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?