....have to do a reassessment NOW of ALL properties?

Reading the papers recently, apparently the only councilperson who wants it done is that ONE LONE council rep who actually does represent the taxpayers, i.e., Vince Riggi.

News reports say the dems on the council are silent on the issue.


Thanks to Riggi, it will be on the agenda for the council committee meeting Aug 4 (delayed because McC wasn't there).   There was a story in the Gazette the other day and an editorial in there today

Gazette happens to offer possibilities today in it's editorial.  It says the city could wait til property values come back up to do a reassessment.  It says maybe changes to assessment should just be done via grievance by the homeowners.   Gazette mentions it costs money to do a reassessment and of course the dem leaders whine that they don't have the money to do a reassessment.

I think they need to do a reassessment prior to the May 2015 tentative assessment roll.  What do you think?

Today's editorial mentions that the Subway shop downtown had grieved (the tax certiorari I think I mentioned).  So the editorial says Subway saves some $5,000 a year in taxes.  And it further mentions that the homeowners in the city have to pay that tax burden from their own pockets.  

Many homeowners have been grieving, others have not.  Those who have not done so, therefore, are paying higher taxes to subsidize the taxes of those who have grieved.

It's simple grade school math.  Two identical houses assessed at $100,000 each, they pay the exact same taxes in Year 1.  One homeowner grieves and gets their assessment down to $70,000.   Now there are two identical houses with different assessment values and the grade school math will tell you that the house with the lower assessment pays less taxes, despite being identical to the other house.

The editorial suggests maybe just let homeowners make the choice to grieve.  Well, figure this.  When a homeowner does a grievance, it takes time and often money.   The city has an assessor's office, a required service of government, and paid for with taxpayers' money.   Is it proper for homeowners to spend time and money to keep their assessment up to date when the city doesn't want to perform a service that the taxpayers' have already paid for?   Since taxpayers pay for the service of the assessor why should the taxpayers have to pay extra for a service because the assessor is NOT doing his/her job?

The city  DEM leaders WHINE and COMPLAINS that it has no money to do a reassessment.   But how is it the city has the money to spend building new buildings and/or fixing buildings downtown, putting in unnecessary new lighting, maintaining the streets downtown (while ignoring them in the neighborhoods where taxpayers live.

Do we ALL agree that the assessment values throughout the city are totally out of whack because really, there could be 20 identical houses (same street we'll say) who all had the same assessment back in 2010 at $100,000.  Some of those people grieved, others did not.  Maybe one person chose to ask for a reduction to $90,000 and got that.   Another asked for a reduction to $80,000 two years ago and won but has not grieved since.   Another asked for a reduction but Mary Mary, the mayor's croney on the board of assessment, denies a reduction and the homeowner does not appeal.   Another homeowner grieves and wins a reduction to $60,000 (SCAR level of course).  So this street has 20 identical houses but 20 different assessment values.   Is that fair?

Remember too, the mayor is appointing someone as assessor who has not a smidgeon of background in appraisal, valuing property, real estate, taxes, etc.  Should she be trusted to properly assess property?

One suggestion also in that editorial, or maybe it was the story the other day, let all the homeowners do their grievances, I think the idea there is that all the homeowners would line up at city hall putting in grievance.   Can you imagine Mary Mary having to take a six month leave of absence from her real estate job to listen to grievances?   Do we all agree it would be mathematically and humanly impossible to hear 20,000 grievances on the one day in May called "grievance day."  

Some people say the dems and the mayor are doing a wonderful job in the city, but if that's true, how come home values are falling so much?

The failure of the assessor's office to keep assessment rolls up to date, that does reflect elimination of essential services to the taxpayers, doesn't it????   After all, the taxpayers DO pay for the assessor's office in their tax bill.  Just like the city has cut road paving (outside of downtown), just like the city has eliminated proper plowing of streets by not declaring a snow emergency.  

How about this.   All downtown property owners/business owners pay for a citywide reassessment.   After all, it is the downtown property owners getting the taxpayers money that is causing the massive reduction in property values in the city so, since it's the fault of the downtown property owners, shouldn't they have to pay for the reassessment perhaps?   Remember, they are NOT paying the 100% FULL SHARE of their taxes, so they should be the ones that have to pay for the reassessment, right?

Ah here is the Gazette story from the other day.

Quoted Text

Schenectady council to discuss reassessment

Tuesday, July 22, 2014
By Kathleen Moore (Contact)
Gazette Reporter  


SCHENECTADY — As the city’s property values fall further out of whack with the city’s assessments, the Schenectady City Council agreed to begin discussing a citywide reassessment.

They will consider the matter on Aug. 4 at their next meeting of committees, which begins at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall.

They had planned to begin talking about it Monday, but the mayor could not make it to the meeting. Councilman Vince Riggi said the mayor asked for a postponement so that he could be part of the discussion.

The city’s assessments are considered to be about 23 percent above market value, according to the 2014 equalization rates set by the state Office of Real Property Tax Services.

According to the office, that means Schenectady’s property values have decreased since the last reassessment in 2009, but were not adjusted downward.

The city did try to make adjustments, beginning in 2012, when officials admitted that assessments were 4 percent too high.

Mayor Gary McCarthy said he hoped to wait on a reassessment until the market “stabilized.”

In the meantime, city officials agreed to a 104 percent equalization rate, which essentially dropped all of the city’s assessments by 4 percent.

But that wasn’t enough, and tax challenges based on unfair assessments have continued to flood City Hall.

Riggi has lobbied hard for a reassessment, but other council members have been silent on their stance.

Quoted Text

It says the city could wait til property values come back up to do a reassessment

I don't see property values going up unless a large company like GE comes in and brings much needed jobs.

Quoted from rpforpres

I don't see property values going up unless a large company like GE comes in and brings much needed jobs.

Property values will go up in the suburbs.  

yes,ASAP if not sooner...gee if we wait another 10 years for the market to "stabilize"property's have to be worth more      

you cant make this stuff up....seems our current leaders busy playing at barkeep...if we could only find a tavern that would keep him  

cheaper yet would be for the assessors to do their job and accurately assess 1/6th of the city every year - total cost ZERO nada zero zip actual it is a negative as the state pays the city $5 for each property assessed

Quoted from exit3

cheaper yet would be for the assessors to do their job and accurately assess 1/6th of the city every year - total cost ZERO nada zero zip actual it is a negative as the state pays the city $5 for each property assessed

I believe state law prohibits a city from doing only a portion of a city every year

they would have to redo the PILOTS....

Would the cost to do a reassessment raise the taxes for everyone by more than the grievances are costing the non grievers?

Quoted from TakingItBack

Would the cost to do a reassessment raise the taxes for everyone by more than the grievances are costing the non grievers?

No easy answer to that.   That depends on what the assessed value of one's house is in relation to the REAL market value of one's house as opposed to what the city claims is your market value.

Far too man variables.  Some people grieved and asked for a big reduction, others grieved and asked for small reductions.  If both got what they asked for, there's no telling.

Generally what will happen is those that never grieved at all since the last reassessment will see a tax BILL reduction wile those who requested and proved large reduction in assessment will see an increase in their tax bill.  If someone won a reduction from $100,000 to $60,000 and in a reassessment the are reduced more to say, $57,000, chances are that person will see quite an increase in their tax BILL.

You'll never see a reassessment. No in the near future....or even in our lifetime.
THEY NEED THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!

so either way its going to cost me...fine...go with whatever the city leaders are AGAINST...