|
Why are the homes on
Sherrillbrook Road in
neighborhood code 4817 (Starter Homes)? If you are not familiar with Sherrillbrook Road, stand
in front of the Wedgewood Apartments facing Genesee Street. Look across the street. Right now
there is shrubbery that hides these homes, but if you look closely you will see what
I am talking about. One of the homes is 2,767 sq. ft., one is 4,925
sq. ft. and the other is 5,066 sq. ft. Starter homes were supposed to
be selling between $40,000 to $75,000 in the 2003 Neighborhood Code
descriptions. Neighborhood Code 4817 has only been
trended 7.5% (in 2004) since 1995. Look them up in the assessment program--see
if you think they are assessed for their "Market Value".
Here
is a clue--the tax map number. Be sure to read "The Rest of the Story!
How come all the properties on
Bittern
Court were in Neighborhood Code 4815 (High End Homes) until 2003 when they were moved into Neighborhood
Code 4807 (Older Subdivisions)? Then in 2004 through 2006, they are back in code 4815.
Oddly enough, even though they were moved to neighborhood code 4807, a neighborhood that was revaled in 2003, their
assessments were not raised. How come?
How come homes on Roman Road were in
Neighborhood code 4811 (Rural) until 2003 when they were moved to 4807 (Older subdivisions).
Yet in
2003 even though they were in Neighborhood Code 4807, a neighborhood code
that was reassessed in 2003, their assessments didn't get raised--they
were merely trended 5.5% in 2004? How come?
How come in 2003, approximately 1/3 of
Imperial Drive in Castle Estates was in Neighborhood Code 4811 (Rural) and the other 2/3 was in Neighborhood
code 4807(Older Subdivision)? The people in Neighborhood Code 4807 all were raised by as much as 20%,
yet the people in 4811 (Rural) were not touched in 2003. How come? I guess someone realized the
mistake because in 2004, the 1/3 of the homes on Imperial Drive that were in 4811 (Rural) were moved into
4807 (Older Subdivision) and then they were trended 5.5%. Unfortunately, they also trended the
2/3's of the homes that were raised 20% the previous year by the same 5.5%. So now some homes
on Imperial Drive have been raised 20% and then trended 5.5% while others have only been trended 5.5%
How come? Here is a clue--the tax map number.
Be sure to read "The Rest of the Story!
How come all but one property on
Lloyds Lane has had
an assessment increase and one other property was only trended in 2004 even though 800 square feet of living
area was added to the home in 2003? And by the way, in a subdivision of only 12 homes like on
Lloyds Lane how come some of the properties are considered 4811 (Rural) and some are 4807 (Older Subdivision)?
How come Christopher Circle is in Neighborhood Code 4813
(Utica Influenced)? That's not where the Neighborhood code
definitions say Neighborhood code 4813 is located. While we are at it, how come Chapman Road has
three different "neighborhoods"? Some are 4811 (rural), some are 4807 (Older Subdivision)
and some are 4813 (Utica Influenced). Utica influenced, huh? Here is a clue--the tax map number.
Be sure to read "The Rest of the Story!
How come all but 2 properties on
Heatherwood Drive
were reassessed in 2003? These two homes were only trended 5.5% in 2004. By the way, all 8 homes on that
street are in neighborhood code Neighborhood 4807 (Older Subdivisions)--that neighborhood was supposed to
have been revaled in 2003.
How come some of the homes on
Gilbert Road are in Neighborhood
Code 4817 (Starter Homes)? Since 1995, code 4817 has only been trended 7.5%. Gilbert Road is an older
section of town, but how does any property on Gilbert Road qualify as a "Starter Home"?
How can an almost 4,800 square foot
contemporary home on Sanger Ave. be considered a neighborhood code 4817 (Starter Home)?
How about Hawthorne Road? All six houses
on that street are considered 4817 (Starter Homes) and were only trended
7.5% in 2004. Amazing because the smallest house on Hawthorne is
1,950 sq. ft. and I doubt anyone on that street would be selling their
home for $75,000 or let's say with inflation $100,000. For that
matter, I doubt that anyone looking for a "Starter Home" would be shopping
on Hawthorne Road. Yet Neighborhood Code 4817 is Starter Homes and
according to the assessor's definitions in 2003--Most of the homes in
Neighborhood code 4817 are in the $40,000 to $75,000 range.
Then there's Woodberry Road. Nice section of town, albeit
older homes. Probably the majority of homes would be considered executive
homes and they seem to be selling in the $200,000+ range. In 2001, about 1/3 of these homes started out as Neighborhood Code 4807
(Older Subdivision) and the other 2/3s were Neighborhood Code 4809 (Newer Subdivision). Then in 2002, all but one home was Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivision). I guess
the 2/3's that were 4809 (Newer subdivision) in 2001, were really Older Subdivision. The one not moved to Older Subdivision
was made Neighborhood Code 4806 - Townhouse in Chadwicks. O.K., still with me?
In 2003 and 2004, all but one was in Neighborhood Code 4807. The one that was a Townhouse in Chadwicks in
2002 was moved back to Neighborhood Code 4809 (Newer Subdivision) in 2003 and still remains in
Neighborhood Code 4809 today. Too bad for that person because while all his neighbors were trended 5.5% in 2004, he was trended 10% only because
he was in Neighborhood Code 4809 and not 4807 like everyone else. Oops!
So now we have a newer subdivision (Neighborhood 4809) of 1 home nestled within an older subdivision
(Neighborhood 4807) on Woodberry Road. Funny thing is that these homes were all built about the
same time--1960-mid 1970's.
Let's add Stanhope. If you are not familiar
with Stanhope, it is off of Fawncrest and Fawncrest is off of Clinton Road. In 2001, they were in
Neighborhood 4809 (newer subdivisions). In 2002, they were
moved to Neighborhood Code 4801 (the Village of New Hartford)--that's
a stretch! In 2003, they were moved to Neighborhood Code 4807 (older
subdivisions), the Neighborhood they still are in today. Looking at
the years these homes were built, the oldest was built in 1987 and the
newest in 2003. I don't know, but that doesn't sound like an older
subdivision to me. Looking at the explanation of "What is a
Neighborhood Code" below, I wonder why they kept moving them from one Neighborhood Code
to another. Here is a clue--the tax map number.
Be sure to read "The Rest of the Story!
By the way, in the May 25, 2006
Observer Dispatch, our Town Supervisor, Earle C. Reed, stated and I quote, "No town-wide
reassessment is planned by the town". If you agree with that logic, you might want to
check on the following question. How come two of the three homes on Wadsworth Lane East--
have never been reassessed--not even trended in 2004? I thought trending was applied across
the board--no one was exempt from trending. Not so. One of the homes is owned by your Town
Supervisor--never reassessed or for that matter trended. Why did the assessor think
these homes didn't increase in value? Are they in disrepair? Here
is a clue--the tax map number. One of the three homes
on Wadsworth Lane East (the only one that did receive an increase in assessment) was moved to
Neighborhood Code 4815 in 2004.
The same holds true on Sherman Lane. One
home has never been reassessed. They were moved to 4807 in 2003 when that neighborhood was
reassessed and then moved to 4811 in 2004 when that neighborhood code was reassessed and
they even added a 540 square foot addition (according to the assessment database)--yet no increase
either year.
What happened that the assessment was never
raised to reflect the increased living space? How can it be that some homes have never been reassessed
or trended for that matter even though they are in Neighborhood Codes where other assessments have been
affected? And how do you have the audacity to tell me that my assessment has gone up when others in
Neighborhoods that have been reassessed and trended have not increased even one dollar?
Here's another question--Can you tell
me what happened with the townhouses at the bottom of Danberry Road? They all started out as
Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivision). In 2003, they were all put into a Neighborhood Code
that doesn't even exist. So when it came time for reassessing
Neighborhood Code 4807 in 2003, they were already moved and didn't get
reassessed. And when it came time for trending townhouses in 2004, not one of
them was increased because they were in a neighborhood code that didn't
exist. The last time one of them sold, the sale price was $204,000 and the sale
was used for justifying raising the assessments of other homes--yet not one of them
have ever received
an increase in their assessment. Of course, if they are in a non-existent Neighborhood code, how could
they possibly be increased? By the way, they are, on average, assessed for about $135,000--quite
a difference from the 2002 sale price of $204,000 don't you think? By the time they
moved all but two of them into the "right" neighborhood code in 2005
(that's right even after pointing it out to the assessor several times two
of them are still in a non-existent neighborhood code), we were no longer in the State program.
Lucky them--they don't have to worry about their assessment being brought up to "market value" until
we do another reval. And if we don't redo neighborhood codes, two
of them will never have to worry about it. |
