Dear List: I was going to write a long reasoned response to to this below, but instead, I'll give it the answer it deserves: "Whaddaya mean the list is your playground and you get to make the rules as to who can play and what they can say??? I can play on it too!!! Whaddaya mean that you can state opinion as fact, but I can't state opinion as opinion??? Oh, yeah??? And anyway, you don't know what you're talking about-- you go to the State Legislature, not Commonwealth Court, to amend the state constitution and statutes!!! I'm going to tell my mommy on you!! RE: "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"
From: mlam...@aol.comdate: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:35:42 -0500Subject: Re: [UC] Taxation and the librariesTo: univc...@list.purple.comin 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?- MelaniMelani Lamond, Associate BrokerUrban & Bye, RealtorPA License Number AB048377L3529 Lancaster Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19104cell phone 215-356-7266 - office phone 215-222-4800 #113personal fax 215-386-1345**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
