Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, so now I'm thinking we are crazy. We have a beautiful home in Claremont on 1/4 acre in a great neighborhood and it's assessed at pretty close to what we originally paid (we would probably lose apx. $20K is we sold now.) Our taxes are apx. $6800.
We are looking at a house close by (on 2.4 acres and bigger) that originally sold for $275K. It is now assessed at $240K so taxes are over 9K! (apx. $2500/year more than ours.) They cannot sell and have been lowering it every 6 months, now down to $159K. We are now interested, but the taxes scare the heck out of me. The thing is, the city is doing a city-wide assessment in 2014 and the realtor and city are "pretty sure" those taxes will go down and we'll be in good shape.
Considering all the info. on this thread and the fact that Claremont needs the $$, are we CRAZY to trust that?! But, then, HOW can they keep the assessment that high if it sells so low? Don't they HAVE to lower them? SO HARD. We feel trapped.
Don't do it. We bought a house that sold for much less than the assessed price, and later on filed for an abatement... the assessor just basically threw our request into the waste basket. The town needs that tax revenue to balance its budget, so no way will the property tax on that other property ever go down in any significant way.
Miu is right, no guarantee the taxes will be lower. And unless the town has significantly cut costs, even if valuations go down they will simply increase the mill rate to make up for it. The town will get its money one way or the other.
If the residents are truly upset with the taxes in the town they need to elect fiscally sound people. It sounds like Claremont has a bunch of "It's not our money" people spending other people's money.
If you are getting so hosed on your current Claremont house (like everyone there is, unfortunately) then why would you buy a different Claremont house?
The entire Upper Valley isn't like Claremont, if you have the means to move out of that town, then I don't see why you wouldn't.
If the residents are truly upset with the taxes in the town they need to elect fiscally sound people. It sounds like Claremont has a bunch of "It's not our money" people spending other people's money.
Yes, sadly, that is the mentality here -- and the city perpetuates it to its own detriment! Why RUIN a city that made such a nice comeback in the mid-2000s?! SO FRUSTRATING. Yes, we have to work harder, but so outnumbered.
If you are getting so hosed on your current Claremont house (like everyone there is, unfortunately) then why would you buy a different Claremont house?
The entire Upper Valley isn't like Claremont, if you have the means to move out of that town, then I don't see why you wouldn't.
Well, when we first moved here, my DH commuted apx. 1/2 hour one way. Then he got another job and it was a 1-hour commute. Thankfully, he got a job right here in town -- no more commutes! He can actually walk to work! Such a HUGE blessing for us (we have several children) and it's painful to go back to commuting.
It just kills me that this city is making it impossible just to buy, sell, and LIVE here!
Saying that, we might have to look to Cornish or, possibly, Charlestown (not a much better rate there, though.) Vermont is out of the question for political reasons.
Looking at all city and town budgets, the vast majority of the budget is allocated to the school system. Therefore, the residents with the children ought to pay more for using the schools.
I agree with the majority of your post, but the portion of your tax dollars allocated to education is not a favor to other parents. You are educating the next generation of workers. Do not forget that you are going to need doctors, policemen, fire fighters, dentists, road construction workers, pharmacists, retail store workers, etc. as you age and enter retirement. These people need to be educated and all of society shares this responsibility. These are also the people that will be paying into social security and medicare while you are withdrawing. Better to have educated professionals than uneducated welfare recipients.
If anything, parents share a disproportionately larger share of the cost while still receiving the same benefits as those who choose not to have children.
The ever rising property tax burden is due to the flawed notion that money is the only solution to failing public institutions. Public institutions should be allowed to fail in the same manner that private institutions fail. Parents should be allowed to direct their children's education costs to the institution of their choosing, be it public, private, parochial or homeschooling. Parents would still be responsible for any added costs over the average town cost per child.
Not until competition and accountability are introduced into the system will costs be reduced and efficiencies improved.
Yes, sadly, that is the mentality here -- and the city perpetuates it to its own detriment! Why RUIN a city that made such a nice comeback in the mid-2000s?! SO FRUSTRATING. Yes, we have to work harder, but so outnumbered.
Move to a different town in Sullivan county like Cornish, Croydon, Sunapee, etc.
I agree with the majority of your post, but the portion of your tax dollars allocated to education is not a favor to other parents. You are educating the next generation of workers. Do not forget that you are going to need doctors, policemen, fire fighters, dentists, road construction workers, pharmacists, retail store workers, etc. as you age and enter retirement. These people need to be educated and all of society shares this responsibility. These are also the people that will be paying into social security and medicare while you are withdrawing. Better to have educated professionals than uneducated welfare recipients.
If anything, parents share a disproportionately larger share of the cost while still receiving the same benefits as those who choose not to have children.
The ever rising property tax burden is due to the flawed notion that money is the only solution to failing public institutions. Public institutions should be allowed to fail in the same manner that private institutions fail. Parents should be allowed to direct their children's education costs to the institution of their choosing, be it public, private, parochial or homeschooling. Parents would still be responsible for any added costs over the average town cost per child.
Not until competition and accountability are introduced into the system will costs be reduced and efficiencies improved.
Oh, Big O, I could get into a BIG conversation on this. You are right about how inefficiently schools are managed. This is one reason we homeschool (and I am a certified teacher in secondary education/history.) Sadly, I don't see any big changes to the system coming any time soon, so here we sit. The worst part is that they get the dang highest rate and have raised the taxes continuously since we moved here and the schools STILL aren't fixed!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
