Hi Everyone:
Just when I think I have read about all of the lack of common sense things that people, companies and politicians do, this one certainly takes the cake and is right on the top of the heap of?. When I tell you this story, you will not believe it and then you will scratch your head and say it couldn't happen. Well, it did happen and this story is true. I read the story in my Gannett newspaper.
Anyone who has bought a house, knows that the price that you pay for the house is the basis for the school and property, (city and/or, county and/or town or village) taxes that you will pay. That has been the system for eons and is correct in using that selling price to determine the tax assessment of that building. Well, well, well, it seems that the Town of Greenburgh, located in Westchester County, in New York State, doesn't base their tax assessments on the price that you just paid for your abode. The story goes like this: A couple bought their house on April 23, 2012, for $580,000. Unfortunately for the couple, the town has assessed their home at $1.3 million and they are sticking to it. That is more then twice the value of what they just paid for the house. How can this be?
Fairness in the property-tax system is based on homeowners paying a portion of their property's fair-market value. In this case, fair market value is the price that they paid for the home, which was $580,000 and not the absurdly inflated amount of $1.3 million. Their recourse is to file a case on "tax grievance day". Having done that numerous times on our own home, as long as you have 3 comparable similar homes, (including the lot size), that are assessed lower than your own, you will win a decrease in your assessment. It is just that simple. I have never lost an assessment grievance for ourselves and our friends. What amazes me is that, the tax assessor did not lower the value of the house to the price paid when it was filed. But since he/she didn't, even if the homeowners win their grievance, the most reduction that they can receive is 25%. Another stupid rule that makes no sense. The couple is seeking a 55% reduction, but they can't and won't get the additional 30%. Oh boy, if that isn't a rip off, what is?
The failure of municipalities to periodically revalue their properties has left many homeowners with assessments that do not reflect what the house would sell for in the open market. Greenburgh's last revaluation was in 1956. The politicians know how to fix this problem, but it has always been a hot potato and therefore nothing has been fixed since 1956. Where is the common sense here? Oh right, there isn't any.
Again for the umpteenth time, politicians don't seem to be able to get it right. It is and always will be all about their re-election and not what's good for the people that they say they represent.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
What Does Retire Mean?
Hi Everyone,
What do you think the definition of retire is? Webster's definitions that apply to today's blog are: 1) having discontinued work after long service. 2) withdraw from business or public life. 3) make inactive; relieve of duty. The definition of retire seems to be pretty cut and dry doesn't it? It is either black or white with no gray matter in between. Under normal circumstances that would be correct, until you mention New York State. It is painfully apparent that NYS politicians do not know what the meaning of retire is.
I previously blogged in 2009 about the huge problem NYSwas and still is facing with high pension costs from high (bloated) salaries reported during employees final 3 years before retiring and double dippers. But having double dippers, (NYS employees who have retired and receive their pensions and then go back to work for the state and collect a salary) makes no sense at all. To make matters even worse, there are 15 NYS lawmakers (both Republicans and Democrats) who collect both. Come on, either you are working for the state or you are retired from working for the state. Their should be no in betweens. You should not be allowed to collect a pension and a salary together. Just since 2011, there has been a whopping 32 percent increase in state employees who collect both their pensions and a salary. When will this madness end?
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that it should not be legal to collect both a pension and a salary simultaneously. Isn't this an abuse of taxpayer money? Why can't politicians see this problem and solve it? Why isn't there an uproar over this bad policy? Citizens of New York need to know that this is happening and to try to have it stopped once and for all. Politicians never cease to amaze me! They have a take, take mentality.
Til next week.
Peter
What do you think the definition of retire is? Webster's definitions that apply to today's blog are: 1) having discontinued work after long service. 2) withdraw from business or public life. 3) make inactive; relieve of duty. The definition of retire seems to be pretty cut and dry doesn't it? It is either black or white with no gray matter in between. Under normal circumstances that would be correct, until you mention New York State. It is painfully apparent that NYS politicians do not know what the meaning of retire is.
I previously blogged in 2009 about the huge problem NYSwas and still is facing with high pension costs from high (bloated) salaries reported during employees final 3 years before retiring and double dippers. But having double dippers, (NYS employees who have retired and receive their pensions and then go back to work for the state and collect a salary) makes no sense at all. To make matters even worse, there are 15 NYS lawmakers (both Republicans and Democrats) who collect both. Come on, either you are working for the state or you are retired from working for the state. Their should be no in betweens. You should not be allowed to collect a pension and a salary together. Just since 2011, there has been a whopping 32 percent increase in state employees who collect both their pensions and a salary. When will this madness end?
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that it should not be legal to collect both a pension and a salary simultaneously. Isn't this an abuse of taxpayer money? Why can't politicians see this problem and solve it? Why isn't there an uproar over this bad policy? Citizens of New York need to know that this is happening and to try to have it stopped once and for all. Politicians never cease to amaze me! They have a take, take mentality.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Innie or Outie?
Hi Everyone,
A while back, I watched a show on HDTV, (don't recall the name of the show), but it was about building hurricane proof homes. I remember that the house was circular which helped high winds go around the house. I also remember that the front and rear doors opened outwardly. When you think about it, if you live in a hurricane prone area, wouldn't it just make common sense to have exterior doors that open outwardly instead of inwardly? When exterior doors open outwardly, external winds can not blow open the door, which leads to more severe interior damage.
I know a lot of people in this country don't like the government interfering with their lives. But if you think about it, wouldn't it be better protection for one's life, famly's lives and property if there were things you could do to better safe guard in case of a hurricane? But what if states passed laws that prohibited inwardly opening doors at all shore line communities and then another 50 miles inland? The addition of outward opening exterior doors, along with other safety precautions, (for high winds) would dramatically reduce insurance claims. That would then reduce insurance premiums.
I do realize that there are issues with outwardly opening doors. For instance, preventing the door from hitting the house when a small to moderate breeze tries to blow the door off the hinges. That could be an easy fix. But another issue is that the door would be subject to the elements and no one wants the interior part of the door to be soaking wet. So yes there are drawbacks, but isn't a safety feature more important then some inconveniences? If I lived in a hurricane prone area, common sense tells me that I would rather have the outwardly opening door than an inwardly one. I would opt for safety every time.
Til next week.
Peter
A while back, I watched a show on HDTV, (don't recall the name of the show), but it was about building hurricane proof homes. I remember that the house was circular which helped high winds go around the house. I also remember that the front and rear doors opened outwardly. When you think about it, if you live in a hurricane prone area, wouldn't it just make common sense to have exterior doors that open outwardly instead of inwardly? When exterior doors open outwardly, external winds can not blow open the door, which leads to more severe interior damage.
I know a lot of people in this country don't like the government interfering with their lives. But if you think about it, wouldn't it be better protection for one's life, famly's lives and property if there were things you could do to better safe guard in case of a hurricane? But what if states passed laws that prohibited inwardly opening doors at all shore line communities and then another 50 miles inland? The addition of outward opening exterior doors, along with other safety precautions, (for high winds) would dramatically reduce insurance claims. That would then reduce insurance premiums.
I do realize that there are issues with outwardly opening doors. For instance, preventing the door from hitting the house when a small to moderate breeze tries to blow the door off the hinges. That could be an easy fix. But another issue is that the door would be subject to the elements and no one wants the interior part of the door to be soaking wet. So yes there are drawbacks, but isn't a safety feature more important then some inconveniences? If I lived in a hurricane prone area, common sense tells me that I would rather have the outwardly opening door than an inwardly one. I would opt for safety every time.
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)