User Rating: / 4
PoorBest 

Sunday, 15 January 2012 06:00

Finally, the letters to the editor last week managed to cut through all the misinformation, fear-mongering and obstruction surrounding the reassessment issue and get to the real point.

The long and the short of it is that the recent reassessment is about inequality, just not, as County Executive Rich Fitzgerald would have us believe, the inequality of Allegheny County being the only county required to go through the process.

By refusing to periodically reassess property values, essentially freezing the 2002 numbers, the county has created a situation in which those persons whose property values have declined over the past decade are burdened with a disproportionately high tax bill. In contrast, those persons who have seen their property values increase over the same period have reaped a windfall through equally disproportionately low taxes. That is the real, and growing, inequality that is the core of the issue.

This widening inequality was the basis of the court decision, affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, ordering the current reassessment.

Unfortunately, the continued stonewalling of that process by the county has aggravated the situation, allowing many years' worth of changes in property values to accumulate and resulting in dramatic changes being seen all at once. This has been a frightening jolt to many property owners, something that Mr. Fitzgerald has taken full advantage of over the past weeks.

Why does Mr. Fitzgerald insist on adhering to a position that effectively denies a tax cut to those citizens who have been increasingly overassessed for the past decade?

RICHARD BANOSKY
McKeesport

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A home's worth

When it comes to the assessments, it seems like an easy fix is just common sense, which is something always missing in government.

It is true that Allegheny County housing is undervalued. But you can't expect people who have lived in their homes for decades -- and can afford to live in them now -- to be able to pay for them when now someone is telling them their homes are worth two, three and four times that, and their income has not risen quite the same way.

All buildings should be taken up 10 percent, and then when a house has sold, that is the new assessment price. That is the price someone paid for it, and that is what it must have been worth to them. Then people can afford to stay where they are.

BETSY SCHWARTZ
Oakland

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by LeBro, January 15, 2012 - 09:44 AM

Betsy - You mentioned homeowners incomes have not risen as much as the value of their homes. I think you will find one exception to that fact - Chelsa Wagner's income as County Treasurer. Sweet Chelsa was sworn in on January 2nd and after not even two weeks on the job she received a 35 percent cost of living increase raising her salary from a meager $66,500 to a livable $89,904. As Bob Prince used to say, "How sweet it is!" I'm sure her husband, Bro Thaddeus is also thrilled with he new found windfall!

• 
• +8
• 
• 

...
written by Night Shift, January 15, 2012 - 01:59 PM

I'm not 100% sure but I think an approach described by the letter writer is used elsewhere. Maryland i think. Assessments are every several years, but tax increases or decreases are capped - can only move a moderate percetage up or down each time. This lags the real values, but balances the shocks to the system. Home values are obviously reset to the market when a property is sold/bought as described above.

This means the taxes collected lag the 'real' values, but is seems reasonable to take this as a reasonable solution as opposed to searching for the perfect one that will always be contested.

• 
• +5
• 
• 

...
written by Fred_PA_2000, January 15, 2012 - 03:15 PM

I agree (with Nightshift and the original letter writer). Reset to market value whenever the home is sold, and index property values in between sales -- perhaps using Case-Shiller or some other index of home price increases. (We will need some "fix" for intra-family transfers where the home is either inherited or sold "for $1 and other valuable consideration.")

• 
• +3
• 
• 

...
written by Mermaid, January 16, 2012 - 10:56 AM

Regular re-assessments are key to dealing with inequalities and sticker shock from huge jumps in assessed value. Incremental increases are a lot easier on the budget than big swings.

Since the re-assessment is by state law supposed to be revenue neutral, a huge jump in a home's assessed value may not translate into a huge jump in property taxes. (For instance, my assessment rose significantly in 2002 but my taxes didn't go up nearly as much because the overall millage rate was lowered.)

Until the dust settles from the appeals process and the final millage rates are set, we won't know whether we're on the hook for a big jump in our actual property tax payment.

FWIW, I too think that all Pennsylvania counties need to re-assess on a regular schedule on the principle of equal treatment. For instance, recent homebuyers in Butler County must be getting screwed on their property taxes. Home values have risen significantly there (especially in the Cranberry area) but Butler hasn't re-assessed in decades, so recent sales would be getting the brunt of it. If they decide to sue, look out.

• 
• +0
• 
•