Who needs the Lancaster Police? Surely not Joseph Brainard.

[gorja]

Gorja, this is not a fabrication. I noticed you simply added the individual percents up, but you didn't factor in the compounding effect from year to year. In other words if one year increased by 10%, then the next years increase is a percent of a bigger number, and so on year after year. So the overall % of increase from the first year to the last is more than the sum of % increase from each individual year.

I do not understand what you are saying. Some years it went up; some years it went down. You either use a total of the all the years percentages or compare the tax from the beginning to the end of your 2005 to 2011. The total comes to -4.221% or the difference between 2004s $1030.54 and 2011s $968.34 percentage wise, which would be -6%



Okay,

Ad Valorem tax on Assessed $100,000 home. These total -4.221%
2011 $975.58 to $968.34 went DOWN .74%
2010 $949.44 to $975.58 went UP 2.8%
2009 $927.73 to $949.44 went UP 2.3%
2008 $900.25 to $927.73 went UP 3%
2007 $900.07 to $900.25 went UP .019%
2006 $1095.02 to $900.07 went DOWN 17.8%
2005 $1030.54 to $1095.02 went UP 6.2%


Here's your numbers which add up to +42.4%
2011 up 10.4%
2010 up 3.0%
2009 up 4.1%
2008 up 4.4%
2007 up 2.3%
2006 up 9.7%
2005 up 8.5%

[4248]

But if the over all assessments went up - even if your rate per thousand didn't rise - your paying more.

Your math would be correct if the home assessments didn't rise. If my house went from $100,000.00 (2011)to $120,000.00 (2012) - I would obviously pay more - correct ?

So, if what a person looks at is just the % used its deceiving. We are looking at half the story.

Its just like why many of us here believe we are being over taxed - I live in a flood zone. In many other Towns your assessed lower because of the devaluation from that fact. Not Lancaster - your still assessed by the value of other homes.

Anyway - maybe someone can look at the assessment increase and then compare the actual tax - not just the per thousand rate - that's just a shell game -

[gorja]

But if the over all assessments went up - even if your rate per thousand didn't rise - your paying more.

Your math would be correct if the home assessments didn't rise. If my house went from $100,000.00 (2011)to $120,000.00 (2012) - I would obviously pay more - correct ?

So, if what a person looks at is just the % used its deceiving. We are looking at half the story.

Its just like why many of us here believe we are being over taxed - I live in a flood zone. In many other Towns your assessed lower because of the devaluation from that fact. Not Lancaster - your still assessed by the value of other homes.

Anyway - maybe someone can look at the assessment increase and then compare the actual tax - not just the per thousand rate - that's just a shell game -

I agree but since the assessments don't rise or fall at the same rate, the tax rates are all we got.

[WNYresident]

All that matters is that final amount on the bill you are given to live in your home and the amount it increases.

[gorja]

The BEST of both worlds, I guess. Fun, fun, fun with Fudoli.

[dtwarren]

I do not believe you can accumulate the annual percentages in the way you do. You would need to calculate the change between 2005 and 2011 like you do from year to year.

[Wow in lanc]

You have to look at the tax bills for one particular property go back 10 years take that bill amt and compare it to current year bill. This way you can get the true increase in tax regardless of reval etc

[gorja]

You have to look at the tax bills for one particular property go back 10 years take that bill amt and compare it to current year bill. This way you can get the true increase in tax regardless of reval etc

I totally agree but the percentages will vary between properties since the re-evals aren't on an even keel.

[4248]

That's part of what my point is - people get tired of hearing "Tax increase"
- or "I got reassessed"
- so they switched to "Reval" it sounds nicer and is just a different way of saying, "We increased what you owe"

They say, "Oh our Town Valuation increased" - so we will only need to increase your taxes by 1 % ! Wrong ! But factual !

If you look your "Valuation" went up
- your home was worth(assessed) at $100,000.00 last year and now its valued at $120,000.00
- so ten percent of $100,000.00 is $10,000.00
- now 10 percent of $120,000.00 is $12,000.00
- but the "Rate of taxation or the percentage stays the same" - its a word game folks.

Then they say, "We are equalizing" the values so everyone pays their fair share ! This brings out all those who believe they pay more or someone else may pay less - "Yea- why should they get a break" !!!!!!

Its smoke and mirrors - its the shell game that is part of the overall "Dog and Pony Show" -

Every once in a while you'll hear a Politician screw up and admit the truth - they'll say, "We worked hard not to raise taxes - partly because the overall Town Value went up" =

That means last year we had $100Million in taxable property - its value rose to $110Million so we didn't raise taxes.

That increase came from new development (well maybe $7million was from new builds)
- the rest came because we increased your homes value to bring it closer to the square foot value of the new builds( there's the other $3million - it comes from your pocket)

Last point - by staggering the reval process ( some over here - some over there) the hole Town cant or wont get a accurate picture because there's no consistent change and its ongoing/changing year after year all over Town !

Its like shifting the development from one area to another
- it isn't ending or decreasing its just pis-ing off a different group of residents !

Or overloading/building in a new area ! Is that progress
- or a shell game
- now you see it
- now you don't !

The only thing that changes at the end of the game is your money went some where !

[Breezy]

A simple review of this thread says it all!!!!!

[shortstuff]

A simple review of this thread says it all!!!!!

Why are you making a point to direct attention to this thread Breezy? If you want dialog - then it might be a "watch what you wish for" scenario....

[WNYresident]

I would have no issue if the police were county wide versus little monopolies in Erie County. Yes it would be one larger monopoly but I think it would be easier to monitor over all. At least at the county level we could eliminate as many areas of duplication as we could.

We could start taking steps to finally start lower our cost to live in this area.

[4248]

Its strange that Breezy would want to rehash a old thread that began with his own lie ! ? !

Its like he actually wants readers to see the truth (He made it up) - he cant stop lying. He twists and contorts his enemy's words - creates a perception then runs with it.

Breezy , Do you actually believe if you repeat a lie long enough its truth ? Were you actually raised by Politicians ?

Your exactly what Americans are feed up with - you represent exactly whats wrong with our Political system.

The next two years will show what this past election will produce - so far its been more patronage and cookies for the loyal players.

Next it will be a shower of excuses for raising taxes. So far the line on Madam Supervisor (Double Dip) Coleman is 6-4 she wont do 3 years.

Good luck with all the smoke and mirrors PAL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sense Breezy wants to force the issue:

Given the recent campaign actions - I totally agree we should have a combined County or Metro style Police force.