City lowers millage rate by about 30% and assessment are up about 50% (Pittsburgh: for sale, home)

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by track2514

1.) Public transportation cuts = less services
2.) Increasing assessments/lowering millage = tax increase
3.) Both the Tribune Review and the Post Gazette are reporting that Pittsburgh is "lowering taxes"

Again good luck with your property assessment appeal.

So...right, your post unsurprisingly was based upon ignorance. No problem, let me help.

First, it's important to remember that the State, City, School District and Port Authority are all different entities which you appear to be conflating. There are differing degrees of interconnection and interaction amongst them but that doesn't equate coordination. It's important for an informed polity to hold officials accountable for the policies and decisions that they have control over. The "pox on all of their houses" approach blames everyone and in turn, no one.

As far as I can tell, the public transportation funding issue had virtually nothing to do with the Court-mandated (yet another separate governmental entity) reassessment, especially when coupled with the fact that the reassessment will be revenue neutral.

On it's face, point #2 in not necessarily true...or false...or particularly meaningfulness in its current form. A rudimentary understanding of algebra should be enough of a demonstration of that fact.

With regard to #3, the linked article specifically uses the term "rates" in the headline, so excuse me if I fail to see the attempts to mislead. Also, I thought it went without saying, but perhaps not, that neither the Trib nor the PG are governmental entities. The degree to which you feel they're not accurately reporting the situation can in no way be attributed to the taxing bodies themselves. I suspect that it's more a failure of reading comprehension however.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by track2514

I could care less about what you know, I am talking about media sensationalism and the average reader who may only read the headline and celebrate their decreased taxes.

I don't see how you expect them to be more detailed in their headline. You've only got so much space. The article is very brief and clear.

[trackstar13]

Lobick

Good argument so far, keep it up.
1.) You fail to realize that local governments can apply for state and federal grants. Usually these grants are written by employees who are paid with tax dollars. So yes indirectly transportation funding can be cut by cutting the grant writer.
2.) Looking at the revenue numbers is better because of all the appeals and changes that may happen before taxes are collected.
3.) It depends if the newspapers want interviews or information in the future. For instance, if the media blasts Mike Tomlin on a consistent basis his interview will be "no comment." The same is true with the local government.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by track2514

2.) Looking at the revenue numbers is better because of all the appeals and changes that may happen before taxes are collected.

The reassessment appeals process is over, which is why the millage rates have been set. The amount of changes that will happen from now on are negligible.

[trackstar13]

Originally Posted by ML North

The reassessment appeals process is over, which is why the millage rates have been set. The amount of changes that will happen from now on are negligible.

Ok this I did not know thanks for the input about the appeal deadline.

[gg]

Originally Posted by ML North

This is correct. But to take it a step further:

1428 / 1392 - 1 = 2.59% increase.

More importantly, what you need to realize is that the number of properties above the 48% average is not necessarily equal to the number of properties below the 48% average, which means that even though a property that appreciated at the average rate of 48% will see a 2.59% increase in taxes, that doesn't mean that most - or even half - of the property owners in the city will see that same increase. In fact, the way the assessments have turned out, most will see a lower increase in tax obligation than the average, and some will even see their taxes go down.

I addressed the number of properties in my other post. Bottom line is the title is a joke as far as I am concerned. I am looking at an average and they didn't address the fact how many properties saw an increase at or above 48%. I guess I am tired of the bs and it is bs.

You are obviously into math and agree with me that there is an increase of 2.59% not a decrease. That being said, the title should say, millage rates are adjusted for the increase in property values due to the reassessment, not telling people, hey look they lowered the millage rate we can dance in the streets, our taxes are going down. On average they are not going down, they are going up!

Now, if you want to bring in the equation how many homeowners had their assessment go up 48% or more vs. how many didn't that is a different story that wasn't presented in the article. If it was presented, I probably would have let this slide, but it wasn't. Therefore, I really don't understand why people are defending a poorly written crap article that wants people believing people's taxes are going down. Seems 2.59% isn't considered an increase. Granted it isn't much, but don't tell people we are getting a gift. We aren't.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by track2514

Lobick

Good argument so far, keep it up.
1.) You fail to realize that local governments can apply for state and federal grants. Usually these grants are written by employees who are paid with tax dollars. So yes indirectly transportation funding can be cut by cutting the grant writer.

I had no idea that the Port Authority's funding crisis was caused by a failure to apply for the proper grants. It was a particularly devious scheme. Clearly, the only remedy is to hire more employees at the PA in order to find all this free, overlooked money. Spine Line here we come. Your understanding of the maze that is government is truly dizzying.

3.) It depends if the newspapers want interviews or information in the future. For instance, if the media blasts Mike Tomlin on a consistent basis his interview will be "no comment." The same is true with the local government.

It appears as though your issue is with the papers, not the governmental entities they cover.

Again, I draw your attention to your original post to demonstrate how afar you've drifted in order to justify it's ingrained misinformation:

So in a nutshell lets raise taxes and provide less services while at the same time telling the public we are lowering taxes. This sounds simple enough and good luck on your appeals everyone.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I addressed the number of properties in my other post. Bottom line is the title is a joke as far as I am concerned. I am looking at an average and they didn't address the fact how many properties saw an increase at or above 48%. I guess I am tired of the bs and it is bs.

You are obviously into math and agree with me that there is an increase of 2.59% not a decrease. That being said, the title should say, millage rates are adjusted for the increase in property values due to the reassessment, not telling people, hey look they lowered the millage rate we can dance in the streets, our taxes are going down. On average they are not going down, they are going up!

Now, if you want to bring in the equation how many homeowners had their assessment go up 48% or more vs. how many didn't that is a different story that wasn't presented in the article. If it was presented, I probably would have let this slide, but it wasn't. Therefore, I really don't understand why people are defending a poorly written crap article that wants people believing people's taxes are going down. Seems 2.59% isn't considered an increase. Granted it isn't much, but don't tell people we are getting a gift. We aren't.

A 2.59% increase is only for a property that appreciated 48% since the last assessment. A majority of residential properties appreciated less than that. And from the most recent analysis I've seen, a slight majority of properties in the City will see decreased property taxes.

Look at it this way, even if 99% of people have their property taxes decrease, and 1% have their taxes increase, it is still mathematically for the average change in property taxes to be positive. In that case an overwhelming majority of people will see their taxes decrease, yet on average taxes go up! It depends on the value of real estate that has appreciated above the mean versus the value of all real estate that has appreciated below the mean. This is all about making the distinction between "mean" and "median" and "average" and "aggregate".

But what the article said is that property tax rates are going down. That remains true.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

I am looking at an average and they didn't address the fact how many properties saw an increase at or above 48%. I guess I am tired of the bs and it is bs.

What does BS mean to you? To know that if your assessment increased by 50% or so, your taxes will be about the same is very useful information for the reader. Like everyone else who pays attention, I know how much my assessment is for 2013 and what it was before. Thanks to this article, now I know basically what my 2013 property taxes will be. The article was useful and clear.

[Copanut]

If your assessment went up at the same percentage of the township you live in, your taxes will be the same. Or less.