Buffalo Home owners should sue City

[4248]

Buffalo Home Owners have been systematically over taxed ! The Mayor brags about "The largest surplus in history." Lets see how that happened , - in part by over taxing home owners for the "Cost of services!"

How - by charging taxes based on "projected costs." They have increased assessment and taxable values to cover these projections ! They collected these "Increased property taxes" while not actually spending them for the reasons stated - namely "service costs to residents."

They haven't honored the City Workers contracts , yet they have taxed residents to cover "Inflated Costs."

Surpluses in Government = over taxation.

They (Buffalo) should honor and fund all their contracts . They have collected tax dollars for just that reason . Now they sit on the cash , collect interest and avoid responsibility by blaming the control board.

Maybe they should rebate the home owners a portion of what they collected . They haven't saved a dime - they over-taxed home owners for the cost of services . Maybe that could be the basis for a home owners class action lawsuit ?

Any good lawyers out there ?

Hey , after that - sue the Control Board (personally) to recover lost tax dollars spent on legal fees , including the money they spent(tax dollars) for lawyers fighting against honoring those contracts.

[CSense]

As much as I like your premise the city of buffalo is within their Constitutional taxing limit. As long as they do not exceed that limit they are not violating any laws, see Gorski years.

The constitutional taxing limit is 2% (minus various exclusions) of the average of the last 5 full valuations (city worth). Example....

5,000,000,000 2000
5,000,000,000 2001
5,500,000,000 2002
6,000,000,000 2003
6,000,000,000 2004
27,500,000,000/5 = 5,500,000,000 * 2% = 110,000,000

110,000,000
30,000,000 (exclusions)
140,000,000 tax limit.

This represents the amount the city can collect in taxes. This does not include user fees, sewer, water rates, etc. From that a homestead (residential) and non homestead (business) tax rate is derived on homes via city assessments.

[4248]

I am questioning the fact that taxes were based on "Projected expenses" - and "service costs" - so they are collecting taxes to pay Police , Fire , City workers - then not using it for the "Stated reason" - thats the question !

So , given your answer - as long as they stay within the "Legal limits" they can state any reason they want to tax home owners and then use that money for anything they want - other than the stated purpose ?

So they don't have any true accountability as to where our property tax dollars go ?

[CSense]

I agree with you that the city should not be overtaxing us, I merely trying to point out that you couldn't sue them.

I wholeheartedly agree that the city should be held accountable. But to be fair the only reason there is a record surplus is becuase the BFSA imposed a wage freeze.

[4248]

Any lawyers out there ?

[Dumbfounded]

North Buffalo probably has the most over-priced residential dwellings in the entire Western New York region
and
BOY! Do we have the "new and improved" property taxes to prove it!

You wouldn't BELIEVE what houses are going for in North Buffalo
and
every
damned
day
there are
MORE violent crimes reported
MORE home burgularies reported
in over-priced, over-rated and over-taxed North Buffalo


"TALKING PROUD!!!!"

[BFLOCOP]

4248 probably the first time I've ever agreed with you. At minimum the city could start by repealing the user fee. I've had my wages frozen for years and if it were going to back to taxpayers it would be a little more palatable.

[CSense]

4248 probably the first time I've ever agreed with you. At minimum the city could start by repealing the user fee. I've had my wages frozen for years and if it were going to back to taxpayers it would be a little more palatable.

If we don't change the structural problems of the city, I think we should go a different route. I'd implement more "user" fees. This will remove the loop hole for residents whose homes are assessed so low they don't contribute to the operations of the city.

[MoreOfTheSame]

If we don't change the structural problems of the city, I think we should go a different route. I'd implement more "user" fees. This will remove the loop hole for residents whose homes are assessed so low they don't contribute to the operations of the city.

I disagree. I think the tax should cover every standard service to a residence. What is the point of implementing a maximum tax collection limit if the city can simply go ahead and slap fees on every single little thing that is usually covered by taxes everywhere else?

A bloated budget pushing up on the maximum tax ceiling? Why not double the "sewer rent" or add an extra "electrical connection grid charge" and then use the extra revenue to hire another political appointee? It's not a tax, right?

I should be quiet before I give them ideas.