Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

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

  1. #16
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    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!!!

    Georgia L Schlager

  2. #17
    Member leftWNYbecauseofBS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    10,873
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    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.

  3. #18
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    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



    It is anything but the free ride you seem to think.
    Never thought or said a free ride, just equity.

    Georgia L Schlager

  4. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    46
    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.

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.

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

  6. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,643
    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.

  7. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    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.

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,643
    Quote Originally Posted by DMarrano View Post
    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.
    Last edited by grump; November 28th, 2019 at 06:56 PM.

  9. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,643
    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.

  10. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    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.

  11. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,643
    Quote Originally Posted by DMarrano View Post
    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.

  12. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    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

    Georgia L Schlager

  14. #29
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    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?

    Georgia L Schlager

  15. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Town considers resolution to install intersection stop signs for private roadways
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 16th, 2019, 03:43 PM
  2. Town withdraws resolution to erect stop signs on private roadways
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2019, 03:40 AM
  3. No garage sale ‘no parking signs’ for HOA’s/private roads
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2013, 07:42 PM
  4. Town of Lancaster Schedule of Salaries approved by Town Board differ from what was bu
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 19th, 2009, 03:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •