Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY
Taxes pinch owners of ‘affordable’ homes
Award-winning green houses have high hidden cost
BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter

    The city’s award-winning “affordable” green homes may not be so affordable after all.
    While the mortgage is low — typically $400 or less — and the monthly utility costs are less than $200 even in winter, the taxes are just as high as they would be for any other luxurious city house. And now city leaders are realizing that most low-income residents can’t afford luxury property taxes, even though the homes were exclusively marketed to them.
    “Those people cannot buy these houses,” said Beverly Burnett, executive director of Community Land Trust, one of two housing partners in the program.
    It’s too late for some. Four families have already purchased green homes, paying $65,000 to $90,000 for houses that have now been assessed for tax purposes at $140,000, including one in the city’s troubled Vale neighborhood. That has pushed their total mortgage and tax bills to $1,000 or more.
    The assessment seems to be reflective of actual market value, city officials said. The homes include solar panels, bamboo flooring and dozens of one-of-a-kind design elements created just for this project.
    But the first four buyers apparently didn’t realize that their houses would be assessed at their real value.
    At least one family was told to expect an assessment of no more than $89,000. Family members did the calculations and decided they could afford that.
    They were shocked when their assessment came in at $140,000 during this year’s city-wide reassessment.
    All four families grieved their assessments and lost. They all appealed and lost again.
    Now, as they face their first tax bill on that full market value next month, they say they aren’t sure they can pay.
PRICED OUT
    The Cueves family has already told city officials that there’s no way they can afford the taxes be- cause the total bill will be $1,100 a month. They may be forced to sell their house, said Ada Cueves, speaking in Spanish.
    Mayor Brian U. Stratton, who has won accolades for the project and has hosted dozens of visitors from other cities and countries eager to replicate his ground-breaking program, acknowledged that the taxes are a serious flaw in the project.
    But he vowed to find a way to make the program work for lowincome residents.
    “The idea is to make these affordable in every sense,” he said. “It’s going to take some time. There are certain things we are learning as we go, and we’re making adjustments. It’s an issue I’m concerned about, and it’s one that’s going to be addressed.”
    The first buyers’ tax burdens have convinced city Homeownership Coordinator Ann Petersen that green homes should not be sold to very-low-income residents. She now wants to sell to those who are at the very top of the threshold for low-to-moderate income, making roughly $53,000 for a family of three.
    “Someone near the top of our income could afford it,” she said. Then she added that even then, she would worry.
    “Anybody in the affordable housing [income range] is going to struggle with those taxes,” she said. ....................>>>>.....................>>>>................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01100&AppName=1

It appears that the people that bought these 'green' homes have been living in a vacuum. They never heard, and no one ever told them that Schenectady is one of the highest taxed in the country?

There IS something called personal responsibility!

Quoted from bumblethru

It appears that the people that bought these 'green' homes have been living in a vacuum. They never heard, and no one ever told them that Schenectady is one of the highest taxed in the country?

There IS something called personal responsibility!

There hasn't been any personal responsibility in this County for much too long. It's a shame if these individuals were mislead by City Hall though.

Another example why the Gov't should stay out of house building. They need to pick up the pace on bulldozing vacant eyesores throughout the area.  

Quoted from pg13

There hasn't been any personal responsibility in this County for much too long. It's a shame if these individuals were mislead by City Hall though.

Another example why the Gov't should stay out of house building. They need to pick up the pace on bulldozing vacant eyesores throughout the area.  

The city needs to take some responsibility on misleading these buyers. And the buyers need to take some responsibility for not doing their homework. And just ask the developer how much they made off of building these 'green' homes!

The eyesore that comes to my mind is the one on top of the Congress Street bridge. I think they had a fire there a few years ago. I know there are many many more, but that's the one that comes to mind right now.

$15.00/hour with family of 4 or 5 and requiring daycare so other parent can work,,,pretty freakin' shortsighted.....anyone give/take an edumacation--
nah....not in schenectady.......

Quoted Text

EDITORIALS
Sch’dy’s ‘green’ houses anything but affordable

    If ever there were any doubts about the fallacy of the city of Schenectady building expensive energy-efficient homes in marginal areas like Vale neighborhood, they should have been dispelled by Friday’s Gazette story relating the difficulty that buyers of these homes have been having paying their property tax bills. While one might be inclined to shrug and say “Welcome to Schenectady,” the mess these buyers find themselves in goes well beyond the pale.
    The city’s first three “green” homes — heavily subsidized by the federal government and marketed to low-income Schenectadians as “affordable” housing — were sold within the past 18 months for between $65,000 and $90,000. That’s certainly affordable, but when they were reassessed under the city’s recent property revaluation, their fair market value was deemed substantially higher — $140,000 — an amount upheld under the grievance process that has produced tax bills in the vicinity of $5,400. The low-income residents say they can’t afford such taxes, and the prognosis is even worse for buyers of the program’s next 10 houses because they won’t qualify for a state STAR exemption right away. The first-year tax bill on those houses will be an estimated $7,500!
    There’s been a fair amount of finger-pointing between representatives of the city — including Assessor Patrick Mastro and Housing Coordinator Ann Petersen — and the program’s partners, Community Land Trust and Better Neighborhoods Inc. over who may have promised, or told, what to whom regarding assessments. But it’s clear that however accurate Mastro’s assessments may be, they’re unaffordably high for the homeowners. Because of this, the program — and nearly $1 million in federal money — would appear to be in jeopardy.
    We suggested in an editorial last April that the money for these homes, which cost between $250,000 and $300,000 when demolition costs are factored in, might be better spent on genuinely affordable homes such as are built in the city by Habitat for Humanity. Those houses, built with volunteer labor, cost just $65,000 to $70,000, sell for $80,000, and are assessed for roughly $85,000.
    “Green” is good, and makes a good statement, but it doesn’t always make a lot of financial sense. When the cost of energy-efficient improvements like solar panels, bamboo flooring and the like push a home’s assessment so high that people of modest means can’t afford to live there, the point of the program is lost.
    True, the houses were built with federal tax dollars, but local taxpayers contribute their share of those. Given the state of the economy, getting the most bang for all taxpayers’ bucks should be a priority for all governments.
    As for the mess in Schenectady that’s threatening to derail this program, the ideas of providing local property tax exemptions for domestic energy-efficiency improvements and land trust houses (which owners are virtually prohibited from reaping a profit from if they sell) make some sense. Local state legislators should get these issues addressed by their colleagues soon.

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r03201&AppName=1

duh......welcome to scumnectady........

Quoted Text

‘Green houses’ are OK, but Sch’dy has greater neighborhood needs

    First let me say I wholeheartedly agree with using green concepts in promoting a better environment. However, the Dec. 20 editorial [“Schenectady’s ‘green’ houses anything but affordable”] pointed out that the three green houses the city constructed for between $250,000 and $300,000 — money earmarked for affordable housing — don’t make much sense.
    Providing affordable housing is a goal the city should be promoting, but not when the neighborhoods are dying. It doesn’t make much financial sense even when you’re getting federal money. Spending that amount of money on three houses is like going to Macy’s and buying a pair of expensive shoes which you can’t afford but makes you look and feel good.
    I assume the money to construct these three green houses came from the federal government for that specific purpose. However, there has to be some rationale by the city to look beyond securing funding for three green so-called affordable houses and concentrate on securing funding to improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods.
    Back in February I wrote a letter to the editor about the dying of my old neighborhood, Mont Pleasant. In that article I identified a way to start the process of bringing the neighborhood back.
    Since then, nothing has been accomplished and the neighborhood slowly declines. The one positive sign is that both [City Council members] Joe Allen and Gary McCarthy recently pointed out to the mayor and council that many neighborhoods are in trouble and need help quickly. I’m sure the mayor and council understand neighborhoods are declining, but it takes a concentrated effort from public offi cials and private citizens to come together to develop a strategy to bring them back. Not an easy task.
    Downtown is being gentrified beautifully, to everyone’s benefit. But the neighborhoods are the heart and soul of the city and in which the personality of the city is shaped. Losing that spirit hurts the entire city and will slowly diminish the progress Metroplex has made downtown.
Yes, it is laudable to provide affordable housing for the city residents, but the city must look at stabilizing the declining neighborhoods, holistically.

RICHARD A. EATS
Scotia

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01104&AppName=1

The whole thing is a "no-brainer" and illustrates the pie-in-the-sky liberal mentality of the Democrat intelligensia! But that is what the "people" want and we repeated hear it loud and clear at election time in NY, especially here in this county.

When people elect idiots they get what they deserve.

Quoted Text

Schenectady assessor wrong on ‘green’ homes

    Re the Dec. 18 article [“Taxes pinch owners of ‘affordable’ homes”] about the owners of affordable “green” houses in Schenectady — and their real property tax injustice:
    As an attorney with 50 years’ practice in Schenectady, I speak from extensive knowledge of the assessment process, appraisal practices and litigation in judicial proceedings to review assessments. Among my areas of expertise has been representing municipalities and taxpayers, both in and out of court. In fact, I represented the city in defending assessments for a number of years.
    The assessor is incorrect when he states that he followed state law and assessed the homes at market value. Market value is defined by the National Association of Assessing Officers “as the amount of money for which goods or services may be exchanged with a reasonable period of time, under conditions in which both parties are able, willing and reasonably well informed.” Therefore the assessor should factor in the condition hereinafter described: the land trust.
    Mr. [Assessor Patrick] Mastro should know that, by law, he is considered a quasi-judicial officer and has discretionary powers in his assessment formulations. The homes are encumbered by a condition imposed by the Community Land Trust which prohibits a profi t if the property is sold. He says that this condition does not affect the assessment procedure in New York state. Entirely wrong. The assessor must apply accepted appraisal practices when valuing a property. Property appraisals and assessment practices require that factors which would hinder a sale must necessarily reduce what a willing buyer would pay.
    The city and Mr. Mastro do not have to go to any state agency to reduce the incorrect assessments. I feel sympathy for the unfortunate owners, because they were treated unfairly and most likely didn’t have the means to properly challenge the assessments. I assume they filed a grievance, which was denied, then filed a small claim with the same result. Most likely they did not obtain expert advice.
    I have found that there are many assessors operating with a lack of appraisal knowledge. I am sure that, in general, Mr. Mastro is competent in his job, but in this case he has stumbled.
    I believe that the only way these poor, misled owners can obtain justice is to bring proceedings in Supreme Court under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. I am sure they can’t afford legal fees. They cannot bring a class action, for it is not allowed in assessment proceedings. However, I suggest they pool their money and retain an attorney with some experience in this field and bring a single lawsuit. I am sure the result would be favorable. With that decision from [the] Supreme Court, the assessor would have to correct his roll for all those similarly situated.

    MICHAEL J. PALMIOTTO
    Schenectady

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00702&AppName=1

The city has been taking unfair advantage of many home owners in the city by raising their assessments full well knowing that most will not grieve the raise in taxes. A few that I know in the city have grieved their assessments and have been denied and then took the city to small claims court where they had their assessments lowered by an impartial judge who had the homes appraised by another appraiser who found the cities assessment excessive. One might start to think that the cities assessor is raising the assessments in order to help shrink the gap in the cities budget and placing undo hardship on it's home owners thru higher taxes.

As for promoting 'green homes'......dont sell the environment thing(looking for podium puck) and dont sell the cost issue(government makes the
contracts for doing business with National Grid).........


SHOW ME THE $$ TRAIL

Quoted Text

Don’t build houses for people who can’t afford to live in them

    Kathleen Moore’s Dec. 18 article concerning the “affordable green house” at 1005 Glendale Place really struck home.
    How cruel we are! We renovate a large house, originally built for two families, as a single-family residence built to “green” standards using federal money, then sell it at a well-below-market price to a low-income family of immigrants still not confident of their ability to communicate in English and still not familiar with many of our ways. The taxes incurred when the local assessor insists on performing his duty under state law, when added to mortgage and utilities costs, make the residence unaffordable for this family. Panic ensues, not least in the new owners, who face the prospect of losing their major investment and ruining their credit.
    Even if by some action of charitable government the tax problem is solved, this house and others like it will remain unaffordable for low-income families because of the normal risks of home ownership, such as structural defects, equipment failures, storm damage, vandalism and normal wear and tear — all adding up to highly variable maintenance costs averaging perhaps about 5 percent annually of the market value of the house.
    It is simply wrong to lure low-income families into such risks. Instead, they should be encouraged to work hard to increase their skills and income, save all they can and invest in their own education and that of their children until their family income rises to the level that can support the full costs of home ownership.
    Many immigrants have had major success on that path. Meanwhile, they should be encouraged to live in satisfactory rental housing where their costs are relatively predictable and the risks of ownership are borne by landlords having greater resources.
    We should not be seeing, as we have in Schenectady the last few years, local officials and social services workers posturing and preening as they claim credit for striking blows simultaneously for the benefit of our environment and for the welfare of our low-income citizens. That is just an unattractive combination of nonsense and hypocrisy.

LAWSON P. HARRIS
Scotia

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r03004&AppName=1

Building special just to help what appears to be a less then ambitious, low income family,  just doesn't cut it with me.

I find this whole issue so angering.  If you want something in this country work for it....it shouldn't be handed to you.  

I could understand if the folks were disabled and had the house modified to meet their needs but this house was "given" to folks who chose not to go to school to better themselves to get a better higher paying job so that they could afford a house.  Even if they are going to school today I believe they should not be given the house.  Work for it and buy it out of your own pocket.  Gosh, many folks are satisfied renting a flat why not you?

Sorry to see you got stung but so have many people who have bought houses over the years.   I had a lawyer when I bought mine and still got stung that is life and life isn't fair..   If you can't afford the taxes then you are not able to own a house of that quality and magnitude plain and simple.

I do think though that you should be allowed to back out of the contract and get all your investment back since you were misdirected.  I just don't think you have a right to expect to live there and not pay the appropriate taxes that anyone else would have too