but...

[Guest]

There seems to be some misconception popular on this board that you can do a reassessment and just make a subjective decision about what percentage to assign to the industrial zone versus the residential areas.

That's not how it works.

The reason the industrial area has paid a disproportionate share is that no one had been assessed in over 20 years and in that time the value of the residential area had grown faster than the industrial area, but everyone was paying an increase as if they were appreciating proportionately in value. The reassessment is designed to make a correction to honest fair market values so the proportion is correct. Once you do the reassessment, the chips will fall wherever the market determines, short of a corrupt or incompetent assessor.

So the Township did not have a legal option to simple say, "Hey, let's make sure the result of the reassessment ends up with the industrial areas paying XX% of the taxes." The only thing they could have done differently is stonewalling a reassessment at all until the state or courts compelled them to do it. In other words, the Township could have ignored proper legla, ethical and moral public policy to allow the residents what amounts to tax fraud as long as possible until they are literally held in contempt of court, making Cranbury the equivilent of a deadbeat dad who refuses to pay child support as long as possible until hauled into court and compelled to. Then when hauled into court, he pleads to the judge, "but I have only been paying 50% of my payment for years, judge, it would be too much of a burden and unfair to start paying it all now!"...

The core problem is New Jersey's level of taxes, not the ratio we pay versus the industrial zone. Cranbury has had a good deal with the industrial zone paying all those taxes for us, but it was only via a legal loophole -- i.e. the ability to go a long time between reassessment -- and could not last forever. It was NOT, contrary to some opinions here, a result of a legal policy that could be elected by the Township indefinitely.

In any event, at some point people are going to have to get through their various stages of denial, anger, etc. and reach acceptance. The taxes are here and here to stay. Some people may get MINOR adjustments through appeal, but for the most part that opportunity has already come and gone too. It is what it is, right or wrong. And since the business zone was in a better legal position in the first place, there is zero chance of legally reversing it. You can try to run the Township council out of office, but that still won't change anything. The only possible thing that could be done would be if someone could really prove that as a result of market changes that the businesses are now under assessed relative to the houses and get the Township to pay for yet another reassessment. And perhaps bride the reassessors to skew the results...

[Guest]

I understand your points. But can you or someone tell me how to revalue business properties?

I do know that the revaluation was done near the top of the *residential* market. As a result, the reassessed values are more than the current market values. Do the commercial properties appreciate as much as the residential properties in the past few years? I don't think so. That means, the revaluation is skewed and the results are the opposite of the prior state. That is, residential properties now pay an unfair large share of the tax.

[Jeff M.]

Please stick to the facts vs what is opinion stated as fact.

1) grown faster than the industrial area, but everyone was paying an increase as if they were appreciating proportionately in value.
- Yes, but that will always be true. Wharehouses will depreciate. However, they are brought in as rateables.

2) So the Township did not have a legal option to simple say, "Hey, let's make sure the result of the reassessment ends up with the industrial areas paying XX% of the taxes."

- Correct. Which is why the reassessment was a bad idea.

3) Township could have ignored proper legla, ethical and moral public policy to allow the residents what amounts to tax fraud as long as possible until they are literally held in contempt of court, making Cranbury the equivilent of a deadbeat dad who refuses to pay child support as long as possible until hauled into court and compelled to

- This is not a true statement and is personal opinion. One the wharehouses could have appealed to the county. Two, there is no legal requirement or contempt of court issue.

Ethical and Moral is can also be viewed as how the reassessment impacts seniors and other lower income individuals in town. Or does moral and ethical only apply to big business interests?

It is way over the line to make the deadbeat dad example. First, because it is an extreme issue. Two, there was never a court ruling for the town to make the reassessment. You present it as if a court mandated this. That is inaccurate and untrue. There was no legal mandate for the reassessment.

4) Cranbury has had a good deal with the industrial zone paying all those taxes for us, but it was only via a legal loophole -- i.e. the ability to go a long time between reassessment -- and could not last forever.

- Do you understand why rateables are brought into town? It is not because they make for great neighbors. They are brought in because of their tax dollars.


You are right that the taxes are here to stay and nothing can be done. However, there is no reason to keep the TC members who voted for the reassessment.

[Guest]

[Guest2]

Now that the revaluation is history. Do you think the resulting tax hike is fair?

[Guest]

[Guest2]

[Guest]

[Guest2]

Thanks for sharing the info.

[Guest]

[Guest]

The property tax increase will affect ALL residents. You will know it when you try to sell your home.

The current low mortgage rate will not last forever. Once the 30-year mortgage rate regresses to the mean of around 8%, then you will appreciate the effect of low property tax has on potential buyers.

[op]

I'm the original poster and I agree that the tax increase is negative for all residents and that property values could be affected. I also assume that I couldn't get today what I paid for my home a couple years ago and the tax increase is one (of many) contributing factors to that.

It is not that I think it is good that taxes have gone up. I never said or implied that. It is that I think the basis for the re-distribution of the taxes was ethical and fair. Two very different things. I have repeatedly stated that the overall tax burden is too high. And I am supportive of the posts that have started questioning various services or amenities and whether we need to look as the Twonship's expenses.

The only thing I object to are posters who are basically articiulating that since their taxes have been held low by the 20+ year old assessment, that they now have a "right" to expect that the Township should do whatever it takes to keep them paying a disproportionately low portion of the local tax burden, at the expense of the law, owners of newer homes and businesses. Its akin to a squaters argument on land use -- I have been living rent free on this land for 20 years so you can't make me pay rent now even if it is privately owned. Precedent doesn't make it right. Cranbury choose to benefit residents by deferring a reassessment for 20 years and you have therefore benefitted from artificially lower taxes. Sooner or later, that was going to change -- it was never a permanently sustainable policy.

The result is residents who have paid these articfically lower taxes seem to be confusing the tax distribution with the overall Township tax burden. If cranbury had a low tax burden overall and suddenly increased it 50%, you should be outraged and talking about chasing the Council out of town. But that's not the case. What's happened is Councils and perfectly happy to benefit for the here-and-now residents have deferred their short term cost and our long term expense, both through the delay of a proper reassessment and the reliance on a building debt. Now both are changing and of course it is going to make a huge difference. This is the tax bruden equivilent to what our grand kids will be dealing with on the environment or our kids on social security and the national debt -- years of short term gain at a long term painful cost...

Don't be so proud of the history of Cranbury's lower taxes. They were an illusion and you are now seeing the result of the reality they were delaying. I am totally with you on the goal of a community with an honestly lower tax burden. Let's stop perpetuating anger and denial about what has happened -- because it is utterly unreversible anyway -- and if you trully want Cranbury to be the model for the area in terms of lower taxes, start addressing the budget, not your entitlement to play less for it than your neighbors.

[Guest]

It really amazes me. I've lived in town for 40 years and I know people who are in their 80's that still call me a newbie (in good humor). I refer to homes as still being those belonging to people who passed away many years ago, though they have changed hands a few times since then.

However, one thing I did notice is that when I moved to town and even until about 15 years ago there was a respect shown for the long term residents in town. I realize I sound old and crotchity, but it was the case. Yes, new people moved in, but it was a rarity for them to get onto the TC right away or for them to start making comments about change without having lived here a while. They came because they liked the small town and what it represented with a pharmacy, a dentist, a hardware store, etc...Not solely because of a low tax, the school or because they could affored a bigger home.

It seems there is a new attitude among some who move here in recent years that they want their stamp on the town today and we long time residents should either accept it or move on. Don't like the revaluation? Too bad, sorry it's a fact of life hit the road and move to Florida, but stop your complaining because I got mine and I can afford to pay the new taxes which are only fair.

I think this is the minority of new comers, but they are also the ones who are most vocal and make the comments about accepting the taxes because it is NJ or it is just fair based on other places in the state. Curiously, these residents still chose Cranbury. So I wonder what appealed to them that they feel a need for change or why they blindly accept things as a fact of life.

It is annoying because a lot of people worked hard to make the town what it is today and make it a town people people sought to move to. Instead of acting like you got yours with comments like I had a XX% increase and making it sound like not a big deal, perhaps one could understand the viewpoint of someone who has lived here for 60 years and got over a 60% increase like one resident I know or others on Main Street who were hit very hard. Why should these seniors have to leave because you accept your increase?

Many former TC, School baord and planning/zoning board members worked hard to ensure the town was fiscally responsible for many years. This work is being undone now.

[newer resident]

I am a newer resident (moved in about 5 years ago). Since I moved in, I feel that the TC had done a good job, and that's why I did not give it a second thought when the news of revaluation came. I trusted the TC will do the "right thing" for us (given the previous track records). Now, I feel that Cranbury is heading towards a different path that is quite different from the past...

[Guest]

This is shaping up like the way Bush characterized the War in Iraq -- "If you're not with us, your our enemy" -- i.e., either you are 100 percent in blind-trust agreement with whatever he says or you are supporting terrorism; if you question the validity of risking our troops lives pulling them out of a region where the terrorist are based to invade a country that had a dictator that didn't abide by the terrorists because they competed for his authority with the people are his celebrity as the #1 America resister and instead create a brand new breeding groud for more terrorists, you are "against the troops."

Guess what -- you can think it is a real problem that the taxes are going up so much for many residents, older and newer (if they are in older homes), and still believe that the reassessment was the proper civic policy. You can think it is wrong to say the Council's duty was to stonewall the first reassessment in over 20 years and still think it is a serious blow to those impacted by it. That doesn't mean we don't "respect" the older residents or are coming into town half-cocked to take over the town with our new fangled ways. And it doesn't mean we don't care because "we can afford it." It means we respect a civic policy that doesn't try to evade the law just to avoid a bad situation for many residents.

I am totally supportive if there is a move to reduce costs to lower the tax burden or even a movement to change state law as it relates to tax assessment. Let's do like some other states and cap tax increases to individuals or like California and fix the rate to the purchase price, or something. All fine. I would support that. I agree the people who pay far more for their houses are obviously better equipped to pay the higher taxes, or they shouldn't be buying.

I just don't think it is good civic policy to ignore legal requests from business and some residential constituients to reassess after 20 years and avoid it until it becomes a matter for the courts just to delay something which is inevitable. Eventually the courts or state would compell a reassessment.

If the Township had the discretion to say, "Let's do a reassessment, but let's make sure the older homes do not get assessed at a level which will raise the taxes dramatically, or let's make sure the industrial zone assessments assure they maintain their portion of the overall tax burden." I would even support that. But they didn't have that discretion. They had two options -- stonewall the reassessment at all, or let the chips fall where they did. That's it. It seems like some people are under the impression they had more discretion about the results of the assessment or the legal right to assure that the business paid more regardless of it. And that's just not the case.

[resident2]

I am fine with revaluation. But I would argue that the results of this revaluation are skewed towards residential property.

We need to set up a committee to review the whole process.