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.
"Calling the question" without "guaranteeing a solution" is an act of political cowardice which will not satisfy the courts and thus is a waste of time.
The essence of Wettick’s decision in the Pierce and Clifton cases was that “the base year method of assessment is invalid on its face because it inevitably produces arbitrary, unjust, and unreasonably discriminatory results”.
In the same ruling, Wettick argued that “only the General Assembly can develop a comprehensive system of assessing property…The current members of the General Assembly should have an opportunity to respond to this litigation by considering whether to address the issues of the absence of an oversight body, the failure of the counties to reassess, and assessments that do not meet any recognized uniformity and equality standards.”.
In discussing Wettick’s decision in Pierce and Clifton, Supreme Court Justice Castille laid out the general principle that “reviewing courts must remain cognizant of the General Assembly’s broad authority and wide discretion in matters of taxation…and the presumption that, when enacting any statute, the Legislature does not intend to violate the Constitutions of the United States or of this Commonwealth. Accordingly, a tax enactment will not be invalidated unless it 'clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution.' Judicial review of allegedly unconstitutional tax legislation thus generally focuses on whether there is 'some concrete justification for treating the relevant group of taxpayers as members of distinguishable classes subject to different tax burdens.'
As the major consideration in making this distinction, Castille points to the long-settled principle that “absolute equality and perfect uniformity are not required to satisfy the constitutional uniformity requirement”, and he summarizes the requirements of a complaint on uniformity grounds as demonstrating that "(1) the enactment results in some form of classification; and (2) such classification is unreasonable and not rationally related to any legitimate state purpose.”
In order to argue that HB 2137 is unconstitutional, it would be necessary
1) to refute the principle that the General Assembly has the power to address the question of property assessment (in the words of Wettick),
2) ignore the Gen Assembly’s “broad authority and wide discretion” (in the words of Castille), and
3) instead argue that, because Clifton and Pierce were deprived of their constitutional rights, the Gen Ass may not exercise its undoubted regulatory power over assessment of property, even when the purpose of that exercise is to ensure an improvement to the system of property assessment in order to guarantee those rights,
4) and argue furthermore that any temporary “classification” imposed on Pierce and Clifton by the HB 2137 moratorium is “unreasonable and not rationally related to any legitimate state purpose” (in Castille’s words), even though the very purpose of the moratorium is to provide the Gen Ass the opportunity to introduce reforms which would relieve the injustice suffered in the first place.
The GA undoubtedly could adopt a statewide system of property reassessments, and if it did that, such a system would get deferential (but not unquestioning) review by the state courts.
But, of course, this bill does nothing of the kind. Rather than adopt any such system, it notes doing that would be a good idea, then fails to do that, then says the courts can't order a reassessment either. That is not going to satisfy the courts.
If the GA wants to adopt a statewide reassessment scheme, then provide a reasonable implementation schedule, the courts might allow that. This legislation, however, does no such thing.
Clearly, whether HB 2137 will "satisfy the courts" is a red herring and a non-issue.
But there remains the question of whether the bill can be made law - in other words, whether the Senate will pass it without destructive amendments, and whether Uncle Tom will sign it.
I have little faith in the perspicacity of Pennsylvania legislators, and very little faith in the ability of a political culture soaked in machine patronage, jobbery and corruption to produce any significant reform. But there must be a test, and the long-overdue problem of property tax reform is as good a way to test the viability of the state's political structure as any I can think of.
The virtue of HB 2137 is to call the state's political leaders to the challenge. The fact that the bill passed the House by unanimous vote might suggest some cause for hope, and it's unlikely that the Senate will play the same trick twice, so we must wait and see. The most likely outcome, in my opinion, will be yet another failed opportunity, and yet more evidence that the state's political system is broken beyond any possibility of repair. But we must wait and see.
The problem I see with the defense of the status quo (by which I mean zealous defense of judicial intervention combined with opposition to thorough reform, whether in the area of property tax assessment or any other sphere of public business) is that those who seem most vocal in their endorsement of Wettick's adjustment to the system seem willfully oblivious to Wettick's devastating criticism of the system itself. Every significant judicial opinion on property tax issues in recent decades has drawn attention one way or another to the need for major legislative or constitutional change rather than relying on those same judges to fix the mess. Even Ira Weiss is on record advocating changes to the uniformity clause and a statewide assessment system.
HB 2137 is obviously constitutional. Nonetheless, it may not (in my view, probably won't) succeed in its purpose of prompting a major property tax reformation in PA. But anyone who thinks the effort is a futile waste of time needs to either declare their allegiance to the existing inadequate system or take a stand for a constitutional convention, because between those two alternatives there is only one path: the legislature we have, warts and all.
Clearly, whether HB 2137 will "satisfy the courts" is a red herring and a non-issue.
Right, because what we need is more taxpayer money wasted on a legislative process and ensuing litigation that will prove completely futile.
Quote:
The virtue of HB 2137 is to call the state's political leaders to the challenge.
Hah!
That is almost as good as "the purpose of that exercise is to ensure an improvement to the system of property assessment in order to guarantee those rights."
What this legislation does is attempt to stall the court-ordered reassessment process yet again. It does nothing to "ensure an improvement" or "challenge the legislature" or otherwise increase the chance of a statewide reassessment law being passed, because no one cares about vague and non-operative declarations in bills like this.
Quote:
The problem I see with the defense of the status quo (by which I mean zealous defense of judicial intervention combined with opposition to thorough reform, whether in the area of property tax assessment or any other sphere of public business)
Who takes that position?
The problem, of course, is that this bill ONLY tries to stall judicial intervention. It does nothing to actually provide "thorough reform".
Oh well. As a piece of futile political chicanery, obviously it is going to achieve its intended effects with some members of the audience.
Quote:
But anyone who thinks the effort is a futile waste of time needs to either declare their allegiance to the existing inadequate system or take a stand for a constitutional convention, because between those two alternatives there is only one path: the legislature we have, warts and all.
No problem: I agree we need a constitutional convention tasked with, among other things, tax reform.
Well, if you think you're house is UNDER valued, I wouldn't say a word.
Not sure how it could be under valued when the county thinks it's substantially bigger than it is. I felt the last assessment was a fair value. That's probably why I didn't notice the inaccurate data on the last assessment. The new assessment value is not fair since the value increased 50%. Regardless, I want the information corrected because I realize now that the previous assessment is influencing the new assessment. I shouldn't have been so accepting of the previous assessment.
Looks like the moratorium is gaining some support in the Senate. Sen. John Pippy (R, Moon): "I'm supportive of it, and hopefully we can get it through the Senate quickly."
Also, the House report on assessment may come out in favor of some kind of statewide system:
Quote:
State Rep. Jesse White, D-Cecil, one of the House bill's primary sponsors, said...a House task force that has been studying reassessment practices is scheduled to release a report on its findings and recommendations Tuesday. He said the report stresses a need for uniformity among the state's 67 counties, but there remains disagreement over how often each county should conduct a reassessment, a key challenge.
Unless and until the legislature is actually in the process of passing a uniform system, appointing "task forces" to "study" the problem is just a classic delaying tactic.
Moving past all of the rhetoric of constitutionality and case law, I just do not see many pitfalls to this legislation. This is unless, of course, you are an attorney or a licensed real estate appraiser. The reassessment process in Allegheny County has caused a real boom (and significant profits) in these businesses, and this only promises to get better as the 60000 property appellants' hearings get closer. Property appraisals are now costing $500+ for a simple appraisal, and legal representation at these hearings will be in/around $1000.
I own a very basic townhouse with a big hill within 15 feet of the unit. It has few "value" updates (Home Depot white kitchen cabinets, formica counters, unfinished basement, sheet vinyl kitchen/bath floors, etc.) and is a rental property in a nice community. The assessed value increased 42% since the property was purchased in 2000, and I am being assessed at the identical levels of my neighbors' much more enhanced homes. I wish to challenge the assessment numbers because my property, in its present condition, does not fare favorably to the computer- generated comparables that are loaded with amenities. Beyond bringing exterior pictures, what chance do I have when I go to the hearing myself ? It really stinks that I have to pay for an appraisal and an attorney to verify my claim that the county made a mistake, and I will face the school district's attorney to do this.
This reassessment process in Allegheny County places it property owners at such a disadvantage in comparison to those in other counties. At least, if we must have these hearings, why can they not be convened without the ridiculous expenses of the attorneys? I do not view the responses of our legislators as acts of cowardice, but more actions to represent their constituents in Allegheny County in the arena of statewide taxation fairness.
Moving past all of the rhetoric of constitutionality and case law, I just do not see many pitfalls to this legislation. This is unless, of course, you are an attorney or a licensed real estate appraiser. The reassessment process in Allegheny County has caused a real boom (and significant profits) in these businesses, and this only promises to get better as the 60000 property appellants' hearings get closer. Property appraisals are now costing $500+ for a simple appraisal, and legal representation at these hearings will be in/around $1000.
I own a very basic townhouse with a big hill within 15 feet of the unit. It has few "value" updates (Home Depot white kitchen cabinets, formica counters, unfinished basement, sheet vinyl kitchen/bath floors, etc.) and is a rental property in a nice community. The assessed value increased 42% since the property was purchased in 2000, and I am being assessed at the identical levels of my neighbors' much more enhanced homes. I wish to challenge the assessment numbers because my property, in its present condition, does not fare favorably to the computer- generated comparables that are loaded with amenities. Beyond bringing exterior pictures, what chance do I have when I go to the hearing myself ? It really stinks that I have to pay for an appraisal and an attorney to verify my claim that the county made a mistake, and I will face the school district's attorney to do this.
This reassessment process in Allegheny County places it property owners at such a disadvantage in comparison to those in other counties. At least, if we must have these hearings, why can they not be convened without the ridiculous expenses of the attorneys? I do not view the responses of our legislators as acts of cowardice, but more actions to represent their constituents in Allegheny County in the arena of statewide taxation fairness.
You need to shop around a little, most appraisers I know are charging 250-350 for an appeal assessment. Lawyers will charge you much more, especially if they attend the hearing with you.
A 40% increase in 10 years does not sound unreasonable, I would save the money and count on the millage rates to go down.
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.
