[UC] Lost Cat - Colonial Pizza (43rd Pine)

[Linda Lee]

from a sign posted on the front door of Colonial:

LOST CAT

name:  Maure (or Mavre)

all-black thin female, just fixed, with shaved belly, small white  
patch on chest

has her claws

call 215-387-7702

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[MLamond]

Glenn,

I totally agree that straightening out the ridiculous tax assessment 
situation will not happen in time to help the libraries.   

I don't understand why Nutter doesn't back down and say "the people have 
spoken; we'll have to find that $8 million somewhere else and keep the 
libraries 
open."   He's allowing this standoff to damage his previously stellar 
reputation, for an amount so small (relatively) that it's barely noticeable in 
the 
billion dollar budget gap coming up. 

My original thought was that the fate of the libraries is now in the hands of 
City Council, and they haven't even been able to move the city forward on 
equitable property taxes, given YEARS to work on it - so we'd better not hold 
our 
breath here.   

And if the City were collecting the same amount from everybody whose house 
has the same value, maybe we wouldn't be $8 million short.

- Melani

Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
PA License Number AB048377L
3529 Lancaster Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266 - office phone 215-222-4800 #113


**
New 
year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making headlines. 
(http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)

Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[MLamond]

In a message dated 1/5/09 12:18:43 AM, briansi...@gmail.com writes:
how about this for a solution?for _primary residences_, people's 
_homes_... apply the new tax standard only to properties purchased after the 
date 
the tax standards take effect. 

 This way, current homeowners won't have to worry or make radical 
readjustments to keep their homes. Their taxes remain as they are. But if they 
sell, the 
new tax structure applies to the new owners.
 

In a message dated 1/5/09 11:38:57 AM, kallena...@msn.com writes:
> If the city were to collect the same amount from everybody whose house has 
> the same value, the City would have legions of people who would be forced 
> to move because they could no longer afford to pay the property tax. 
>  
> A person who paid $50,000 for their house in the 1960's or '70's would now 
> have to pay the same tax as someone who last year paid $500,000 for the house 
> next door. The person who paid current market value would presumably have the 
> financial ability to pay. That cannot be assumed about longterm homeowners. 
> And longterm homeowners should not be forced to choose between providing for 
> their families, and paying an exhorbitant property tax.
>  
> I think that you rather radically misconstrued my example.   I didn't say 
anything about   taxes going up on all similar houses, every time a house 
sells.  
 

The taxes on the houses in my example weren't set by the BRT AFTER the houses 
sold for $400,000 - they were set THE YEAR BEFORE the sales, when the houses 
hadn't sold at all.   The tax amounts on those houses are likely the same as 
the other homeowners on their blocks were and are currently paying - whether 
they arrived in the 1960s, as in your example, Karen, or in 2007.   This is 
definitely the case at 426 S. 47th; you can look it up on Hallwatch.org.   The 
sellers moved into the house in 1971.   Yet their tax bill, $3372, is the same 
as 
that of their neighbors who arrived on the block in 2006.  There's no 
increase for the neighbors based on the 2008 sale price, and no need for anyone 
to 
panic and move!   

My example was to show that there has to be equalization between 
neighborhoods, because assessors for different areas don't seem to be setting 
assessments 
at the same level even when the houses have the same value.   I used current 
sales because we can be most certain of the actual market value for the houses 
that just sold -   $400,000!

If the end result of the BRT's corrections is to be tax neutral, then we're 
not talking about raising everyone's tax on the $400,000 house to the amount 
being paid by the highest payer now, to $3578.   Nor are we talking about 
lowering everyone's taxes to the amount now paid by the lowest payer, $1542.   
We're 
talking about everyone paying somewhere in between those two rates.   Some 
folks would pay somewhat more, and some would pay somewhat less.   Brian, I'm 
not saying that on your block, taxes should increase to the point where they 
are 
unaffordable.   I'm saying that if houses on your block are selling at about 
$400,000 and an assessor has set a rate for your block based on that, then the 
blocks in the Graduate Hospital area where houses sell for that amount 
shouldn't be paying lower taxes than you are - and the blocks in Chestnut Hill 
where 
houses sell for that amount shouldn't be paying higher taxes than you are.   

Your ideas for different systems of taxation are interesting, Brian & Karen, 
but not currently legal; PA law says that these taxes must be equal.   The 
problem is that they are NOT equal right now; the city is breaking the law.   
The 
City is required by law to assess everyone at the same rate and have them pay 
the same property tax for all properties with the same value.  (But there are 
legal ways to write special protections into the laws to postpone or 
otherwise soften the impact on the elderly, those on fixed income, and others 
in 
special situations.   And of course, if the condition of your house is much 
different from the average condition of other houses on the block, that can 
affect 
your assessment, because it affects your value.)   

"Spot assessing" - the practice of raising the assessment only on the new 
buyer's house but not on similar houses on the block - is illegal.

Turn the example around for a minute and let's talk about another tax we pay: 
  wage tax.   Would it be legal for the city to say that as the wage tax rate 
changed (up OR down; this tax has been going down), an employee would 
continue to pay the same rate as when s/he was hired, rather than having 
his/her tax 
rate adjusted along with everyone else's rate?   Would we say, "you were able 
to pay that rate when you were hired, so you must still pay that rate, even 
though if you were hired today, your tax would be lower?   Or higher; would it 
be fair to charge a new employee a higher rate?

By law, that isn't how property or wage tax works!   Ever

RE: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[KAREN ALLEN]

"[I}f the City were collecting the same amount from everybody whose house has 
the same value...",
 
If the city were to collect the same amount from everybody whose house has the 
same value, the City would have legions of people who would be forced to move 
because they could no longer afford to pay the property tax. 
 
A person who paid $50,000 for their house in the 1960's or '70's would now have 
to pay the same tax as someone who last year paid $500,000 for the house next 
door. The person who paid current market value would presumably have the 
financial ability to pay. That cannot be assumed about longterm homeowners. And 
longterm homeowners should not be forced to choose between providing for their 
families, and paying an exhorbitant property tax.
 
Property values have already been artifically driven up. Those banks who 
essentially gave away mortgage money to unqualified buyers did the equivalent 
of pumping helium into the housing bubble. Apart from creating the current 
foreclosure crisis, the banks also brought legions of new buyers into the 
housing market to compete for a finite supply of housing,  creating additional 
demand, and thus higher prices, that would not have otherwise existed had those 
buyers been rejected for mortgages.  So on top of that mess, existing 
homeowners should now be expected to pay higher property taxes based on 
inflated home prices.
 
This illustrates why value is the least reliable basis for determining a tax, 
because it is relative, and can be easily manipulated. Should there be an 
across-the-board standard for calculating property taxes? Absolutely. Should 
"value" be the standard? Absolutely not.  Why are "equity" and "value" being 
treated as synonymous, when a tax based on an ever-fluctuating property "value" 
would only lead to economic hardship or the potential for people to lose their 
homes?  



From: mlam...@aol.comdate: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:55:05 -0500Subject: Re: [UC] 
Taxation and the librariesTo: glen...@earthlink.net; 
univc...@list.purple.comglenn,I totally agree that straightening out the 
ridiculous tax assessment situation will not happen in time to help the 
libraries.  I don't understand why Nutter doesn't back down and say "the people 
have spoken; we'll have to find that $8 million somewhere else and keep the 
libraries open."  He's allowing this standoff to damage his previously stellar 
reputation, for an amount so small (relatively) that it's barely noticeable in 
the billion dollar budget gap coming up. My original thought was that the fate 
of the libraries is now in the hands of City Council, and they haven't even 
been able to move the city forward on equitable property taxes, given YEARS to 
work on it - so we'd better not hold our breath here.  And if the City were 
collecting the same amount from everybody whose house has the same value, maybe 
we wouldn't be $8 million short.- MelaniMelani Lamond, Associate BrokerUrban & 
Bye, RealtorPA License Number AB048377L3529 Lancaster Ave., Philadelphia, PA 
19104cell phone 215-356-7266 - office phone 215-222-4800 #113**New 
year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. 
(http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)

Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[Brian Siano]

mlam...@aol.com wrote:
Your ideas for different systems of taxation are interesting, Brian & 
Karen, but not currently legal; PA law says that these taxes must be 
_equal_.  The problem is that they are NOT equal right now; the city 
is breaking the law.  The City is required by law to assess everyone 
at the same rate and have them pay the same property tax for all 
properties with the same value. * (But there are legal ways to write 
special protections into the laws to postpone or otherwise soften the 
impact on the elderly, those on fixed income, and others in special 
situations.  And of course, if the condition of your house is much 
different from the average condition of other houses on the block, 
that can affect your assessment, because it affects your value.)*  

I'm sure there are ways of getting around this. There always are.

But since the point is to soften the impact of the new tax rates on 
homeowners, how about this. When the new tax rates are established, 
we'll know what the Old and New taxes would be for any given property, 
right? If the difference is greater than some amount-- say $500-- the 
taxes on that property would be _gradually_ raised to the new levels 
over the next few years, by no more than $100 per year. The impact of 
any increases is lessened, and the taxes gradually become more fair.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[Glenn moyer]

so that we can start to straighten out our financial mess and figure out a way to keep the libraries - indeed, the whole city! - open for the long term future.
Melani,
It's important to separate the library and pool closures from the 5 year budget for right now.  M. Nutter's reaction to the court order shows conclusively that he is using the recession to justify these closures and not merely reacting to the budget problems.
The court order confirmed that he was acting inappropriately  and against the law.  While he claims that he has "done his best," he is trying every possible method to avoid proving his case.  Now, he is trying to hurt the library system much more and pit neighborhood against neighborhood.
Wouldn't it be better to obey the law and transparently prove the "no-brainer" that he is claiming, rather than to avoid proving his case at all costs?  
His reaction to the court order, which confirms that he is bound by democratic process rather than dictatorial authority, is to move ahead with all the transfers anyway! 
He is not ignoring the letter of the ruling, but he is in contempt of the implicit message.  Forcing the staffs at the 11 to be transfered, and forcing the system to pay overtime drains more money.  It will also put the system into chaos, hurt the morale of the staff and force a confusing and unplanned series of "rolling closures."
Delay, intimidate, threaten and blame others are his reactions to keep the secrets of his planned closures.  Is that the leadership style that works best during a financial crisis?  
Ironically, the more he delays proving his case, the more he creates a real crisis for the libraries.  But if he indeed never had a compelling case, like his slam-dunk move during the holidays suggested, we have a real problem.  (I attended the 2nd day of the hearing.  His city lawyers, ain't got no case!)
Unfortunately, his real reasons for these closures would become apparent during city council proceedings.  So he says, the judge and the people must suspend law and give him dictatorial authority, or we'll be sorry.  He is committed at this point.
Long term chages in tax policy, etc. will have nothing to do with stopping the privatization of libraries and pools.  Undoubtedly, you and I are going to need to lead a march on city hall and demand impeachment or jail for the mayor.
"The people, united, will never be defeated!"
Your comrade,
Glenn
-Original Message- From: mlam...@aol.com Sent: Jan 5, 2009 12:05 AM To: pf...@ccat.sas.upenn.edu, univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries In a message dated 1/3/09 7:20:36 PM:
...While the fact that the city needs additional revenue is obvious, any changes to the  property tax structure have to be made with careful deliberation as to the consequences of dramatic increases...Agreed, totally - and remember, I also wrote:...[Philadelphia Forward] & the BRT have given City Council all sorts of information on how other cities handled the transition as they updated taxes that had gotten way out of whack.  It's important that the elderly, folks on fixed incomes, and others in special situations aren't forced out of their houses if the plan for fair taxation is implemented.  But there are ways to avoid thisBut, the keeping the current system has consequences too:  the taxes are unequal, unfair, and just plain wacky.  There seems to be no logical explanation for the "Market Values" set by the BRT.  See below: here's a close-to-home example of how much we need tax reform, of how obvious it is that the BRT isn't getting the values right.  Right here in University City, each of these four single family properties shown below sold after June 1,  2008.  All sold for the exact same price: $400,000.  And each had been reassessed recently (in 2007) by the BRT.  So you'd expect that the properties would have had similar tax bills, right?  Yet, look at their 2008 tax bills:$400,000 sale price19143: 426 S. 47th St/ tax $3372/ Market Value per BRT $127,50019143: 4523 Regent St/ tax $2742/ Market Value per BRT $103,70019143: 4836 Hazel Ave/ tax $2470/ Market Value per BRT $93,40019104: 244 S. 45th St/ tax $1962/ Market Value per BRT $74,200Especially startling is the fact that the only house in the group which is in the catchment area for the Alexander School is paying the lowest tax amount!  The houses that CANNOT send their children to the desirable public school are paying $508, $780, and $1410 MORE than the house from which children CAN attend the school.But these aren't the only single family houses in Philadelphia which sold in that time period for $400,000 - here are a few others.  All had their Market Value set by the BRT in 2007 except for 1511 Kater (set in 2001).  None have partial tax abatements; I checked each one:$400,000 sale price19119: 7020 McCallum St/ tax $3845/ Market Value per BRT $145,40019118: 102 W. Highland Ave/ tax $3837/ Market Value per BRT $145,10019146: 1518 Naudain St/ tax $3189/ Marke

[UC] weekly recycling IS NOT A rumor

[Elaine Jenson]

posting on another source confirms weekly curbside recycling beginning 1/5: 
 
Weekly recycling is here!Welcome to the future of Philadelphia recycling. We've 
acted on your suggestions and are proud to announce that, as of January 5th, 
you can now recycle every week on the same day as trash day. It's easier, more 
convenient, and good for the whole city - spread the word! Weekly recycling is 
here!Welcome to the future of Philadelphia recycling. We've acted on your 
suggestions and are proud to announce that, as of January 5th, you can now 
recycle every week on the same day as trash day. It's easier, more convenient, 
and good for the whole city - spread the word!
 
 http://64.78.36.115/


--- On Sun, 1/4/09, krf...@aol.com  wrote:

From: krf...@aol.com 
Subject: Re: [UC] weekly recycling rumor
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Date: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 1:07 PM



 
 
In a message dated 1/4/2009 1:05:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, krf...@aol.com 
writes:
The notice sent out with the last set of water bills said recycling goes 
citywide starting tomorrow (1/5). 
I meant to write:
The notice sent out with the last set of water bills said weekly recycling goes 
citywide starting tomorrow (1/5). 
 
Al K





New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines.


  

Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[MLamond]

In a message dated 1/5/09 3:22:36 PM, briansi...@gmail.com writes:
> But since the point is to soften the impact of the new tax rates on
> homeowners, how about this. When the new tax rates are established,
> we'll know what the Old and New taxes would be for any given property,
> right? If the difference is greater than some amount-- say $500-- the
> taxes on that property would be _gradually_ raised to the new levels
> over the next few years, by no more than $100 per year. The impact of
> any increases is lessened, and the taxes gradually become more fair.
> 
Yes, that's one of the kinds of things that can be built in.   Definitely 
possible.

Melani




Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
PA License Number AB048377L
3529 Lancaster Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266 - office phone 215-222-4800 #113
personal fax 215-386-1345
Recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards
Diamond award for over $8 million in sales
and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards

This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is 
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or 
otherwise exempt from disclosure.  If the reader of this e-mail is not the 
intended 
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you 
have 
received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by replying 
to the original message at the listed e-mail address.  Thank You.
 




**
New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)

Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[Glenn moyer]

"I totally agree that straightening out the ridiculous tax assessment situation will not happen in time to help the libraries.  I don't understand why Nutter doesn't back down and say "the people have spoken; we'll have to find that $8 million somewhere else and keep the libraries open."  He's allowing this standoff to damage his previously stellar reputation, for an amount so small (relatively) that it's barely noticeable in the billion dollar budget gap coming up." 
That's key.  While budget and tax issues are important, these closures must be seen as a completely different matter.
Like weapons of mass destruction, freedom and democracy are real issues, those had nothing to do with invading Iraq.  The use of those "crisis" issues was meant to obfuscate the real purpose, like the budget gave Nutter an opening to make this move on closure of the people's public assets. 
To answer your confusion, he is up to something more than balancing the budget.  But one tax scheme that seems like a no-brainer to consider now, even though to Nutter, it is inviolate and can't be mentioned or considered- The ponzi scheme called the ten year tax abatement.
(Please don't tell Paul Levy I mentioned these or he will get hopping mad!)
Most well informed people recognized that a building shift was occuring in metro regions around the country when this was passed.  As the land for exoburban development ran out and the reality of oil set in, the devlopers knew they wanted to come back to the central cities which were being promoted.  
This unbelievably unfair tax welfare would not hurt those on lower incomes if it was ended.  This is the most ridiculous unfair property tax policy we have and Nutter won't consider it!
The tax abatement was totally unnecessary.  It was intended to give windfall profits to developers, who inflated the prices of condos and took 10 years of tax revenue for themselves.  We were told that riches would trickle down to the city, if we just trusted the scheme.  (Instead we got an artificial housing bubble and a budget which depends on heavy taxes for the working and poor to subsidize that welfare for rich developers.)
But Nutter won't even consider ending these windfall profits while he tries to fool us.
  Any news on the outcome of today's legal maneuvering to destroy the libraries?
Glenn
You can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time, Bob Marley
 
 
-Original Message- From: mlam...@aol.com Sent: Jan 5, 2009 10:55 AM To: glen...@earthlink.net, univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries Glenn,I totally agree that straightening out the ridiculous tax assessment situation will not happen in time to help the libraries.  I don't understand why Nutter doesn't back down and say "the people have spoken; we'll have to find that $8 million somewhere else and keep the libraries open."  He's allowing this standoff to damage his previously stellar reputation, for an amount so small (relatively) that it's barely noticeable in the billion dollar budget gap coming up. My original thought was that the fate of the libraries is now in the hands of City Council, and they haven't even been able to move the city forward on equitable property taxes, given YEARS to work on it - so we'd better not hold our breath here.  And if the City were collecting the same amount from everybody whose house has the same value, maybe we wouldn't be $8 million short.- MelaniMelani Lamond, Associate BrokerUrban & Bye, RealtorPA License Number AB048377L3529 Lancaster Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19104cell phone 215-356-7266 - office phone 215-222-4800 #113**New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026) 

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[KAREN ALLEN]

The danger to longterm homeowners comes from any law that bases real estate 
taxes on sale price or "value", because as Melani is surely aware, a lot of 
factors determines "value". The "equalization between neighborhoods" that 
Melani mentioned cannot be done if the standard being used is purchase price, 
market value, or anything else based on money, because every neighborhood is 
different. Using a few of her examples from her earlier post: 102 West Highland 
Avenue, Chestnut Hill:2 story, semi-detached houselot size: 35' x 100'total sq 
footage of lot 3500livable sq footage of house: 2090 7020 McCallum Street, West 
Mount Airy2.5 story, semi-detached house with garagelot size 50' x 143"total sq 
footage of lot: 7,190livable sq footage of house 2860 716 South Clifton Street, 
Center City (11th and Fitzwater Sts)3 story row house with garagelot size 15' x 
47'total sq footage of lot: 755livable sq footage of house 1149  1518 Naudain 
Street, Center City (beteen Lombard and South off of 15th)3 story row houselot 
size 16' x 40'total square footage of lot: 640livable square footage:1280  
Obviously, the one constant in these examples is the price: $400,000. So did 
the Chestnut Hill and Mount Airy homebuyers get a sweet deal? Did the Center 
City buyers get ripped off? They all spent $400K, and yet that same $400,000 
bought considerably more in West Mount Airy than it did in Center City. And if 
any of those buyers tried to buy something in Villanova  for $400,000, they'd 
probably be laughed at.   All of that is to say that "value" is subjective and 
is prone to a lot of factors; fairness not being one of them. If it were, no 
one would ask for and get $400K for a house in Center City that wouldn't make a 
decent closet in West Mount Airy.  As far as Melani's example of different 
rates for the city wage tax, I never said there should be different rates; I 
said that the standard (the constant that is being used for making the 
determination) should not be based on value. Is it fair for the person living 
in the considerably smaller Naudain Street house to have to pay almost the same 
tax as the  person living in the much larger McCallum and Highland ones?  But 
because they paid the same price for the houses, similar taxes is considered 
"fair". If the constant in my examples above were livable space and lot size,  
"equalization between neighborhoods" could occur. Homeowners in Center City 
would pay substantially less than the homeowners in Northwest Philadelphia. Yet 
they would all be paying at the same predictable rate. And current homeowners 
would not have to be put in the position of fearing neighborhood improvement 
and worrying about losing their homes.   

From: mlam...@aol.comdate: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:52:06 -0500Subject: Re: [UC] 
Taxation and the librariesTo: kallena...@msn.com; univcity@list.purple.com; 
briansi...@gmail.comin a message dated 1/5/09 12:18:43 AM, briansi...@gmail.com 
writes:how about this for a solution?for _primary residences_, people's 
_homes_... apply the new tax standard only to properties purchased after the 
date the tax standards take effect. This way, current homeowners won't have to 
worry or make radical readjustments to keep their homes. Their taxes remain as 
they are. But if they sell, the new tax structure applies to the new 
owners.In a message dated 1/5/09 11:38:57 AM, 
kallena...@msn.com writes:
If the city were to collect the same amount from everybody whose house has the 
same value, the City would have legions of people who would be forced to move 
because they could no longer afford to pay the property tax.  A person who paid 
$50,000 for their house in the 1960's or '70's would now have to pay the same 
tax as someone who last year paid $500,000 for the house next door. The person 
who paid current market value would presumably have the financial ability to 
pay. That cannot be assumed about longterm homeowners. And longterm homeowners 
should not be forced to choose between providing for their families, and paying 
an exhorbitant property tax. I think that you rather radically misconstrued my 
example.  I didn't say anything about  taxes going up on all similar houses, 
every time a house sells.  The taxes on the houses in my example weren't set by 
the BRT AFTER the houses sold for $400,000 - they were set THE YEAR BEFORE the 
sales, when the houses hadn't sold at all.  The tax amounts on those houses are 
likely the same as the other homeowners on their blocks were and are currently 
paying - whether they arrived in the 1960s, as in your example, Karen, or in 
2007.  This is definitely the case at 426 S. 47th; you can look it up on 
Hallwatch.org.  The sellers moved into the house in 1971.  Yet their tax bill, 
$3372, is the same as that of their neighbors who arrived on the block in 2006. 
 There's no increase for the neighbors based on the 2008 sale price, and no 
need for anyone to panic and move!  My example was to show

Re: [UC] Taxation and the libraries

[MLamond]

In a message dated 1/5/09 5:39:54 PM, kallena...@msn.com writes:
> If the constant in my examples above were livable space and lot size,  
> "equalization between neighborhoods" could occur. Homeowners in Center City 
> would pay substantially less than the homeowners in Northwest 
> Philadelphia. Yet they would all be paying at the same predictable rate. And 
> current 
> homeowners would not have to be put in the position of fearing 
> neighborhood improvement and worrying about losing their homes.
> 
Hey, I'll bet you could buy a HUGE place in Mantua for $400,000!   But would 
the person who prefers the relative safely & convenience of, say, Fitler 
Square, even though the houses there are tiny for that price, choose Mantua 
instead 
if s/he realizes there's more space available in Mantua?   I don't think so!  
 The trite but true first consideration in real estate is "location, 
location, location."   

By law, the person who owns a small house on a Mantua block is to have a 
lower tax assessment than the person who owns a large house on the same, or a 
similar, Mantua block.   But also by law, any person who owns a $400,000 house 
anywhere in the city is to have the same tax assessment as any other person who 
owns a $400,000 house, no matter where the neighborhoods are, because the law 
says the assessments are to be based on market value of the properties.   Not 
size!   Not location!   Market value.   This isn't my decision; I'm only 
repeating what the law says.  As an attorney, Karen, I'm sure that you can 
appreciate the weight of the law.   One must either follow it, or try to amend 
it.

The city, however, has been flagrantly breaking the law.   There are threats 
of a lawsuit if it continues, and I understand that the BRT is about to begin 
to rectify the situation.   NOT by the BRT raising everyone's assessment 
whenever a neighboring house is sold!   The plan is to adjust the inappropriate 
assessments up or down as needed, while at the same time, making the process 
more 
transparent so it's easy for taxpayers to see if their assessments appear 
inappropriate.   There will be no more setting a tax assessment at what's 
supposed to be about 1/3 of the market value as the BRT does now, for one thing 
- in 
the future, they will set it at what's supposed to be the TRUE market value.   
(And then, this year, the BRT will expect City Council to lower the RATE by 
which the assessment is multiplied to get the tax bill.   If City Council 
doesn't do that, the bills will be impossibly high for everyone.   But City 
Council 
is aware of this.)   With the transparency of true market value, it will be 
easy for a homeowner to appeal if his/her assessment it is not correct.   
(Under the current system, how could the buyers of 426 S. 47th, paying $400,000 
for 
the house, tell if they are being overcharged or undercharged on taxes, when 
the BRT now tells them that their new home is assessed at $40,800?)

So, we will soon have tax equalization.   And as Brian suggests, City Council 
can act to phase in tax increases to soften the blow.   And they can act to 
cap the amount the elderly or those on fixed incomes must pay, for now - 
possibly let those folks wait till they sell the house to pay the extra amount. 
  
There are many, many suggestions - pages and pages of them - which the BRT 
compiled for City Council's review, for ways to soften the blow at the same 
time 
they receive the new assessments and act to revise the rate.   But, no matter 
what, the law does not allow the city to charge less tax on houses in 
University 
City than on houses in Mt. Airy, and even less for houses in Grad Hospital, 
when the houses have the very same market value.   This will either get fixed, 
or the city will get sued and then it will get fixed.   Or Karen will take her 
case to City Council, rather than arguing with me, and change the law - 
except that I think it's actually a PA law, not a Philadelphia law, so it will 
be 
off to Commonwealth Court, to change the law for all of Pennsylvania.

And now, if we don't want to pay more tax for the libraries (though several 
people wrote to me off list and said they were willing), what is our next step 
to keep the libraries open?

- Melani


Melani Lamond, Associate Broker
Urban & Bye, Realtor
PA License Number AB048377L
3529 Lancaster Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19104
cell phone 215-356-7266 - office phone 215-222-4800 #113
personal fax 215-386-1345


**
New year...new news.  Be the first to 
know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom0026)

[UC] Apartment Listing in South Center City.

[joe]

Hello All:

I wanted to post this brilliant apartment we are attempting to relieve
ourselves of, having bought a home in west philly.  Perhaps you may know of
someone in need of a new place or a sublet even, please be generous and pass
this message on, if you know of anyone.
If you have any questions, dont hesitate to contact me.

Thanks so much and Happy New Year Neighbors!!
$1000 / 1br - Rent Reduction through MAY 09!!! (802 s. mole st)Location,
Location, Location- Charming and unique apartment/house right off the Avenue
of the Arts near Catharine St. 5 blocks or so from Kimmel Center. Close to
South street bars, Rittenhouse Square, Walnut Corridor, etc. New wonderful
retail and condo development one block east. Million dollar townhouses just
1 block north. Good for a single person OR couple. LARGE LOFTED 1BR HOUSE.
$1050/month. (no utils inc., but rather cheap- pay water to the landlord-
rest in your name) Move-in ASAP.
A FULL quaint small House with an AWESOME roofdeck and side yard.
Basement/ Washer and Dryer. small kitchen , large living area, lofted
type second floor. Great for a single or couple. one wall exposed painted
brick. BRAND NEW CARPET and paint. Beautiful wood Venetian Blinds. Great
quiet side street block. Several walls of cubbyhole shelves throughout. NEW
Shower stall and Pedestal sink in bathroom. Requires first, last, and
security. (no pets).
super attentive landlord.
Reduced rent until May 2009 at $1000. At that point, you may renegotiate
with the owner.
If you cannot see the photos in the message, you may view them here:
http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/apa/981614743.html





802 s. mole st. at catharine   google
map
   yahoo 
map


---
-
-

Check out my music at:

http://jhallmanmusic.blogetery.com
www.youtube.com/JoeHallman
www.jhallmanmusic.com
www.myspace.com/josephhallmancomposer