...that city is "running scared" of this year's grievants who are taking the city to court, going beyond the dem hack assessment board.  They city is making offers to homeowners for reductions before they get in front of the judge/hearing officer.   The city knows full well that house values are fallen big time but they still REFUSE to reassess the whole city.  

The dems have their political hacks say "no" to each and every grievance brought to them.

So the homeowners are forced to take the time to go to court for a TRUE decision.   And the courts ARE siding with the homeowners because McCarthy and his political hacks on the assessment board are stupid.  

Obviously McCarthy is VERY VERY VERY EMBARRASSED that all the downtown stuff is merely causing a total free fall of home values in the city and he doesn't want to admit it via a citywide reassessment.

So very quietly, the assessor makes offers to those who are going to court, offers most likely still higher than what the court will reduce the houses to.

So readers, pass the word, tell EVERYONE you know that owns a house IN the city, that next year they flood the assessment board with grievances and when the board says "no", then they MUST FLOOD the courts because they WILL WIN at that level!

More EVIDENCE that home values IN the city are PLUMMETING BIG TIME.

And your source for this is?

Quoted from JackBauer

And your source for this is?

mikechristie1?

Mike and Christine are RIGHT an overwhelming majority of the time (from the way I see it). There's no harm in doing what you feel is necessary to survive.  The alternative is a moving company.

Quoted from 1975

Mike and Christine are RIGHT an overwhelming majority of the time (from the way I see it).

Absolutely.

I still would like some idea of the sources so I could determine for myself whether I believe it is accurate.

I've asked a number of times for sources, usually from people with whom I agree with.

Quoted from JackBauer

Absolutely.

I still would like some idea of the sources so I could determine for myself whether I believe it is accurate.

I've asked a number of times for sources, usually from people with whom I agree with.

We know someone who works for one of the hearing officers who said he hasn't heard many cases, and we know two families to grieved, were told "no" by the assessment board and then at the court the assessor is offering to lower it but I'll bet it's not as much as the hearing officers would

Guess the proof will be comparing this years "final roll" which does not show the reductions made by the courts with next year's tentative roll when that comes out.  

Now here's one that's interesting.   Remember, ALL property owners who wish to grieve their assessment must go to the dem political hacks on the assessment board first.

Remember that storage place on Crane St that had the big fire a year ago that destroyed the main building, that main building which also had some apartments in it was actually torn down.

Prior to the fire, it was assessed on the final 2011 roll (BEFORE THE FIRE) for $742,000 by the city of Schenectady.   It has a fire, the major building is torn down, so the owners go to the dem political hacks on the assesssment board to grieve.  It is obvious that those dem cronies on the assessment board, despite the EVIDENCE that there was a fire and no building exists, the board STILL denied the grievance obviously based on "insufficient data"   Can you believe it?   Well, actually any of us can believe it because the assessment board is CLEARLY NOT making decisions based on the truth, they are just RUBBER STAMPING EACH AND EVERY GRIEVANCE as a "denied insufficient data" and they are NOT looking at the FACTS and the EVIDENCE.

The 2012 TENTATIVE roll, the city still had the place assessed for the same $742,000.   The final 2012 roll of course reflects any reductions made by the assessment board.   The final roll for 2012 shows the place STILL assessed for $742,000.   This assessment board must be totally and 100% eliminated of all it's members because they are clearly NOT making decisions based on facts.

That owners of that storage place have a tax certorari suit against the city and the assessment board.   There are close to 60 such suits against the city for this year's assessment.   And remember, that does not include all those that are in small claims court!

And just think of how the dems will have to raise taxes even more to pay for the court costs when they lose all these cases, as they lost case after case last year (as proven by all the settlements they had to make per the minutes of the many city council meetings and committee meetings)

And also, remember since the city WILL LOSE these cases, not only does the city have to pay it's own court costs, it must reimburse the property owners for their costs, AND it has to refund the taxes, refund the taxes IF the case is not settled prior to 1/1/2103.   But as per the council minutes, it was already 2012 when the council was settling on the tax certorari cases from 2011 which means that owners already were in the process of paying their quarterly tax payments so the city must refund some of the payments for 2012 taxes because assessments are lowered retroactive to May 1, 2011


But the mayor still claims that property values are not going down.  What a whacko

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

personally .. I get my hair cut at Ray's Barber Shop on Crane Street

Ah, one of the property owners taking the city to court via tax certiorari.   The results of what YOU, DV, call a "renaissance" --- property values tumbling big time --- and you can't even comment on the EVIDENCE of how the the wild uncontrolled spending on downtown is causing a big reduction in the tax base and going down more as people like your barber are forced to sue the city



  

That's exactly how it's going, I'm in the middle of it now. Don't know yet exactly what I will end up with.. you can wheel and deal with the assessor, take the offer or go before the hearing officer, maybe get more, less
or nothing. Regardless of the result, I will be contesting it again as soon as I can, it may be a 2 year wait if you receive a reduction, not sure exactly

Quoted from Dirt2

That's exactly how it's going, I'm in the middle of it now. Don't know yet exactly what I will end up with.. you can wheel and deal with the assessor, take the offer or go before the hearing officer, maybe get more, less
or nothing. Regardless of the result, I will be contesting it again as soon as I can, it may be a 2 year wait if you receive a reduction, not sure exactly

Keep at it.   Yes, it's a hassle, but it will save you money for a while, at least until the city decides to do another reassessment.   Those that do grieve and keep at it are the ones who benefit, i.e., save for a few years on taxes.

But the McC mayor obviously is not going to do another reassessment, it would be far too embarrassing for him to do that which would be proof of how the focus on downtown is ruining the rest of the city.  

I believe you can grieve every year, no restrictions.   There is something that has a limitation, I can't remember exactly, but it might be something like no increase within two years following a citywide reassessment, or something similar.  The exact restriction thing is somewhere on ORPS website

They burn down buildings to make room for parking lots too.

In case you didn't pick up on it last night, that guy from Mynderse St who speaks now and then and back in the spring was commenting about paying over $4,000 in taxes for the house he has in Vale, remember it?

Last night he thanked the city but he said it cost him money, the city (like I said in the first post) assessor is offering reductions.   He alluded to the extra steps he had to go through and paying money (maybe he doesn't know he gets the money back).

But again, that is MORE EVIDENCE that the dem appointed assessment board members are NOT doing their job.   They have a duty to reduce assessments to what the true market value is and those dem hacks claim there's no evidence?

Obviously the evidence is really there because the city knows it, and that's why the assessor is making offers to reduce assessments before the judge makes an order.   If someone is assessed for $120,000 and tries to get it reduced to it's real value of $60,000, the assessor is doing things like offering to reduce to $80,000 because she knows the judge will reduce it to $60,000 and she's hoping the homeowners aren't willing to gamble on the judge reducing only to $90,000.   Those judges know and I do feel sorry for the homeowners who are scammed by the city by accepting the city's offer