More Condo Law 339-y tax break hype

[Lee Chowaniec]

Assemblywoman Monica P. Wallace, D-Lancaster, has introduced new legislation in the latest effort to curb the condo tax break. Wallace must know that the NYS Assembly passed a bill several years ago to allow Assessors Condo tax break limit oversight. A like bill was proposed to take place by the NYS Senate once the body came under Democrat control. The Senate came under Democrat control 2+ years ago, no such bill was enacted (to go into effect 2021) and this is much ado about nothing.

Equity is today’s big buzzword – the quality of being fair and impartial. This is anything but. The news reports:

Wallace, in an attempt to gain more support for her bill, agreed to apply the changes only to new construction and only to homes outside New York City. She said her focus is on free-standing, single-family homes on typical suburban-sized lots – not patio homes in dense developments.

Wallace targets but a small portion of dwellings receiving exorbitant tax breaks under Condominium Law 339-y. It speaks nothing of the thousands of patio home / townhouse / condominiums that are receiving tax breaks of up to 50% that offset not only the cost of services not provided by the town, but their entire Association fee. That is deceitful and amoral and places a burden on taxpayers who are assessed at full market value.

Builders defend tax law that gives condo owners a break; critics look to close 'unfair' loophole

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/b...home-top-story

Their assessed value can be a third lower than the home's market value, meaning the owner enjoys a comparable reduction in property taxes that can save them thousands of dollars annually.

Condominiums can look like any other home but, when they're assessed at a lower value, it shifts the tax burden onto all other property owners in the community.

[mark blazejewski]

Wallace targets but a small portion of dwellings receiving exorbitant tax breaks under Condominium Law 339-y. It speaks nothing of the thousands of patio home / townhouse / condominiums that are receiving tax breaks of up to 50% that offset not only the cost of services not provided by the town, but their entire Association fee. That is deceitful and amoral and places a burden on taxpayers who are assessed at full market value.

Builders defend tax law that gives condo owners a break; critics look to close 'unfair' loophole

Just My Opinion:

A further beneficial carrot dutifully thrown to the developers by a legislator who hails from a town led by a seemingly very pro-developer supervisor, who now governs a town where the interests developers have historically prevailed?


Did not Ruffino for vote these developments?:

*Summerfield Farms subdivision, phase 3, approved 12/03, 65 lots

*Whispering Pines subdivision approved 12/2004

*The Woodland at Pleasant Meadows subdivision, approved 2/06, 79 lots

*Summerfield Farms subdivision, part 4, approved 1/07, 45 lots

*Roseland subdivision, phase 2, approved 6/08, 59 lots

*Brookside Townhouses, approved 7/08, 39 units

*Pleasant Heights, approved 9/09, 8 homes

*Prairie Landing subdivision, approved 5/11, 21 units

*Hidden Pines, phase 1, approved 3/12

*The Greens at Pleasant Meadows, approved 5/08, 63 units

*Cross Creek subdivision, approved 1/08, 264 lots

The reader who favors over-development just may be intent on preserving the Ruffino majority on the Town Council this November, eh?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Mark:

Supervisor’s, Assessors, and municipal governments should not be made the punching bags here. It is a NYS ordinance that was approved by Albany and can only be changed by Albany.

Lancaster has ‘memorialized’ Albany several times looking to change Condominium Law 339-y, allowing the town by home rule to regulate the conditions.

The Republicans under Republican Senator Joe Bruno (a builder) was a big proponent of amending Condominium Law 339-y to include development other than New York City high-rise condominium apartments. Since the amendment neither party has taken an interest in sincerely addressing the problem or successful at modifying the ordinance by passing inconsequential bills.

HOA’s paying for services not provided by the town should be compensated for providing those services – at rates that are based on tax breaks for cost of providing only those services. Many tax breaks exceed not only those required to pay for services not provided by the town, but the entire HOA fee, and then some.

In 1996, the town of Lancaster instated its ‘no conversion clause’, preventing communities from forming HOA’s for tax break reason. However, there were several established HOA communities that were included in the ‘no conversion clause’, excluded from the Cond 339-y program as well. The reasoning: the ordinance states the inclusion is conditioned that the community seeking condo status must have applied for inclusion prior to community occupancy.

To this day, unit owners in several HOA communities are paying full town taxes and Association fees to provide for services not provided by the town – road repair / replacement, infrastructure, snow removal, tree / brush removal, etc.

Equity? From the ridiculous to the sublime! Equal situations where some receive tens of thousands of dollars in condo tax breaks, and where some HOA's receive little to none.

Politicos preach to us the importance of everyone paying their fair share in taxes based on property 100% ‘market value. Politics and fairness too often are oxymoronic.

Politicians create the issues then campaign promising to solve them.

[grump]

Lee, the article says that the law was enacted 50 years ago. That was years before Joe Bruno was elected to the Senate and way before he became majority leader. And he wasn’t a builder either. He made his bucks selling communication systems for business. But why let facts get in the way of a good smear. Every town in Erie County can avoid this whole problem by adopting a “homestead” real property tax system but few town boards have a stomach for it. In another series of posts on this topic I raised that very issue with Amherst’s meat puppet assessor and he simply stopped posting to the thread. I believe that Tonawanda adopted “homestead” taxation years ago. In Amherst, we’ve gotten a good dose of supervisor involvement in the assessment process, where Supervisor Fatso handed the out of state billionaire who owns Blvd Mall a 59% assessment reduction and passed that tax burden on to the homeowners. As for home rule, I’m no expert on it but isn’t it limited to certain areas of governance as spelled out in various state legislation? I could be wrong but I don’t think the state is going to allow local governments too much flexibility in meddling with what are supposed to be uniformly applied state tax laws. As for Wallace’s proposed legislation this kind of feel good crap is introduced all the time.

[mark blazejewski]

Mark:

Supervisor’s, Assessors, and municipal governments should not be made the punching bags here. It is a NYS ordinance that was approved by Albany and can only be changed by Albany.

Just My Opinion:

Lee, I am just pointing out what I perceive to be a culture of pro-developer(s) attitude which I believe has been resident in Lancaster's political leadership for many years, and how those leaders seem to faithfully honor that culture.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee, the article says that the law was enacted 50 years ago. That was years before Joe Bruno was elected to the Senate and way before he became majority leader. And he wasn’t a builder either. He made his bucks selling communication systems for business. But why let facts get in the way of a good smear. Every town in Erie County can avoid this whole problem by adopting a “homestead” real property tax system but few town boards have a stomach for it. In another series of posts on this topic I raised that very issue with Amherst’s meat puppet assessor and he simply stopped posting to the thread. I believe that Tonawanda adopted “homestead” taxation years ago. In Amherst, we’ve gotten a good dose of supervisor involvement in the assessment process, where Supervisor Fatso handed the out of state billionaire who owns Blvd Mall a 59% assessment reduction and passed that tax burden on to the homeowners. As for home rule, I’m no expert on it but isn’t it limited to certain areas of governance as spelled out in various state legislation? I could be wrong but I don’t think the state is going to allow local governments too much flexibility in meddling with what are supposed to be uniformly applied state tax laws. As for Wallace’s proposed legislation this kind of feel good crap is introduced all the time.

Thanks for the history lesson , Grump. My intent was not to obfuscate but to impart the knowledge I had received from following this boondoggle from 1996. Nor can I find a date of when the law was changed to include development other than New York City high-rise apartments.

I do know today's law bastardizes its original intent and is unfair to taxpayers that have to pick up the burden of a game played by developers / builders - and back in the day Bruno was a big proponent. We are getting screwed by both sides of the political aisle.

Regardless, it was a great photo op by Wallace and will die on the vine.

We in Lancaster have also been victimized by the business 'reassessment' process.

[Breezy]

I could be wrong

Gee, grump, aren't you usually wrong?

[Breezy]

Politicos preach to us the importance of everyone paying their fair share in taxes based on property 100% ‘market value. Politics and fairness too often are oxymoronic.

More a Socialist Loophole for the rich - but that's Ok with Chowaniec, of course. Socialism for the wealthy has always been one of the political values he hold so dear.

No surprise there.

Interesting, though, is the immediate and vitriolic response from the Chairman of Moan to the very wise proposal from Ms. Wallace.

And good for her!

Could Mr. Chowaniec's moaning on this issue be because Lee takes advantage of this unfair Socialist Loophole, himself ??????????????

[WNYresident]

Could Mr. Chowaniec's moaning on this issue be because Lee takes advantage of this unfair Socialist Loophole, himself ??????????????

A little bit of truth here.

Different subject.

I have seen people complaining about sprawl after they themselves were involved with sprawl when they built their home. It was ok for them to build in a new development that was farmland.. but then when it's going to happen to their development they are anti sprawl... something like that.

[Lee Chowaniec]

[QUOTE=Breezy;1994848]


Ah Breezy, there ya go again. Whether lacking in reading comprehension or simply attempting to disinform to demonize an individual, here you are as usual.

More a Socialist Loophole for the rich - but that's Ok with Chowaniec, of course. Socialism for the wealthy has always been one of the political values he hold so dear.

No surprise there.

Where or when in any of my posts over the years have I ever favored Condo Law 339-y in any fashion?

Socialism for the wealthy? What does that even mean?

Interesting, though, is the immediate and vitriolic response from the Chairman of Moan to the very wise proposal from Ms. Wallace.

And good for her!

Wise proposal to target only a small portion of the high-end tax break recipients? If Monica Wallace proceeds to deliver broad-based Condominium Law 339-y reform legislation, I will be the first to congratulate her. Been down this rabbit hole too many times.

Could Mr. Chowaniec's moaning on this issue be because Lee takes advantage of this unfair Socialist Loophole, himself ??????????????

No, I do not receive any condo tax breaks and you very well should know that from my posts.

[Lee Chowaniec]

WNYresident;1994858]

A little bit of truth here.

A little bit of truth that I receive condo tax breaks. Not true and you know that to be fact as well.

Different subject.

I have seen people complaining about sprawl after they themselves were involved with sprawl when they built their home. It was ok for them to build in a new development that was farmland.. but then when it's going to happen to their development they are anti sprawl... something like that.

Different subject indeed. I don’t know how they do things in your town (Cheektowaga), but in Lancaster people move in for the services the town provides and to raise their children in an excellent school system.

It is the town board that has the final decision on how the town is developed – smart growth or sprawl. Smart growth where the roads, infrastructure, etc. can accommodate for the growth. Sprawl, where haphazard growth occurred resulting from decades of lax zoning code adherence, where decades of rezones and even rezones of rezones occurred.

Development taking place by destroying valuable and functional wetlands resulting in much of today’s town flooding and drainage issues. Tributaries filled in as well.

Development continuing without regard of lack of primary roads and/or overburdened two-lane county roads and secondary roads.

So, the homeowner is to blame for sprawl? Nonsense! And are you saying that homeowner has no right to grieve on how his town is being developed? Or to have a voice to protect his property rights and well-being? As a taxpaying stake holder in the town he has every right to have his voice heard.

If the development is zoned appropriately, receives all environmental and other required permits, development will occur. If residents believe the town is not controlling growth by providing the services needed to accommodate the growth, that is sprawl (dumb growth), and residents have the right to complain – at least for now!

It is easy for some to say residents should have known better before moving into the town. Others will rightfully say that the town should have known better when developing the town.

Wouldn’t want to live anywhere else! Even when getting no condo tax break.

[grump]

Gee, grump, aren't you usually wrong?

Poor simple Breezy. You must be confusing me for you!

[grump]

[QUOTE=Lee Chowaniec;1994872]

Ah Breezy, there ya go again. Whether lacking in reading comprehension or simply attempting to disinform to demonize an individual, here you are as usual.



Where or when in any of my posts over the years have I ever favored Condo Law 339-y in any fashion?

Socialism for the wealthy? What does that even mean?



Wise proposal to target only a small portion of the high-end tax break recipients? If Monica Wallace proceeds to deliver broad-based Condominium Law 339-y reform legislation, I will be the first to congratulate her. Been down this rabbit hole too many times.




No, I do not receive any condo tax breaks and you very well should know that from my posts.

Cripes Lee. Don’t waste your time responding to his idiotic senseless posts! Life is too short….if you live a thousand years it’s still too short to waste on responding to poor simple Breezy.

[grump]

Lee, I don’t think the law was changed to make it applicable outside NYC. I think it was always applicable state-wide. It took awhile for developers to catch on and realize that “condominium” is not a matter of building design but a matter of legal form of ownership, allowing what appear to be ordinary residences to qualify as condos. And every exemption, senior, veterans, charity, what have you shifts the tax burden. Let’s eliminate all of them and let the chips fall where they may.

[Lee Chowaniec]

The condo conundrum – too little, too late

The Buffalo News opinion piece featured the history and the bastardization of NYS Condominium Law 339-y, its unfairness and need for change. Unfortunately the advocates for change fall short in addressing the scope of unfairness involved in the condo tax breaks given to the great majority of all 339-y recipients – not just those with large lot sizes.

Fairness is when every property owner pays his fair share of property taxes based on market value – period. Condo Law 339-y tax breaks should be allowed but based on Association costs required to provide for services not provided by the town or city – road repair / replacement, snow removal, infrastructure, etc. The tax breaks too often far exceed the costs to provide those services and too often exceed the entire Association fee.

Advocates focusing their efforts on freestanding, single-family homes on typical suburban-sized lots fall short in addressing the big picture – especially where condominiums are treated as an apartment complex for tax purposes, basing assessments on potential rental income and not market value.

The condo conundrum
Buffalo News

If state law creates tax unfairness, then the Legislature should fix it

A state law that creates dramatically different tax bills for similar properties is under fire by local and state officials who feel it robs them of revenue. Before legislators and local officials jump to conclusions, they should make a better case.

Here’s the situation: Some homeowners in Amherst, Clarence and Lancaster purchased single-family homes in nice neighborhoods, on nice sized lots that provided one giant perk: Instead of being assessed as standard single-family homes, these properties have been assessed as condominiums. The property tax saving is significant.

For example, Sean and Linda Walsh’s ranch-style home along a bicycle trail and on the edge of Lorall Lake in Lancaster is assessed at $540,000, matching the home’s fair market value. But four miles away sits a similar home with the same $540,000 market value but an assessment of $328,000 – just 61% of the other house’s figure.

Such knowledge would pique any hardworking homeowner. It has raised the attention of municipal officials who argue that homeowners taking advantage of the condominium assessment are not paying their fair share.

Defenders of the condominium assessments say homeowners with condominium status often pay homeowners association fees that cover the cost of private roads and infrastructure within the community.

That makes the fairness question simple: Are condo owners simply paying the homeowners association for services instead of localities? Or does the tax break exceed the costs that homeowners associations are picking up?

Critics point out that these same homeowners are also using municipal roads and services but are not paying the same assessment as non-condo homeowners.

The condo statute was added to the state real property tax law five decades ago. Its goal was to protect renters in high-rise buildings in New York City in case building owners tried to convert the apartments to units for sale. It treats condominiums as an apartment complex for tax purposes, basing assessments on potential rental income and not market value.

The problem is that the statute did not restrict benefits to New York City. It also did not limit the law to units within a multi-story structure. Developers and property owners across the state eagerly adopted it. It was only about 15 years ago that lawmakers updated the rule to essentially prevent owners of single-family homes from joining together to convert their residences to condominium status.

Advocates are focusing their efforts on freestanding, single-family homes on typical suburban-sized lots. That narrows the issues and helps to avoid creating different problems.

Some change in the law may be necessary. But it shouldn’t create a new unfairness that makes condo owners pay twice for some services – once to the homeowners association and again to the town or city by the town.