Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY
20 homeowners get reprieve on foreclosure
BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter

    Twenty homeowners will escape foreclosure this year, Corporation Counsel John Polster said.
    He will not foreclose on owneroccupants who have not paid their taxes but lived in their house during the entire time the tax debt was accumulating and do not have more than one rental unit on the property.
    The decision does not help Aaron Graham, who is paying off the taxes owed after his grandmother died in 2005. He moved here years later and has made payments for three years but has not yet caught up. His house is scheduled to be foreclosed upon on Friday.
    And it doesn’t help Savita Liladhar, who did not pay taxes for four years but now wants to pay. She claims that she didn’t know her house could be taken if she didn’t pay the taxes. She has two rental units, so she’s not eligible for the exemption. She also has tenants but did not use their rent to pay the taxes.
    But some people will escape — for now. Polster will begin foreclosure proceedings again in December, and all 20 homeowners who qualified for the deal will face foreclosure then. However, it takes months to foreclose, which gives them some time to pay off their debt.
    Among the few who will keep their house are Fred and Darlene Lee, who live on Hamilton Hill. Fred Lee runs the city-wide neighborhood watch, as well as Schenectady United Neighborhoods. Darlene Lee is on the Civilian Police Review Board and has been active in city work for many years. She was among those who helped to organize Weed and Seed, a federally funded effort to reduce crime on Hamilton Hill.
    They said they fell behind on their taxes after they bought other houses on their street but could not find tenants who had jobs and weren’t involved in crime.
    “We had no idea how diffi cult it would be to rent,” Fred Lee said.
    The Lees had intended to remodel the houses, rent them out and then offer a rent-to-own program to good tenants.
    After years of work, Lee said, “even we had to admit: this dog ain’t hunting.”
    They tried to sell but no one would buy. They offered to give the properties away to Habitat for Humanity “or anybody who would take them” but still got no offers.
    Lee’s business, in which he teaches student pilots and sells planes, slowed significantly during the recession, and they got behind on the taxes for the rental houses, he said. ATF offered a payment plan, which Lee accepted.
    “I thought it was a square deal,” he said. “The city gets its full payment, we’ll pay a little bit in interest and we’ll work out a payment plan.”
    He wasn’t expecting 21 percent interest.
    Eventually they sold one house and let ATF foreclose on another. In the meantime, they fell behind on the taxes for their own house.
    Lee is confident he’ll pay off the taxes.
    “I’ll work my fanny off, I’ll make as much money as I can and we’ll get this paid off,” he said. “In light of the world economy, it’s going to be a stretch.”
    A nonprofit group that faced foreclosure has also been taken off the list.
    Koinonia Christian Center, which bought a vacant building on McClyman Street to turn into a community center, did not pay the taxes that were required in the fi rst year.
    Properties cannot be taken off the tax roll mid-year; owners must file for tax-exempt status by March 1 and wait until the next tax roll for tax exemptions.
    The Rev. Ted Ward said he didn’t know he had to pay taxes, which amounted to $2,177.
    He was also billed for water fees, which all nonprofi t groups must pay. But he protested the fee because the water to the building had been shut off before he bought it.
    He was billed $4,132 for the water that he didn’t use.
    After three years, he also accumulated $3,325 in interest, but the city offered to remove it if he would pay the rest. He refused, asking for it all to be erased. ...................................>>>>.........................>>>>...........................................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01400&AppName=1

Yeah? For how long? Will they magically be able to afford the taxes in the future when they go up again and again...and again...???

Quoted Text

And it doesn’t help Savita Liladhar, who did not pay taxes for four years but now wants to pay. She claims that she didn’t know her house could be taken if she didn’t pay the taxes. She has two rental units, so she’s not eligible for the exemption. She also has tenants but did not use their rent to pay the taxes.

No sympathy for this one.   Didn't pay taxes for four years?    "...didn't know...."      

Quoted Text

They said they fell behind on their taxes after they bought other houses on their street but could not find tenants who had jobs and weren’t involved in crime.
    ...
    They tried to sell but no one would buy. They offered to give the properties away to Habitat for Humanity “or anybody who would take them” but still got no offers.

Oh, but DV aka Glry aka all his other imaginary friends, Ronnie says the city is in a renaissance.


So, DV, if the city is in a renaissance, perhaps you can explain why NO ONE, not even Habitat, is willing to buy houses IN Schenectady??????

Well?????    Where is this renaissance you claim the city is in?????


Of course, the FACT is, and the EVIDENCE PROVES that there is NO RENAISSANCE.

And DV will ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, NOT address the issue of no one wanting to buy IN the city.   IF he responds here, he will only spew stupid babble that he won't respond and engage in conversation with what HE calls non-intelligent, non-rational.   That's just a cop out excuse he uses when he has been proven wrong, he can provide NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of a renaissance, we "nayboobs" have provided an overwhelming about of EVIDENCE of things that are failing in the city that the DEMS avoid addressing.   We present the EVIDENCE of the troubles in the city that need to be addressed IF the city is ever remotely going to become a good city again.   DV produces no evidence whatsoever.

And so he won't address the issue of WHY NO ONE wants to buy a house in the city.\

Even he won't buy a house in the city and he REFUSES to explain why


Cluck cluck cluck,  too chicken to respond

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

Yeah? For how long? Will they magically be able to afford the taxes in the future when they go up again and again...and again...???

The DEMS are throwing families into the streets and foreclosing on Black Churches. But they care a lot.
About their bloated pensions and no show lob jobs. Until the City residents finally wake up and throw out these
idiots out nothing will improve. Did you hear? Death Ray is opening another eatery Downtown! Tax exempt for ever!

Quoted from mikechristine1

No sympathy for this one.   Didn't pay taxes for four years?    "...didn't know...."      

Part of the "girl nation"

A definite lose/lose/lose for the 3 principal areas affected by these foreclosures.   City will be stiffed for the taxes due.   City will have to maintain the foreclosed properties (taxpayer funded).   And once these people are displaced from their residences they may resort to Welfare assistance (taxpayer funded).   As an aside, one has to wonder with this added workload to maintain these abandoned domiciles, will a new wave of hirings soon be in the offing?   Or at the very least increased overtime for police patrols and maintenance.

another democrap success story because failure is the new success, here in the Girl Nation.

Isnt it ironic that in the citys attempt to hammer landlords they become one.

This is definetly something to keep an eye on.  Many people who currently work, lead or consult with the city worked for the Schenectady Municipal Housing.  Dont be suprised if the city tries to prop up income by doing massive amounts of Section 8 in their rentals.   You think we are the center of handouts now......

Quoted from Mr. Majestyk

A definite lose/lose/lose for the 3 principal areas affected by these foreclosures.   City will be stiffed for the taxes due.   City will have to maintain the foreclosed properties (taxpayer funded).   And once these people are displaced from their residences they may resort to Welfare assistance (taxpayer funded).   As an aside, one has to wonder with this added workload to maintain these abandoned domiciles, will a new wave of hirings soon be in the offing?   Or at the very least increased overtime for police patrols and maintenance.

They should hire the displaced homeowners to take care of their former properties.

Wait, I have a better idea.

Let them be live in care takers.

Quoted Text

Foreclosures go unchallenged
By Paul Nelson
Updated 9:42 p.m., Friday, August 31, 2012

SCHENECTADY— In its ongoing efforts to rehab homes and get them back on the tax rolls, the city foreclosed on 159 properties in Schenectady County Court Friday morning, Corporation Counsel John R. Polster said.

Outside court, Polster said state Supreme Court Justice Barry Kramer was "satisfied with the procedure" and that none of the affected property owners or their attorneys appeared in court to challenge the move.

City code enforcement officials will in the next few days take inventory of how many of the properties are occupied before checking for what he described as "life safety" issues ranging from infestations to mold to a place with no heat, he said.

"We're not interested in kicking people out onto the street but we need to gain control of the properties and turn them around," said Polster, noting the properties are scattered throughout Schenectady. "We'll have to try and triage the whole thing."

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Foreclosures-go-unchallenged-3831486.php#ixzz25DdEVAfL

Well, in addition to the obvious upkeep of the lawn, snow removal by the City, they will have to contend with plumbing issues, hot water heater replacement, furnace maint/replac. etc.   And what about code enforcement issues, smokedetectors etc.   And will the City ensure that the trash is put to the curb.   And since the city will "own" these homes they will no longer be receiving the Trash (tax) fee.   So a further loss of revenue.   At $200-$300 a home times 159 homes that equals $31,800.00/$47,700.00 in lost revenue, if in fact it winds up being at least 159 homes.   Of course if the # of homes acquired excedes the 159 you can simply increase these #'s.   One would assume the previous owners were paying the trash tax.   So regardless how you cut it, it's lost revenue along with all the other burdens of the city's new home ownership/responsibility.    And speaking of responsibility will the City be liable if any of the tennants/renters who do stay in the homes, become injured due to any City negligence on the safety/maint. of thes properties?   Will a seperate set of books be kept for this project aside from all other City business so as to know the cost of this endeavor?   To ascertain if the losses/cost are known and kept track of against any income?

Quoted from Mr. Majestyk

Well, in addition to the obvious upkeep of the lawn, snow removal by the City, they will have to contend with plumbing issues, hot water heater replacement, furnace maint/replac. etc.   And what about code enforcement issues, smokedetectors etc.   And will the City ensure that the trash is put to the curb.   And since the city will "own" these homes they will no longer be receiving the Trash (tax) fee.   So a further loss of revenue.   At $200-$300 a home times 159 homes that equals $31,800.00/$47,700.00 in lost revenue, if in fact it winds up being at least 159 homes.   Of course if the # of homes acquired excedes the 159 you can simply increase these #'s.   One would assume the previous owners were paying the trash tax.   So regardless how you cut it, it's lost revenue along with all the other burdens of the city's new home ownership/responsibility.    And speaking of responsibility will the City be liable if any of the tennants/renters who do stay in the homes, become injured due to any City negligence on the safety/maint. of thes properties?   Will a seperate set of books be kept for this project aside from all other City business so as to know the cost of this endeavor?   To ascertain if the losses/cost are known and kept track of against any income?

But on the brighter side, the city will now own 159 properties that they will claim are valued at over 23 million.

People will be lined up for miles to buy these recently revalued properties.

Quoted from Mr. Majestyk

Well, in addition to the obvious upkeep of the lawn, snow removal by the City, they will have to contend with plumbing issues, hot water heater replacement, furnace maint/replac. etc.   And what about code enforcement issues, smokedetectors etc.   And will the City ensure that the trash is put to the curb.   And since the city will "own" these homes they will no longer be receiving the Trash (tax) fee.   So a further loss of revenue.   At $200-$300 a home times 159 homes that equals $31,800.00/$47,700.00 in lost revenue, if in fact it winds up being at least 159 homes.   Of course if the # of homes acquired excedes the 159 you can simply increase these #'s.   One would assume the previous owners were paying the trash tax.   So regardless how you cut it, it's lost revenue along with all the other burdens of the city's new home ownership/responsibility.    And speaking of responsibility will the City be liable if any of the tennants/renters who do stay in the homes, become injured due to any City negligence on the safety/maint. of thes properties?   Will a seperate set of books be kept for this project aside from all other City business so as to know the cost of this endeavor?   To ascertain if the losses/cost are known and kept track of against any income?

Why would you assume the owners were paying the trash tax...the houses are being foreclosed on because they weren't paying their taxes...I doubt that they paid anything...I don't dee that it's an additional loss of revenue...just a major increase in expenditures.

Quoted from Parent

Why would you assume the owners were paying the trash tax...the houses are being foreclosed on because they weren't paying their taxes...I doubt that they paid anything...I don't dee that it's an additional loss of revenue...just a major increase in expenditures.

Firstly thank you for referring to the fee as a tax.   I think you basically reinforced my point that I was trying to make.   Which is regardless how you word it, it's still a loss.   Whether the trash tax was just added to the tax bill and not collected, they were still uncollected funds.   Besides this, the trash was undoubtedly picked up regardless of the lack of pyt.   I did not see anything in the media citing any unusual piles of trash going uncollected.   So couple the two together-uncollected trash tax payments AND the labor (unpaid for via the trash tax) to pick up the trash it's a double loss.   And I believe the #159 homes was stated somewhere else on this board as the current # that the city is in control of or soon to be in control of.