Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23

Thread: Lancaster: ASSESSMENTS UBER ALLES, YA!

  1. #16
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    "Watch what you say, because your words may come back to haunt you..."

    From The Buffalo News, April 29, 2020:


    "In spite of those challenges, postponing the town's revaluation was never an option, said Lancaster Supervisor Ronald Ruffino..."

    Hmmm...


    From the Buffalo News, May 14, 2020...

    "The bottom line: The lockdown has stifled the housing market, but the dynamics will be very different when real estate agents get fully back to work. Wary consumers don't rush to buy houses."

    "Housing values will fall," Palumbo said. "We don't know how much they will fall. We don't know how long they will fall."
    Reference: https://buffalonews.com/…/will-the-v...e-be-t…/
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; May 15th, 2020 at 10:40 AM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Mark:

    I understand your frustration with the assessment process taking place this year, and your right to opine..

    What I don’t understand is your obsession in supporting an individual’s assessment appeal denial when that individual is also referencing another property owners house as a comparable when it is not – and while referring to improvements not listed in the assessment property features - here finished basement and fireplace.

    Outing the Supervisor gives the impression the claim is politically motivated – especially considering the properties are not ‘comparable’s, at least IMHO.

    That said, no information has been provided when the finished basement (or fireplace if there is one) was installed. Is Supervisor Ruffino the original homeowner? Were the improvements installed before Ruffino occupying the property; if there was a previous owner? What was the code back when the basement / fireplace?

    Videos have surfaced of the Supervisor singing in what appears to be a recording room. Is that in his basement?

    A few years ago an assessment survey was mailed to all Lancaster homeowners asking about improvements that could alter market value. A finished based and fireplace do add to market value. How did the Supervisor respond?

    Is this the future, turning in neighbors for making improvements that require permits, but where homeowners do not get the required permits? Improvements that add market value but are not reflected in assessments and where homeowners who do not make like improvements are assessed equally.

    We all look at permits as being a money grab by state and local governments, however, it does help keep the assessment operation fair.

    Mark, who do you think should be answering Sojka’s questions? Where do you see this going?

  3. #18
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    What I don’t understand is your obsession in supporting an individual’s assessment appeal denial when that individual is also referencing another property owners house as a comparable when it is not – and while referring to improvements not listed in the assessment property features - here finished basement and fireplace.

    The author of the "Letter To The Editor certainly does not need my help; he is a very capable resident.

    I did use some of his posted material for example-case illustration, and did find his questions reasonably directed to the leader of this town, who demands obedience to his "Executive Orders," and who ran on a platform of transparency. Those "Letter To The Editor" questions are worthy of poising, my opinion, and hopefully, will be answered honestly and directly.

    But to your point, I know a number of people who have similar concerns over the re-assessment process, and who also have been negatively impacted by the process.

    These people do not hold political interests or favor. They work hard, raise their families, pay their taxes and obey the laws. They simply do not have the time to fully pursue the appeals, and certainly do not have the means or ability to hire lawyers to bring about what they would consider to be a more just settlement. Rather, they are rather resigned to the old adage "You Can't Fight City Hall."

    While I am sure that such a resignation goes into the calculations of the powers-that-be, it is for those faithful citizens that I have promised to raise such concerns, and it is to them that I am committed, not obsessed, with bringing to light this rather "curious" system which is not confined to Lancaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Outing the Supervisor gives the impression the claim is politically motivated – especially considering the properties are not ‘comparable’s, at least IMHO.
    I understand that the Supervisor ran on a platform of "transparency."

    It seems to me that if the Supervisor keeps faith with his campaign characterization, and is in fact truly transparent and truthfully answers the questions raised in the "Letter To The Editor," the political benefit would go to the Supervisor, not to the questioner, just my opinion.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; May 15th, 2020 at 06:18 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  4. #19
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post

    Is this the future, turning in neighbors for making improvements that require permits, but where homeowners do not get the required permits? Improvements that add market value but are not reflected in assessments and where homeowners who do not make like improvements are assessed equally.
    Nah Lee, nobody is seeking a tit-for-tat world, at least not attendant to my "unwashed masses" world. In that world, to turn your neighbors in makes you a fink, not a citizen warrior.

    With that said, with distinguished office comes conspicuous distinction.

    I do think it appropriate that our elected officials, especially those who proclaim the virtue of "transparency;" who faithfully and boldly assert and exercise the full and extraordinary powers of their office; and those whose position seemingly holds almost complete power over a determining authority, in the interests of full public confidence, need to lead by transparent, virtuous example, just my opinions of course.

    An honored title is not something to hide behind, but a status to live-up to. Equally, an elected office does not enjoy a privilege against accountability, but is attached to an expectation of exemplary conduct.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; May 15th, 2020 at 07:24 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,921
    Mark:

    This following statement declares you are interested in fairness, right? For every property owner to be assessed at a 100% market value rate and based on full disclosure as to improvements additions that impact property value.

    While I am sure that such a resignation goes into the calculations of the powers-that-be, it is for those faithful citizens that I have promised to raise such concerns, and it is to them that I am committed, not obsessed, with bringing to light this rather "curious" system which is not confined to Lancaster.

    Admirable, but unrealistic as fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. There are cheaters and always will be cheaters. And, there are property owners who take advantage of the system and pay nowhere near their fair of taxes – Condominium Law 339-y where eligible HOA unit owners get up to 55% assessment reductions, far more in tax breaks than what their Association costs are to provide services not provided by the town. Those tax breaks often exceed the entire HOA fee.

    Whenever I bring up this disparity I am approached or contacted by HOA unit owners that tell me that I am just jealous in not getting any 339-y consideration, Yes, I live in a HOA established in 1990, pay full taxes and have to pay to cover expenses for services not provided by the town. What is disturbing is seeing HOA patio home and townhome owners receiving tax brakes that far exceed total HOA fee costs.

    It is amusing to see the reaction of a $150,000 valued townhome owner when I tell them that there are patio home and townhome owners receiving three times and more in tax breaks because of their market value. When I then ask if that is fair, they walk away.

    I have no problem giving tax breaks to HOA’S to offset the costs associated to have to provide for services not provided by the town. Anything above that is unfair and the property owner is not paying his or her fair share.

    Near three years ago the NYS Democratic controlled Assembly approved a bill that would allow municipalities latitude to adjust 339-y conditions. The Dems promised that when the Senate came under Democrat control the bill would be made into law and enforceable by 2021. The Dems took over the Senate in 2019 and it has been crickets.

    Again, if all that Mr. Sojka and you claim is true with the property assessment in question, where does this go from here?

    Fairness, by whose standards.

  6. #21
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Mark:

    This following statement declares you are interested in fairness, right?

    While I am sure that such a resignation goes into the calculations of the powers-that-be, it is for those faithful citizens that I have promised to raise such concerns, and it is to them that I am committed, not obsessed, with bringing to light this rather "curious" system which is not confined to Lancaster.
    Lee,

    Yes, I am interested in the illusory concept of fairness, and spoke to the same strictly within the scope of my comments on post #15...

    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    This is not written with an arrogant representation of a full understanding of all of the technical components to the reassessment formula or the perceived virtues of the appeals process.

    Rather, it is submitted in the tradition and spirit of " Speak Truth to Power," in order to bring to light what I believe to be some troubling fundamentals of the entire process.

    First, without specific reference to Lancaster, I am troubled by any government's imposition upon the citizen, the product of its own finding, particularly when that product was perhaps resultant from what some believe to have been a closed, flawed process, and a formula potentially subject to personal whim.
    Putting it simply Lee, I do not possess your insights or skills in this re-assessment area, and never proclaimed to address this issue with such abilities.

    Rather, I have approached this issue as someone who, like many, while not holding such insights, do recognize danger and the potential for mischief. We particularly note what seems in recent days, to perhaps be a celebration of rather unchecked power by our government officials.

    As in other venues, Lancaster has a set formula to calculate the reassessments. Its elected leader(s) has designated an official(s) to apply that formula to each and every property owner, and to do so in presumably, a thoughtful, equal, and non-prejudicial way.

    While some communities perhaps with foresight, perhaps with empathy, perhaps out of a sense of fairness, decided to extend their reassessment timetables (my term), Lancaster, whether wisely or not, declined such extension. I hope that unlike my expectation of fairness, a thoughtful, equal and non-prejudicial approach to the Lancaster reassessments will not be illusory.

    With that said, in light of the national, state, county, and local circumstances attendant to the present Covid-19 emergency, is it not reasonable for those holding suspicions and doubts concerning the reassessment process and actors, to test through question, the mechanisms of such a rigid the process, which will impact the property owner for years to come, as well as the integrity of those responsible for the implementation of the process?

    To question the process and the power holders is to honor Reagan: "Doveryay Proveryay."

    If that was the essence of your question, you are once again "Spot On!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Again, if all that Mr. Sojka and you claim is true with the property assessment in question, where does this go from here?

    Fairness, by whose standards.
    You may remember that I previously wrote that I thought my assessment was fair. Throughout, I have only expressed concerns on behalf of certain friends and relatives.

    I have not strictly characterized anything as true or untrue.

    I think that the same holds true for Sojka, who appears to have merely asked questions, and limited any assertions to facts available in public records.

    As for the published Sojka questions, I believe that those questions were more than fairly asked, for all to read, and for Mr. Ruffino to answer.

    Regarding your question "...where does this go from here?," you need to ask Ruffino that question, because the choice for truthful, transparent responses reside with the Supervisor, not with Sojka.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; May 15th, 2020 at 11:00 PM.
    LIDA Member Rinow to Member Ruda: You were a sitting Trustee on the Board. Did you help support Mr. Sweeney getting a seat on the CDC Board?"

  7. #22
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Today is July 2nd and the illustrious assessor still does not have the Final roll posted on the website

    Georgia L Schlager

  8. #23
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Today is July 2nd and the illustrious assessor still does not have the Final roll posted on the website

    The total assessed value of properties was $4,525,110,623 on the tentative assessment roll.

    In this week's communications, there is a communication from the State Office of Real Property Services.
    That communication has the assessed value at $4,098,313,724

    Am I missing something or was there that much of a reduction since May?

    Georgia L Schlager

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Uber uber alles
    By grump in forum Speakup Here
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: August 13th, 2017, 08:21 PM
  2. Should Lancaster Residents be Looking at their Assessments?
    By Wag in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 16th, 2008, 03:23 PM
  3. Lancaster 100% Proprerty Tax Assessments
    By jennifer7 in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: March 8th, 2005, 10:04 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
  •