Resolution to install stop signs on HOA private roads approved by town

By unanimous resolution vote Lancaster’s town board approved to install stop signs at designated intersections in the private roadways at the Courtyards at Pleasant Meadows Condominiums.

Chapter 46-8 of the Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance entitled Stop Intersections designated on private roadways is hereby amended by adding stop signs in designated locations (intersections) and in accordance with State Law.

When questioned by a resident at the public comment session that precedes the resolution vote as to who will pay for the costs of the signs and installation, Supervisor Coleman answered: “town taxpayers.”

At the regular meeting and at the work session that precedes the regular meeting Coleman, Police Chief Karn and board members reviewed the process that led to their decision to amend the law:

• It’s a matter of public safety, the town’s #1 priority.

• Unless the Homeowner Association (HOA) became a gated community there is no way to prevent the community roads from becoming public roads – used as cut throughs by adjacent development vehicular traffic.

• The current HOA installed signs, their locations and number do not meet universal standards; state regulations – Uniform Traffic Control Devices manual. As such they are not enforceable, all will be removed and replaced in new locations.

• The town has been put on notice by the Pleasant Meadows HOA that they want state regulated stop signs.

• Although the HOA receives 50% tax reductions through Condominium Law 339-y, it still pays a considerable of highway and bridge taxes – estimated at $100,000 (200 units).

• A reduction in the number of signs posted at the Courtyards at Pleasant Meadows Condominiums will take place as studies have shown that when they are used to control traffic, their increased amount has the reverse negative impact.

• Other developments with like HOA private road conditions will be able to petition the town for like consideration.

• While this cost increase will burden and displease the general taxpayer, it will certainly appeal to the 5 HOA developments that pay full taxes and receive no Condominium Law 33-9y tax reductions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Other developments with like HOA private road conditions will be able to petition the town for like consideration.

---

I would agree that it would only be fair and just that the other developments get like consideration.
I had not realized until attending that meeting that the private HOA residents pay highway and bridge taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

I would agree that it would only be fair and just that the other developments get like consideration.
I had not realized until attending that meeting that the private HOA residents pay highway and bridge taxes.

---

Gorja, there’s a wealth of misinformation about 339-y. Condominium owners actually pay taxes despite efforts to portray them as living tax free in Beverly Hills-style mansions while being supported by poor working class people struggling to feed their little children and toothless helpless grandparents. Condo owners pay association fees often exceeding $3000.00 per year which pay for many services typically provided by towns. Because they’re paying their own way on these things they get an adjustment on their assessed valuation to recognize the value of services they pay for themselves. I’ve never once heard any of the whiners and bitchers suggest that the public services be scrapped completely and that they pick up the costs of these on their own as condo owners do. It’s envy, pure and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grump

Gorja, there’s a wealth of misinformation about 339-y. Condominium owners actually pay taxes despite efforts to portray them as living tax free in Beverly Hills-style mansions while being supported by poor working class people struggling to feed their little children and toothless helpless grandparents. Condo owners pay association fees often exceeding $3000.00 per year which pay for many services typically provided by towns. Because they’re paying their own way on these things they get an adjustment on their assessed valuation to recognize the value of services they pay for themselves. I’ve never once heard any of the whiners and bitchers suggest that the public services be scrapped completely and that they pick up the costs of these on their own as condo owners do. It’s envy, pure and simple.

---

Grump,
We have one condo status street in Lancaster in which 2 of the homes aren't even classified as colonials.
They are classified as mansions on the assessment site. $1.2 million mansions with 3-4 acres of land.

To me, that's not a condo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grump

Gorja, there’s a wealth of misinformation about 339-y. Condominium owners actually pay taxes despite efforts to portray them as living tax free in Beverly Hills-style mansions while being supported by poor working class people struggling to feed their little children and toothless helpless grandparents. Condo owners pay association fees often exceeding $3000.00 per year which pay for many services typically provided by towns. Because they’re paying their own way on these things they get an adjustment on their assessed valuation to recognize the value of services they pay for themselves. I’ve never once heard any of the whiners and bitchers suggest that the public services be scrapped completely and that they pick up the costs of these on their own as condo owners do. It’s envy, pure and simple.

---

The great majority of Condominium 339-y recipients receive 50% tax assessment reductions. Using $250,000 as an average market value condominium style dwelling, that homeowner receives a tax assessment reduction in Lancaster of somewhere between 40-50%.

At 40%, the tax reduction amounts to $250,000 X .40 X $32 per thousand tax rate = $3,200 per year ($266 per month).

At 50%, the tax reduction amounts to $250,000 x .50 x $32 = $4,000 ($333 per month).

As someone who resides in a townhome complex that receives no 339-y tax reduction consideration, pays full taxes and is responsible for paying an association fee that provides for all services not provided by the town, all other maintenance fees, landscaping, snow removal etc., my association fee is much less than $266 per month and the cost for providing the services not provided by the town nowhere approaches the monthly association fee.

Too often 339-y recipients are receiving tax abatements that not only pay for the services not provided by the town, but for their entire association fee, and then some.

The patio home that Gorga referred to sold for $1.2 million and is assessed at under $700,000 – a $16,000 reduction in tax obligation, $1,333 per month. I think that covers the entire association fee; and then some.

Yes, condominium / townhome / patio owners pay taxes, too often not enough. That is why builders use the tax ploy to lure prospective homeowners into their purchase. That is why 50% of town development is now from the purchase of these units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

The great majority of Condominium 339-y recipients receive 50% tax assessment reductions. Using $250,000 as an average market value condominium style dwelling, that homeowner receives a tax assessment reduction in Lancaster of somewhere between 40-50%.

At 40%, the tax reduction amounts to $250,000 X .40 X $32 per thousand tax rate = $3,200 per year ($266 per month).

At 50%, the tax reduction amounts to $250,000 x .50 x $32 = $4,000 ($333 per month).

As someone who resides in a townhome complex that receives no 339-y tax reduction consideration, pays full taxes and is responsible for paying an association fee that provides for all services not provided by the town, all other maintenance fees, landscaping, snow removal etc., my association fee is much less than $266 per month and the cost for providing the services not provided by the town nowhere approaches the monthly association fee.

Too often 339-y recipients are receiving tax abatements that not only pay for the services not provided by the town, but for their entire association fee, and then some.

The patio home that Gorga referred to sold for $1.2 million and is assessed at under $700,000 – a $16,000 reduction in tax obligation, $1,333 per month. I think that covers the entire association fee; and then some.

Yes, condominium / townhome / patio owners pay taxes, too often not enough. That is why builders use the tax ploy to lure prospective homeowners into their purchase. That is why 50% of town development is now from the purchase of these units.

---

So Lee, you moved into a complex whose developers didn’t know about or didn’t take advantage of 339-y and then you bought into that complex so now you’re complaining about others who made a different choice? Gotcha! As I was saying to Gorja, it’s just envy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

Grump,
We have one condo status street in Lancaster in which 2 of the homes aren't even classified as colonials.
They are classified as mansions on the assessment site. $1.2 million mansions with 3-4 acres of land.

To me, that's not a condo.

---

The price of the unit has nothing to do with it's status. There are $100,000,000 condos in other cities. I think the term 'condo' is being used here to describe a collective group of homes that share common areas and the burden of those areas maintenance. This includes streets and services like garbage and what not. In other words, I don't think the litmus test for 339-y is based on shared walls but rather shared burden of otherwise public services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grump

So Lee, you moved into a complex whose developers didn’t know about or didn’t take advantage of 339-y and then you bought into that complex so now you’re complaining about others who made a different choice? Gotcha! As I was saying to Gorja, it’s just envy.

---

Occupancy in my complex began in 1989. I moved in in 1993 understanding full well that I was to pay full town taxes and an association fee to cover all association provided services. As many other HOA’S, in 1996 we were denied Condominium Law 339-y status based on a ‘no conversion clause’ town ordinance – despite the fact we were an HOA from the get go.

Had it been ‘envy’ I could have opted to move to a development offering 339-y consideration. It's been 27 years and I am still here.

Where you label me a whiner, I consider myself an advocate for tax fairness – where everyone pays their fair share in taxes.

You speak of ‘misinformation’ and I offer you data and facts. Your return post presents nothing in the way of information – just a diversionary ‘envy’ label. That’s today’s social network, where when someone’s position is weak label the opposing individual in a derogatory manner or refer to them as a bully.

I don’t know anything about you, will not assume anything about you but have to believe you live in a condominium style dwelling getting 339-y consideration considering your position on the matter.

I have posted numerous times over the years that I am fine with getting tax reduction consideration for providing services the municipality doesn’t. Providing tax breaks that far exceed providing those town services – that oft times exceed the total association fee, and then some – is not fair to taxpayers not receiving such compensation – and to the municipality tax base as well.

Then again, who gives a **** anymore about fairness in today's 'me world'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS

The price of the unit has nothing to do with it's status. There are $100,000,000 condos in other cities. I think the term 'condo' is being used here to describe a collective group of homes that share common areas and the burden of those areas maintenance. This includes streets and services like garbage and what not. In other words, I don't think the litmus test for 339-y is based on shared walls but rather shared burden of otherwise public services.

---

My issue was more of the acreage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

Occupancy in my complex began in 1989. I moved in in 1993 understanding full well that I was to pay full town taxes and an association fee to cover all association provided services. As many other HOA’S, in 1996 we were denied Condominium Law 339-y status based on a ‘no conversion clause’ town ordinance – despite the fact we were an HOA from the get go.

Had it been ‘envy’ I could have opted to move to a development offering 339-y consideration. It's been 27 years and I am still here.

Where you label me a whiner, I consider myself an advocate for tax fairness – where everyone pays their fair share in taxes.

You speak of ‘misinformation’ and I offer you data and facts. Your return post presents nothing in the way of information – just a diversionary ‘envy’ label. That’s today’s social network, where when someone’s position is weak label the opposing individual in a derogatory manner or refer to them as a bully.

I don’t know anything about you, will not assume anything about you but have to believe you live in a condominium style dwelling getting 339-y consideration considering your position on the matter.

I have posted numerous times over the years that I am fine with getting tax reduction consideration for providing services the municipality doesn’t. Providing tax breaks that far exceed providing those town services – that oft times exceed the total association fee, and then some – is not fair to taxpayers not receiving such compensation – and to the municipality tax base as well.

Then again, who gives a **** anymore about fairness in today's 'me world'.

---

If you assume I live in a 339-y eligible property you assume incorrectly. I live in a single family home in post-war subdivision in Eggertsville. To the extent that I have hired lawn care, plowing, and other such services I pay myself and that’s my HOA fee. You only present half the facts..how much an assessment is lowered by 339-y. Why not provide HOA fees and what % of them actually pay for services that would otherwise be provided by local governments? You claim that developers can charge higher prices for 339-y eligible properties. Assuming you’re correct that there’s a premium for 339-y eligible property you should be incorporating the loss in value incurred by properties that lose 339-y eligibility and the effect of that loss on assessed value and tax revenue payable by those properties I’m all for tax equity and would favor getting rid of veterans exemptions, senior exemptions, religious exemptions, sovereign immunity exemptions and all the rest.

Quote:

---

If you assume I live in a 339-y eligible property you assume incorrectly. I live in a single family home in post-war subdivision in Eggertsville. To the extent that I have hired lawn care, plowing, and other such services I pay myself and that’s my HOA fee.

---

Thank you for sharing that information. Your analogy of contracting and paying for services in a private home vs. HOA fees is illogical.

Quote:

---

You only present half the facts..how much an assessment is lowered by 339-y. Why not provide HOA fees and what % of them actually pay for services that would otherwise be provided by local governments?

---

I have posted the information you seek numerous times over the years on the Lancaster thread. You are not a resident of Lancaster and perhaps missed that information. Do some research.

Quote:

---

You claim that developers can charge higher prices for 339-y eligible properties. Assuming you’re correct that there’s a premium for 339-y eligible property you should be incorporating the loss in value incurred by properties that lose 339-y eligibility and the effect of that loss on assessed value and tax revenue payable by those properties.

---

Again, do some research. Look up the tenants of Condominium Law 339-y and you will find its original intent was to consider only high-rise buildings in New York City. The New York State Builders Associated bastardized the ordinance and may it applicable for residential patio home / townhome / condominium style dwellings.

The Town of Lancaster has already memorialized Albany twice for relief. There isn’t an Assessor I have spoken to over the years that has not remarked that the current Law is unfair.

And yes, the developers, builders and real estate sale use it as a marketing tool. This week, as every week, there is a real estate ad for a new patio home in Lancaster, and the ad reads: Qualifies for condo status for significant property tax savings. And off-times the real estate agent will tell the buyer that they can now buy more house because of the tax savings.

If that home sells for $300,000 and the buyer gets a 50% tax assessment reduction, that buyer will be saving $4,800 annually in tax obligation. That’s $400 per month. I can assure you that there is no condo association property in Lancaster that spends anywhere near $400 of the association fee to provide for services that are not provided for by the town.

Quote:

---

I’m all for tax equity and would favor getting rid of veterans exemptions, senior exemptions, religious exemptions, sovereign immunity exemptions and all the rest.

---

And yet you are okay with a program that games the system and favors individuals who can afford to purchase pricey homes and get tax breaks to boot? Perplexing!

Here's a listing for that same development on Blackstone Ct.
The monthly association fee is $125. or $1500. annually.
The future tax savings will outweigh the association fees.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...19e1bae1_b.jpg
https://www.2findyourhome.com/propertydetail/3070655/4-Blackstone-Court_Lancaster_NY_14086

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

Here's a listing for that same development on Blackstone Ct.
The monthly association fee is $125. or $1500. annually.
The future tax savings will outweigh the association fees.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...19e1bae1_b.jpg
https://www.2findyourhome.com/propertydetail/3070655/4-Blackstone-Court_Lancaster_NY_14086

---

You really don't understand how HOAs work. They can set the dues to whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are still not responsible for costs. If the community needs a large ticket item they will use a special assessment.

Seems like you're just guilty of envy here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS

You really don't understand how HOAs work. They can set the dues to whatever they want. Doesn't mean they are still not responsible for costs. If the community needs a large ticket item they will use a special assessment.

Seems like you're just guilty of envy here...

---

When i think of the 339-y, I think of condos. I guess, I never envisioned a condo with any land mass. I was under the assumption that the HOA fees were to cover costs that other taxpayers have covered by the town. Never knew they used a special assessment for high end items. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

When i think of the 339-y, I think of condos. I guess, I never envisioned a condo with any land mass. I was under the assumption that the HOA fees were to cover costs that other taxpayers have covered by the town. Never knew they used a special assessment for high end items. Thanks

---

Yes, an HOA can set the association fee to whatever level they want. This is a new development and the fee is going to be low because there is no need for reserves to cover any expected ‘big ticket’ items for years to come. The fee now is most likely for landscaping, snow-removal and general maintenance.

Using the example provided, the 40% tax break equals a annual savings of $6,090 - $508 per month. $508 - $125 = $383 per month. So, is this individual putting the $383 into escrow to pay for future ‘big ticket’ items? Or, just buying more house – which is what the builders push – or pissing it away?

I have lived in my townhouse association for 27 years and have experienced just three ‘special assessments’ – totaling under $5,000. Half of that went towards a re-roofing project. Saving $6,090 over 25 years, that unit owner amassed $152,250 in savings for those ‘big ticket’ items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

Yes, an HOA can set the association fee to whatever level they want. This is a new development and the fee is going to be low because there is no need for reserves to cover any expected ‘big ticket’ items for years to come. The fee now is most likely for landscaping, snow-removal and general maintenance.

Using the example provided, the 40% tax break equals a annual savings of $6,090 - $508 per month. $508 - $125 = $383 per month. So, is this individual putting the $383 into escrow to pay for future ‘big ticket’ items? Or, just buying more house – which is what the builders push – or pissing it away?

I have lived in my townhouse association for 27 years and have experienced just three ‘special assessments’ – totaling under $5,000. Half of that went towards a re-roofing project. Saving $6,090 over 25 years, that unit owner amassed $152,250 in savings for those ‘big ticket’ items.

---

Wow!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

When i think of the 339-y, I think of condos. I guess, I never envisioned a condo with any land mass. I was under the assumption that the HOA fees were to cover costs that other taxpayers have covered by the town. Never knew they used a special assessment for high end items. Thanks

---

As I said before, I am pretty sure the term 'condo' is being used here to describe a collective group of homes that share common areas and the burden of those areas maintenance. 339-y is most likely poorly written law.

I'll give you an example of my community. We have a 'lake' and common area and this includes a dam for the lake. We have an HOA. Our 'lake' is also a part of the stormwater system but our community is responsible for dam and if there was a failure on it we would need to do a special assessment to cover the costs. Our liability for the dam, if it were to fail, would be over $1,000,000 but our annual dues are only several hundred dollars. We carry insurance which would cover most of the cost but would need to do a special assessment of around $1,500 to cover costs outside of the insurance policy. As a HOA, since we have the power to do a special assessment we don't need to take money from owners until we need it and only when we need it. We're not the government. :)

We don't have anything like the 339-y where I live and it's actually fair. We are not responsible for our roads but we are responsible for our street lights. I'd love nothing more to be able to gate our community as it would prevent jerks from speeding through it. If we want to get speed bumps, even though we don't own the road, we need to pay for those as an HOA.

It is anything but the free ride you seem to think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leftWNYbecauseofBS:
We don't have anything like the 339-y where I live and it's actually fair. We are not responsible for our roads but we are responsible for our street lights. I'd love nothing more to be able to gate our community as it would prevent jerks from speeding through it. If we want to get speed bumps, even though we don't own the road, we need to pay for those as an HOA.

---

That's all I ask for is fairness.
Look at the patio homes on Nichter Rd by Lorall Lake (old Willow beach). They have an HOA, in fact they're working on drainage issues at this time. They have that lake, pond whatever to take care of in accordance with our town stormwater code. Yet, those $400,000+ homes are fully taxed

Quote:

---

It is anything but the free ride you seem to think.

---

Never thought or said a free ride, just equity. :)

I have watched this issue develop, and want to add some input. As the Assessor in the Town of Amherst, where I have over 80 units with Condominium tax status, with private roads that should be paid for by the HOA's of the development, this decision by the town to fund has wide implications. Some points:

I agree that all of these units should have traffic signage that is approved by the town, and meets NY State requirements so the Police can enforce. Safety of the residents should be of the number 1 priority

BUT, all installation, purchase of the signage, maintenance of the signage should be done and paid for by the appropriate HOA, not town taxpayers. These locations, as a result of the designation of Condominium tax status under RPTL 339-y, are private. They pay significantly less in taxes as a result. As a result, anything they do should be borne by the Association. To indicate that they do pay some highway tax holds no credibility. That highway tax covers the maintenance of all town roads. For starters, after the travel the 100 feet out of the private road, they enter Juniper, Pleasant View etc., all roads maintained by Town and County highway crews.

This poor decision by the town board will have wide implications, as many of these private developments will now expect the Town of Lancaster, along with other towns, to now be responsible for this.Will this also now apply to private commercial developments like apartment complexes, office parks ,retail plazas and the like. .

Right decision for public safety, but a very bad decision by Town Board on how to fund this.

Quote:

---

DMarrano;1903476]

---

Thank you for your post Mr. Marrano. As a Town of Amherst Assessor and a taxpaying resident of the Town of Lancaster (former Assessor) you have standing and credibility. Thanks for your candor.

Quote:

---

I have watched this issue develop and want to add some input. As the Assessor in the Town of Amherst, where I have over 80 units with Condominium tax status, with private roads that should be paid for by the HOA's of the development, this decision by the town to fund has wide implications. Some points:

---

Wide implications indeed. I have already contacted my HOA, apprised them of the town’s decision and suggested my HOA (which does not get 339-y consideration) to petition for like consideration.

Quote:

---

I agree that all of these units should have traffic signage that is approved by the town, and meets NY State requirements so the Police can enforce. Safety of the residents should be of the number 1 priority.

---

Agree!

Quote:

---

BUT, all installation, purchase of the signage, maintenance of the signage should be done and paid for by the appropriate HOA, not town taxpayers. These locations, as a result of the designation of Condominium tax status under RPTL 339-y, are private. They pay significantly less in taxes as a result. As a result, anything they do should be borne by the Association. To indicate that they do pay some highway tax holds no credibility. That highway tax covers the maintenance of all town roads. For starters, after the travel the 100 feet out of the private road, they enter Juniper, Pleasant View etc., all roads maintained by Town and County highway crews.

---

Agree! I voiced opinion that the supervisor’s remark on their paying highway and bridge taxes was ludicrous, especially considering the generous 339-y tax breaks received across the board. Initially, the board was considering making the HOA pick up the costs for the materials and installation. I was surprised at the resolution outcome and even more surprised that the resolution was approved unanimously.

Quote:

---

This poor decision by the town board will have wide implications, as many of these private developments will now expect the Town of Lancaster, along with other towns, to now be responsible for this. Will this also now apply to private commercial developments like apartment complexes, office parks ,retail plazas and the like.

---

When questioned on that, the board answered commercial roads will be exempt. I am sure that will be challenged.

Quote:

---

Right decision for public safety, but a very bad decision by Town Board on how to fund this.

---

Indeed!

Lee, if the state legislature wanted to limit the applicability of 339-y to NYC they certainly know how to do it. They simply limit the applicability to cities with populations of more than a million. They routinely pass laws of local applicability by limiting their reach to municipalities of a certain size. That they chose not to do so tells me they didn’t want to limit it or at least didn’t give a rip. Gorja, a condominium is a form of ownership; it has nothing to do with value, building design, lot size or any of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

Thank you for your post Mr. Marrano. As a Town of Amherst Assessor and a taxpaying resident of the Town of Lancaster (former Assessor) you have standing and credibility. Thanks for your candor.



Wide implications indeed. I have already contacted my HOA, apprised them of the town’s decision and suggested my HOA (which does not get 339-y consideration) to petition for like consideration.



Agree!



Agree! I voiced opinion that the supervisor’s remark on their paying highway and bridge taxes was ludicrous, especially considering the generous 339-y tax breaks received across the board. Initially, the board was considering making the HOA pick up the costs for the materials and installation. I was surprised at the resolution outcome and even more surprised that the resolution was approved unanimously.



When questioned on that, the board answered commercial roads will be exempt. I am sure that will be challenged.



Indeed!

---

So the state should change its law because your town board makes poor decisions? Gee Lee, why not put together an entire list of state laws that should be repealed, modified or abrogated to bail out Lancaster residents for the incompetence of the people they elected to local office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMarrano

I have watched this issue develop, and want to add some input. As the Assessor in the Town of Amherst, where I have over 80 units with Condominium tax status, with private roads that should be paid for by the HOA's of the development, this decision by the town to fund has wide implications. Some points:

I agree that all of these units should have traffic signage that is approved by the town, and meets NY State requirements so the Police can enforce. Safety of the residents should be of the number 1 priority

BUT, all installation, purchase of the signage, maintenance of the signage should be done and paid for by the appropriate HOA, not town taxpayers. These locations, as a result of the designation of Condominium tax status under RPTL 339-y, are private. They pay significantly less in taxes as a result. As a result, anything they do should be borne by the Association. To indicate that they do pay some highway tax holds no credibility. That highway tax covers the maintenance of all town roads. For starters, after the travel the 100 feet out of the private road, they enter Juniper, Pleasant View etc., all roads maintained by Town and County highway crews.

This poor decision by the town board will have wide implications, as many of these private developments will now expect the Town of Lancaster, along with other towns, to now be responsible for this.Will this also now apply to private commercial developments like apartment complexes, office parks ,retail plazas and the like. .

Right decision for public safety, but a very bad decision by Town Board on how to fund this.

---

So the town should dictate all the terms regarding the signs but pay for none of it. If you think that the tax contributions of condo owners “ holds no credibility” (whatever the hell that means. Are you saying they really don’t pay any taxes at all? That they pay with play money?) you’re an idiot. They’re entitled to an opinion just like you are. And by the way, merely because assessors disagree with 339-y doesn’t prove that it’s wrong somehow or even ill considered. In my experience, assessors, like most government workers, adamantly oppose anything that makes them work a little more. And 339-y does that.

And everyone continues to bitch about high end condos as if they’re the only one that exist. There are many many condos that aren’t multi million dollar units. I dare say most of them aren’t. Poor Mr Marrano doesn’t even realize what he’s saying. Condo owners pay highway taxes but that “covers the maintenance of all town roads”. Exactly right and they contribute to it, as he said. Christ on a cracker it’s a wonder some local governments can even function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grump

And everyone continues to bitch about high end condos as if they’re the only one that exist. There are many many condos that aren’t multi million dollar units. I dare say most of them aren’t. Poor Mr Marrano doesn’t even realize what he’s saying. Condo owners pay highway taxes but that “covers the maintenance of all town roads”. Exactly right and they contribute to it, as he said. Christ on a cracker it’s a wonder some local governments can even function.

---

Grump

I am an idiot?? I will be happy to debate you on the issues of Condominium tax law and the inequities it creates. I work hard and am not afraid of work.

Please call my cell phone at 260-5487 and I would be happy to discuss this. Or , you can make accusations about people,insult their work ethic and hide behind your screen name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMarrano

Grump

I am an idiot?? I will be happy to debate you on the issues of Condominium tax law and the inequities it creates. I work hard and am not afraid of work.

Please call my cell phone at 260-5487 and I would be happy to discuss this. Or , you can make accusations about people,insult their work ethic and hide behind your screen name.

---

Pardon me all to hell, but it was you, not me, who said that people who point out that condo owners contribute to highway tax have no credibility. Are they lying? Do they or do they not contribute? Hell even you pointed out that what they pay covers the maintenance of all town roads. And yet you called them liars whose contributions are meaningless. It’s senseless to debate it. You can’t even prove it’s “wrong,” only that you don’t like it and don’t agree with it. And it causes inequities? There’s news! Every differential treatment built into the tax law creates inequities, STAR, senior exemptions, veterans exemptions, charitable exemptions. Want to get rid of those too? Is it fair that the hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate owned by the state at UB is exempt from taxation? Of course not; yet the law of sovereign immunity exempts it! And if you’re so committed to eliminating the condo exemption you, as an assessor, know that it can be done by switching to a homestead tax system. Use your persuasive powers and arguments and get the Amherst town board to adopt homestead taxation and all your supposed inequities would be solved. But then there’d be all those nasty inequities created by homestead taxation, wouldn’t there. This argument, like the vast majority of arguments about taxation, is about envy and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grump

Lee, if the state legislature wanted to limit the applicability of 339-y to NYC they certainly know how to do it. They simply limit the applicability to cities with populations of more than a million. They routinely pass laws of local applicability by limiting their reach to municipalities of a certain size. That they chose not to do so tells me they didn’t want to limit it or at least didn’t give a rip. Gorja, a condominium is a form of ownership; it has nothing to do with value, building design, lot size or any of that.

---

Grump, it is getting difficult to follow the logic in your support for Condominium Law 339-y generous tax breaks when you are for eliminating several tax-exempt programs and don’t live in a condominium complex (a complex which is divided into individual units and sold – patio homes, townhomes, large buildings subdivided into ownership units). It is indeed unit ownership, not apartment leasing. To claim that the amount of tax reduction is not based on unit market sale / value is illogical.

Until last year when the Dems took over control of the State Assembly and passed a bill to give municipalities authority to control the program, there was no intent in Albany to address the unfairness of Condominium Law -339y. The bill was not brought to the floor by the Republican controlled State Senate.

The Dems swore that if they took over the Senate last year, they would bring the bill to the Senate floor as well and approve it. The change would take place in 2021. Well, the Dems did take control of the Senate last and near one year later no such bill has hit the senate floor for approval.

The envy claim you again make is false narrative. I oppose the newly created ordinance (that could very well benefit my HOA) because I consider the overall adverse impact this could have on the town community taxpayer.

As I explained to you in an earlier post, I could have moved 23 years ago when my complex was denied 339-y consideration by the town (1996). It’s about fairness, not envy! As the ordinance now stands, it makes no mention of private road ineligibility for same consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by grump:
Gorja, a condominium is a form of ownership; it has nothing to do with value, building design, lot size or any of that.

---

I know that I'm still in the stone age when condos were apartments in hi-rise buildings.
I can't seem to grasp how much that scenario has changed from apartment to town home to detached single home

Quote:

---

Real Property Law – Article 9-B – Condominium Act, Section 339-Y
Assessments placed on condominium ownership fall under Real Property Law – Article 9-B – Condominium Act, Section 339-Y.

Real Property Law 339-y, adopted in 1983, states that even though a condominium unit is independently owned and sold, it has to be valued as if the whole complex was being sold as a single entity, like an apartment complex. The basis of this law is that condominiums own common area together and pay an association fee.

The condominium complex is valued as one entity just like a commercial apartment complex. Once a value is established, then the % allocation of each unit is divided into the value to come up with a unit value for each unit. All of the unit values added together will equal the value for the whole which was established for the complex.

As a result, a condominium unit may have an assessment that is less than its likely selling price, even on an assessment roll that is at 100%.

There have been periodic efforts to change Real Property Law 339y. However, at this time, no changes have been passed in Albany to change Real Property Law 339y

---

Educate me :)

So, if there were a complex with 20 units with a total square footage of 40,000 sq ft with each unit occupying 1000 sq ft each and the total value is $4,000,000.

Is each unit calculated (1,000/40,000) x $4,000,000=$100,000 or is it calculated (1,000+(.05*20,000 common area))/40,000 x $4,000,000=$200,000
I guess what I'm asking is, is each unit considered to be owning a % of the common area as part of their assessment or are is the ownership and taxation of the common area allocated to the association?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

Grump, it is getting difficult to follow the logic in your support for Condominium Law 339-y generous tax breaks when you are for eliminating several tax-exempt programs and don’t live in a condominium complex (a complex which is divided into individual units and sold – patio homes, townhomes, large buildings subdivided into ownership units). It is indeed unit ownership, not apartment leasing. To claim that the amount of tax reduction is not based on unit market sale / value is illogical.

Until last year when the Dems took over control of the State Assembly and passed a bill to give municipalities authority to control the program, there was no intent in Albany to address the unfairness of Condominium Law -339y. The bill was not brought to the floor by the Republican controlled State Senate.

The Dems swore that if they took over the Senate last year, they would bring the bill to the Senate floor as well and approve it. The change would take place in 2021. Well, the Dems did take control of the Senate last and near one year later no such bill has hit the senate floor for approval.

The envy claim you again make is false narrative. I oppose the newly created ordinance (that could very well benefit my HOA) because I consider the overall adverse impact this could have on the town community taxpayer.

As I explained to you in an earlier post, I could have moved 23 years ago when my complex was denied 339-y consideration by the town (1996). It’s about fairness, not envy! As the ordinance now stands, it makes no mention of private road ineligibility for same consideration.

---

Lee, please tell me you didn’t believe something that flows from the Democratic Totalitarian Party. Those people are professionally trained liars. I have never said I support 339-y. All I’ve said is that it’s the law. If one doesn’t like laws that create distortions in the tax system then how does one support senior exemptions, veterans exemptions and all the rest. My mother passed away in 2016. When she died her house had a veterans exemption courtesy of my late father and a senior exemption courtesy of her advanced age and her limited income. Neither my brother nor I desired being a landlord so we sold the family “Estate”. When I picked up copies of her tax receipts at the municipal building where she lived, the clerk gave me the “true tax” figures for her place, the tax that would be paid by the young couple, expecting their first, who bought that palace. The couple were neither veterans nor seniors so they had no exemptions and their property taxes were going to be higher by a factor of almost 5! My mom got a senior exemption because her income on a yearly basis was small. Now, my mom wasn’t a millionaire but she was far from poor. While her “income statement” (tax return) told one story her balance sheet told completely different one. Yet the senior exemption is based on income rather than wealth. I dare say that the couple buying the old girl’s place were far less able to pay the full shot than was my mom. The real property tax system is riddled with this type of unfairness. To oppose one while turning a blind eye to all the rest smacks of special pleading and envy. Deny it if you want. I don’t care because it speaks for itself. I’ll suggest to you what I suggested to Assessor Marrano: advocate for a homestead tax system for your town. It will eliminate the inequity you dislike so strongly and will substitute a whole bunch of different ones in its place. That should make you happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grump

Lee, please tell me you didn’t believe something that flows from the Democratic Totalitarian Party. Those people are professionally trained liars. I have never said I support 339-y. All I’ve said is that it’s the law. If one doesn’t like laws that create distortions in the tax system then how does one support senior exemptions, veterans exemptions and all the rest. My mother passed away in 2016. When she died her house had a veterans exemption courtesy of my late father and a senior exemption courtesy of her advanced age and her limited income. Neither my brother nor I desired being a landlord so we sold the family “Estate”. When I picked up copies of her tax receipts at the municipal building where she lived, the clerk gave me the “true tax” figures for her place, the tax that would be paid by the young couple, expecting their first, who bought that palace. The couple were neither veterans nor seniors so they had no exemptions and their property taxes were going to be higher by a factor of almost 5! My mom got a senior exemption because her income on a yearly basis was small. Now, my mom wasn’t a millionaire but she was far from poor. While her “income statement” (tax return) told one story her balance sheet told completely different one. Yet the senior exemption is based on income rather than wealth. I dare say that the couple buying the old girl’s place were far less able to pay the full shot than was my mom. The real property tax system is riddled with this type of unfairness. To oppose one while turning a blind eye to all the rest smacks of special pleading and envy. Deny it if you want. I don’t care because it speaks for itself. I’ll suggest to you what I suggested to Assessor Marrano: advocate for a homestead tax system for your town. It will eliminate the inequity you dislike so strongly and will substitute a whole bunch of different ones in its place. That should make you happy.

---

Excellent post! I agree with it in so many ways. The example you provide of your mother’s situation is one that is most irksome to me. I have no problem with tax breaks if they are legit and merited.

I also am seeing adults as well as young couples struggling to achieve initial home ownership or unable to purchase another home because of financial stress and with no ability for tax exemptions / reduction status. They witness others with accumulated wealth, but with low income status receiving exemptions, property tax breaks on homes they can only dream of owning.

That is why it disturbs me to see someone purchase a $400,000 home and get a $5,000+ property tax break. And, their total association fee does not come anywhere near $500 per month.

As for trusting the Democratic Party, nah. I don’t trust either party and have stated so for years: “With the rare exception of a few politicos, they all suck.”

The system is broken. In New York State even more so where taxpayers are becoming stooges for the fools and tools running our government.

BTW, Grump, I am a proponent of having a town property reassessment.

I must tell you this story because it exemplifies the illogical thinking process of some who experience a property tax increase.

I am sure you are aware that reassessment is based on !00% property market value. When they did the last reassessment in 2010, I received a phone call from a few people who knew I favored the program, asking how I could think it was fair.

The one party complained that their assessment increased by $20,000 – from $190,000 to $210,000. They believed the comparable housing report used was incorrect. I asked if they were to put their home on the market for sale what would they ask. The immediate response was: “At least $250,000.” I then asked whether they heard what they just stated in comparison to what they were just assessed. All I heard then was an “Oh ****,” and a dial tone.

Lee, that’s priceless!! I’m in favor of full value assessment all the way, too. Not to flagellate a moribund equine, but as I’ve posted so many times, the whole assessment scheme is perfectly designed to pitch neighbor agains neighbor and distract from the real cause of tax problems, the perpetually upward spiraling tax levy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grump

Lee, that’s priceless!! I’m in favor of full value assessment all the way, too. Not to flagellate a moribund equine, but as I’ve posted so many times, the whole assessment scheme is perfectly designed to pitch neighbor agains neighbor and distract from the real cause of tax problems, the perpetually upward spiraling tax levy.

---

And the sad part is we have many town boards who allow this to continue. This is the problem with monopolies on services.