recycled retreads like the dems and cons do....yes?



When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.”
Adolph Hitler
Logged
Private Message Reply: 38 - 59
Ozzie Peternell
March 16, 2011, 1:42pm Report to Moderator
Jr. Member
Posts
118
Reputation
100.00%
Reputation Score
+1 / -0
Time Online
1 days 21 hours 26 minutes
Wait a minute.  I read the papers and it sure sounds that the Super has tried to weed out the wink and nod crew but was met with opposition.  I don't quite understand what is the problem with the assessor's office.  That stupid star program is a pain and I wouldn't want that burden but how in the world would there be anyway to wink and nod there now.  Isn't that why Mr Surprise resigned?  He winked and nodded so much he was sleep walking.

My neighbors tell me he hated Steve for what he made him do.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 39 - 59
B GAGE
March 16, 2011, 3:15pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
615
Reputation
75.00%
Reputation Score
+6 / -2
Time Online
14 days 10 hours 15 minutes
Quoted from bumblethru


Is this a new thing in rotterdam? Assessing 'out buildings'? Or assessing anything at all?
hmmmmm.....for years rotterdamians had the luxury of adding and building additions and 'out buildings' with just a wink and a nod from JM and NH. Has that changed???

Perhaps surprise tried to get a handle on it and that's why he's gone and JM is baaaacccckkkkk.....perhaps?


Boy Bum now you are talking about someone that had not worked for the town in over ten years........i would love to know how you come up with this crap
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 40 - 59
B GAGE
March 16, 2011, 3:19pm Report to Moderator

Hero Member
Posts
615
Reputation
75.00%
Reputation Score
+6 / -2
Time Online
14 days 10 hours 15 minutes
Quoted from bumblethru


Whether FDG can read or not is not the issue here. However, fdg apparently got the wink and nod for years. And fdg is NOT the only one. There are many additions and pools and sheds in rotterdam that got the wink and nod from JM and NH in exchange for votes/support. They were just part of the water boys for the dem party!! You'd have to go back decades to find them all. Just FOIL for the rotterdam permits over the last few decades!  

Perhaps this is just one reason why the dems are denouncing FDG.......perhaps? Ahhhhh....the web the dems weave!



I think you get the award for being the most disgruntled taxpayer in Rotterdam.......you sound like a broken record
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 41 - 59
TippyCanoe
March 16, 2011, 8:37pm Report to Moderator

displaced by development
Hero Member
Posts
1,636
Reputation
55.56%
Reputation Score
+5 / -4
Time Online
38 days 16 hours 11 minutes
Town of Rotterdam Real Property                                        
Garden Apartments Survey                                        
                                        
                                                             Assessed                Rentable     a**'d.          Value     Yr.     Property
S-B-L                         Street                      Value     Acreage     # Units     sq. ft.     $/sq. ft.     Built     Tax
58.8 - 9 - 17.11     Curry Rd.                      $1,925,000     2.46     55     53,168     $36.21     1950/1980     $34,220.39
58.8 - 8 - 25     Guilderland Ave.                 $500,000     0.25     10     12,972     $38.54     1985     $8,707.76
48.9 - 1 - 18     Brookview Court                 $810,000     2.04     22     18,700     $43.32     1980     $11,064.14
48.9 - 1 - 17     Brookview Court                 $810,000     3.07     22     18,700     $43.32     1980     $11,064.14
48.9 - 2 - 8            Burdeck St.                  $975,000     1.2     34     22,400     $43.53     1980     $13,470.49
48.9 - 1 - 16.1     Brookview Court                 $625,000     1.23     16     14,300     $43.71     1980     $8,537.14
71.6 - 4 - 20.1         Carman Rd.                   $650,000     2.2     14     13,984     $46.48     1974     $8,912.29


48.13 - 2 - 21     2 Lent Court                      $320,000     0.89     8     6,048     $52.91     1984     $4,371.02
48.13 - 2 - 17     6 Lent Court                      $320,000     0.77     8     6,048     $52.91     1984     $4,371.02
48.13 - 2 - 18     7 Lent Court                      $395,000     1.09     10     7,396     $53.41     1983     $5,395.48
48.13 - 2 - 22     3 Lent Court                      $395,000     1.06     10     7,392     $53.44     1984     $5,395.48
48.13 - 2 - 20     1 Lent Court                      $395,000     1.18     10     7,392     $53.49     1984     $5,395.48
59.13 - 4 - 2     Curry Rd.                          $465,000     1.47     8     7,920     $58.71     1990     $6,249.92
58.5 - 2 - 10     Dolan Dr.                          $275,000     0.5     6     4680     58.76     1980     $3,756.34
71.6 - 4 - 20.2     Carman Rd.                      $1,600,000     8.65     38     36,064     $72.46     1980     $21,937.92
48.13 - 2 - 15     4 Lent Court                      $850,000     2.34     24     17,920     $94.87     1984     $11,610.51
48.13 - 2 - 16     5 Lent Court                      $710,000     1.81     20     7,392     $96.05     1984     $9,698.20
48.13 - 2 - 19     8 Lent Court                      $600,000     1.58     16     6,048     $99.21     1985     $8,195.67
                                        
     S-B-L                       Sell Date     Assessed Value     Sale Price               sale to assessed value  ratio
     48.13 - 2 - 20     3/4/2009     $395,000          $2,250,000               5.7
                                        
     48.9 - 1 - 16.1     5/17/2007     $625,000          $3,636,500               5.8
                                        
     71.6 - 4 - 20.1     11/6/2002     $650,000          $3,025,000               4.6
                                        
     58.5 - 2 - 10     12/4/2006     $275,000          $650,000               2.4



Talking to each other is better than talking about each other
Logged
Private Message Reply: 42 - 59
Really
March 17, 2011, 4:18am Report to Moderator
Guest User
Quoted from TippyCanoe
Town of Rotterdam Real Property                                        
Garden Apartments Survey                                        
                                        
                                                             Assessed                Rentable     a**'d.          Value     Yr.     Property
S-B-L                         Street                      Value     Acreage     # Units     sq. ft.     $/sq. ft.     Built     Tax
58.8 - 9 - 17.11     Curry Rd.                      $1,925,000     2.46     55     53,168     $36.21     1950/1980     $34,220.39
58.8 - 8 - 25     Guilderland Ave.                 $500,000     0.25     10     12,972     $38.54     1985     $8,707.76
48.9 - 1 - 18     Brookview Court                 $810,000     2.04     22     18,700     $43.32     1980     $11,064.14
48.9 - 1 - 17     Brookview Court                 $810,000     3.07     22     18,700     $43.32     1980     $11,064.14
48.9 - 2 - 8            Burdeck St.                  $975,000     1.2     34     22,400     $43.53     1980     $13,470.49
48.9 - 1 - 16.1     Brookview Court                 $625,000     1.23     16     14,300     $43.71     1980     $8,537.14
71.6 - 4 - 20.1         Carman Rd.                   $650,000     2.2     14     13,984     $46.48     1974     $8,912.29


48.13 - 2 - 21     2 Lent Court                      $320,000     0.89     8     6,048     $52.91     1984     $4,371.02
48.13 - 2 - 17     6 Lent Court                      $320,000     0.77     8     6,048     $52.91     1984     $4,371.02
48.13 - 2 - 18     7 Lent Court                      $395,000     1.09     10     7,396     $53.41     1983     $5,395.48
48.13 - 2 - 22     3 Lent Court                      $395,000     1.06     10     7,392     $53.44     1984     $5,395.48
48.13 - 2 - 20     1 Lent Court                      $395,000     1.18     10     7,392     $53.49     1984     $5,395.48
59.13 - 4 - 2     Curry Rd.                          $465,000     1.47     8     7,920     $58.71     1990     $6,249.92
58.5 - 2 - 10     Dolan Dr.                          $275,000     0.5     6     4680     58.76     1980     $3,756.34
71.6 - 4 - 20.2     Carman Rd.                      $1,600,000     8.65     38     36,064     $72.46     1980     $21,937.92
48.13 - 2 - 15     4 Lent Court                      $850,000     2.34     24     17,920     $94.87     1984     $11,610.51
48.13 - 2 - 16     5 Lent Court                      $710,000     1.81     20     7,392     $96.05     1984     $9,698.20
48.13 - 2 - 19     8 Lent Court                      $600,000     1.58     16     6,048     $99.21     1985     $8,195.67
                                        
     S-B-L                       Sell Date     Assessed Value     Sale Price               sale to assessed value  ratio
     48.13 - 2 - 20     3/4/2009     $395,000          $2,250,000               5.7
                                        
     48.9 - 1 - 16.1     5/17/2007     $625,000          $3,636,500               5.8
                                        
     71.6 - 4 - 20.1     11/6/2002     $650,000          $3,025,000               4.6
                                        
     58.5 - 2 - 10     12/4/2006     $275,000          $650,000               2.4


First, my appoligies for copying the entire post, I know its a long one, but to tip the canoe upright.....

The Lent Court sale of 48.13-2-20 or 1 Lent Ct, try adding 48.13-2-16, 48.13-2-17 and 48.13-2-21 or 2,5,6 Lent Ct to the assessed value think you will be much closer in sale and assessed value...

Same with Dolan, try adding 58.5-1-21 or 348 Dolan, you might find that to be closer, the fact is there are 12 units in that purchase, not 6 and dont be suprised if you look and don't see a sale on that additional record, it is all recorded under one, don't know why, but it is....

Next, Brookview, again added them all up.....same, one purchase of all, sale only on one record

Ok, now the tough one, Carman Rd, not sure but think there was a portfolio sale that may have included other units, as NO investor will pay that much per unit anywhere in Schenectady county, much less upstate NY, has to be more there....

As for the assessed values not being a perfect match to the sales, the reval gave them a value and just because a property sells doesn't mean you just change the assessed value, I think it is called "the good neighbor rule or law" the assessed value would possibly change on the next townwide reval....just the way it works, but hopefully understanding there is more to the "Sale" price will help get some water out of the canoe.....not bad work, you just need to look a little closer......
Logged
E-mail Reply: 43 - 59
TippyCanoe
March 17, 2011, 3:02pm Report to Moderator

displaced by development
Hero Member
Posts
1,636
Reputation
55.56%
Reputation Score
+5 / -4
Time Online
38 days 16 hours 11 minutes
no problem all input welcome

the assessment process should be ongoing like every property every 6 years
but this is difficult because the town has toooooo many neighborhoods

a given the current system fixed assessment schedule might encourage property owners to keep their properties up
something like as long as the cost of the improvement is not more than 60% of the current assessment value than a building permit would not cause a reval


Talking to each other is better than talking about each other
Logged
Private Message Reply: 44 - 59
4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Recommend Thread
|


Thread Rating
There is currently no rating for this thread