Two-bill plan emerging for reassessments (Pittsburgh, Wilkinsburg: for sale, wages, living)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by squarian

I have the feeling you don't really. You're saying that so that you avoid seeming like a completely heartless bastard, but you don't genuinely feel anything except whatever satisfaction you derive from your dispassionate argument.

That strikes me as entirely unwarranted. I similarly would not leap to the conclusion that people who don't like the reassessment are necessarily uncaring about the people who have gone many years with unfairly high assessments--a state of affairs that has undoubtedly forced some such people out of their homes as well (and unlike people with increased equity, they really don't have any way to stay in their home through financing).

The fact is that there are real human beings with legitimate interests on all sides of these issues, and so just because someone might see the overall picture somewhat differently from you doesn't imply they are uncaring.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Brookline_sylvia

But why fund it with property taxes in the first place, especially figuring that increased assessment values will yield additional tax revenues in coming years?

The anti-windfall laws prevent that from happening as a result of assessments. In fact, the whole point of the anti-windfall laws is to force jurisdictions to make deliberate, transparent decisions if they want to increase property taxes--which in fact is what the County did.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Lobick

My sympathy derives much more from the fact that, due to the County's lack of action, this realization has been foisted upon them all at once rather than being allowed to come to the gradual realization that, given their growing valuation and corresponding tax burden and given their household income, selling their property may be the most rational option.

Again, an entirely dispassionate argument which would not be unsuitable to an Econ paper.

Despite what you may think, I do honestly hope that your new reassessment will allow you to remain in your home as you obviously have the desire to do so.

Thank you for your kind wishes. Nonetheless, if I had not in some small measure placed the consequences of this issue in a human context, I maintain that you and others with a similar perspective would continue to see this issue simply, coldly and dispassionately as "the most rational option". I find that the perspective represented by you and others with similar views here tend to genuflect hastily in the direction of human loss and steam determinedly onward.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That strikes me as entirely unwarranted. I similarly would not leap to the conclusion that people who don't like the reassessment are necessarily uncaring about the people who have gone many years with unfairly high assessments--a state of affairs that has undoubtedly forced some such people out of their homes as well (and unlike people with increased equity, they really don't have any way to stay in their home through financing).

The fact is that there are real human beings with legitimate interests on all sides of these issues, and so just because someone might see the overall picture somewhat differently from you doesn't imply they are uncaring.

Your opinion is noted, however I include you among those whose dispassionate abstruse physiocracy pays little more than lip-service to any human dimension. You have more in common with the likes of Love2Golf than you realize. You are all the bastards of Thiers and Guizot.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The anti-windfall laws prevent that from happening as a result of assessments. In fact, the whole point of the anti-windfall laws is to force jurisdictions to make deliberate, transparent decisions if they want to increase property taxes--which in fact is what the County did.

302 Pa. Code §*1.2-203.*Real Estate Tax Revenue Limitations; Anti-Windfall Provisions. (http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/302/chapter1/s1.2-203.html - broken link)

Does this mean that if County revenue from the new values exceeds 105% of revenue that would have been generated under the previous values, then the millage rate would have to be lowered to remain in compliance, despite that the millage was just raised?

--I see this is addressed in another thread: //www.city-data.com/forum/pitts...ners-real.html

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by squarian

Your opinion is noted, however I include you among those whose dispassionate abstruse physiocracy pays little more than lip-service to any human dimension. You have more in common with the likes of Love2Golf than you realize. You are all the bastards of Thiers and Guizot.

Strong stuff!!

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Brookline_sylvia

Does this mean that if County revenue from the new values exceeds 105% of revenue that would have been generated under the previous values, then the millage rate would have to be lowered to remain in compliance, despite that the millage was just raised?

What I think the County is going for is this. Applying the increased millage to the old values generates $X in revenue, which is much more than 5% higher than what they got before. Now with the new values, they will have to take the millage back down to adjust for the increase in values, but they still want to get $X at the end.

Note all this would be straightforwardly legal if they had, say, raised the millage for the 2011 budget. The wrinkle is they are doing it for the 2012 budget, but trying to get it treated as coming before the reassessment anyway.

I honestly don't know if the courts will buy that. But in fact, they really aren't trying to get a windfall from the reassessment--they would be raising the millage anyway, with or without the reassessment.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

...the people who have gone many years with unfairly high assessments...

Do you really feel for one minute our taxes are going down? Are you kidding me? We are getting reassessed and the millage will be adjusted, hopefully and then the millages will go back up over time at the new assessed values. Last I checked the new assessed values so far are about 40% higher than before on average. Hence, we are going to get hammered!

[CaptainPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by Lobick

It's important to remember though that these types of discrepancies existed in great numbers prior to this re-assessment and were locked-in by the County's refusal to re-assess. Everybody is finding them now since they're looking at their neighbor's assessments in a way they weren't before. I purchased my home in 2007 and despite being challenged by the Pittsburgh SD and winning my assessment appeal, my home was still assessed at a value higher than many of my neighbors who were long-time residents with similar homes. A quick review of my neighborhood (War Streets) last night shows a greater degree of parity in the valuations than existed before, which to my mind is a good result for everyone.

You know, this angle eluded me. I have to concede; in this respect I think you're right...or, at least, not wrong, haha.

It's upsetting to think that what we're functionally saying here is that this big mess is favorable to that big mess. I'll hold to the assertion that this assessment is broken, haha, but I hadn't been considering it against the totality of the former (ostensibly equally broken) assessment. I don't think I'm really equipped to speak on the last assessment, so I have no basis to claim that this one is more broken.

[CaptainPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by squarian

Your opinion is noted, however I include you among those whose dispassionate abstruse physiocracy pays little more than lip-service to any human dimension. You have more in common with the likes of Love2Golf than you realize. You are all the bastards of Thiers and Guizot.

Originally Posted by Brookline_sylvia

Strong stuff!!

Come on guys, this thread is already breaking records for length of civil discussion without personal insulation. Let's not let it go to hell now.