The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

GoSlugs said:

oh she’s really gonna call the pest control guy now…

That desegregation thing is what drove her down the parkway…

mtierney said:

The Tax revaluation resulted in a $5K tax hike for our home overnight — the beginning of yearly increases. It most certainly connects to the BOE — the biggest spender of tax dollars in the budgets.

You know the old expression about how one thing leads to another?

I was disappointed by the selfishness of those fighting the reval.

mtierney said:

ml1 said:

holy cow.  You can't even get the facts of a Maplewood story right. The story in. 2000 was a tax revaluation, not a tax rate hike. And it had nothing to do with the school district.

The Tax revaluation resulted in a $5K tax hike for our home overnight — the beginning of yearly increases. It most certainly connects to the BOE — the biggest spender of tax dollars in the budgets.

You know the old expression about how one thing leads to another?

I know the old expression that repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

Your home was underassessed.  That's why your tax bill went up, you were underpaying before.

I am the person whose story nobody who takes your side wants to hear.  A couple of years before the revaluation, we moved from a small house in Maplewood in the Hilton section, to a larger house within walking distance of Maplewood Village and the train station.  At the time, I noted that the difference between our old and new tax bills was not commensurate with the difference in home values.  Then, with the revaluation, I saw that the taxes on our old house went down, and the taxes on our new one went up, because the imbalance in assessed values was corrected.

All of this unfairly cost me real money, but not because of the taxes going up on the house we were living in.  No, it cost us money because:

1. We overpaid our property taxes for years, because if the assessments had been corrected before that revaluation, the property tax bill would have been lower.  As you know, Maplewood was about 10 years overdue for a revaluation when that one took place.
2. We received less for our old house, when we sold it, because of the tax bill.  If the property taxes were lower, then the same house payment that that the buyer could afford would have had less allowance for taxes, and more for home price.
3. Arguably, we paid more for our new home, than might have been the market value if the higher tax bill was in place at the time of purchase.  That's more speculative, however, since the intrinsic value of the home was based more on its unique characteristics and location.

It's been a while since I have had to go over these details, but it's been a while since someone tried to make that same phony argument about a tax revaluation 20 years ago.

Smedley said:

well in choosing to use a word or not I generally go by whether it’s an actual word. Perhaps you have an alternative criteria, like whether or not you approve of the word.

I hope you saw last night's episode of United Shades of America on CNN. All would have been explained.

mtierney said:

The Tax revaluation resulted in a $5K tax hike for our home overnight — the beginning of yearly increases. It most certainly connects to the BOE — the biggest spender of tax dollars in the budgets.

You know the old expression about how one thing leads to another?

That's pretty nervy to complain. For years you had a tax break of underpaying by up to 5,000 a year. Instead of being grateful you complain. 

btw - that 5,000 a year you've underpaid had to be made up by your town neighbors.

nohero said:

I know the old expression that repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

Your home was underassessed.  That's why your tax bill went up, you were underpaying before.

I am the person whose story nobody who takes your side wants to hear.  A couple of years before the revaluation, we moved from a small house in Maplewood in the Hilton section, to a larger house within walking distance of Maplewood Village and the train station.  At the time, I noted that the difference between our old and new tax bills was not commensurate with the difference in home values.  Then, with the revaluation, I saw that the taxes on our old house went down, and the taxes on our new one went up, because the imbalance in assessed values was corrected.

All of this unfairly cost me real money, but not because of the taxes going up on the house we were living in.  No, it cost us money because:

1. We overpaid our property taxes for years, because if the assessments had been corrected before that revaluation, the property tax bill would have been lower.  As you know, Maplewood was about 10 years overdue for a revaluation when that one took place.
2. We received less for our old house, when we sold it, because of the tax bill.  If the property taxes were lower, then the same house payment that that the buyer could afford would have had less allowance for taxes, and more for home price.
3. Arguably, we paid more for our new home, than might have been the market value if the higher tax bill was in place at the time of purchase.  That's more speculative, however, since the intrinsic value of the home was based more on its unique characteristics and location.

It's been a while since I have had to go over these details, but it's been a while since someone tried to make that same phony argument about a tax revaluation 20 years ago.

the entire Hilton neighborhood was overpaying…. Including myself… and Vic. But some folks saw it as “desegregation” by the liberals who were taking over their town. 
That was a tumultuous time, 

Smedley said:

well in choosing to use a word or not I generally go by whether it’s an actual word. Perhaps you have an alternative criteria, like whether or not you approve of the word.

Few things more perfectly describe the intrinsic racism in our society than white people stealing a word describing awareness of injustice from people of color and turning it into an insult.

nohero said:

mtierney said:

ml1 said:

holy cow.  You can't even get the facts of a Maplewood story right. The story in. 2000 was a tax revaluation, not a tax rate hike. And it had nothing to do with the school district.

The Tax revaluation resulted in a $5K tax hike for our home overnight — the beginning of yearly increases. It most certainly connects to the BOE — the biggest spender of tax dollars in the budgets.

You know the old expression about how one thing leads to another?

I know the old expression that repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

Your home was underassessed.  That's why your tax bill went up, you were underpaying before.

It's been a while since I have had to go over these details, but it's been a while since someone tried to make that same phony argument about a tax revaluation 20 years ago.

You are indeed sainted, compassionate, and one of a kind! To be distressed that you were underpaying taxes in one house, and distressed that you were in a new house in a “better” neighborhood, with proximity to the train station,  village, and park, and perhaps not paying your “fair” share until the first reveal in 20 years took place, 20 years ago! There have been regular annual reveals since then.

Do property owners receive more income, based on the current valuation of their Homes? Absolutely not —at the rates taxes and cost of living rise. Net result is people are forced to move out of their homes, the elderly cannot afford to remain in the homes they have lived in for decades,  and the history, character, and talents of the town leave. Change is inevitable, to be celebrated, or mourned.

mtierney said:

You are indeed sainted, compassionate, and one of a kind! To be distressed that you were underpaying taxes in one house, and distressed that you were in a new house in a “better” neighborhood, with proximity to the train station,  village, and park, and perhaps not paying your “fair” share until the first reveal in 20 years took place, 20 years ago! There have been regular annual reveals since then.

Do property owners receive more income, based on the current valuation of their Homes? Absolutely not —at the rates taxes and cost of living rise. Net result is people are forced to move out of their homes, the elderly cannot afford to remain in the homes they have lived in for decades,  and the history, character, and talents of the town leave. Change is inevitable, to be celebrated, or mourned.

Which has nothing to do with the reval and everything to do with the way schools are funded in New Jersey.

Change of topic, back to the future! Are parents failing  their children?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/us/highland-park-shooting-parents.html

mtierney said:

nohero said:

mtierney said:

ml1 said:

holy cow.  You can't even get the facts of a Maplewood story right. The story in. 2000 was a tax revaluation, not a tax rate hike. And it had nothing to do with the school district.

The Tax revaluation resulted in a $5K tax hike for our home overnight — the beginning of yearly increases. It most certainly connects to the BOE — the biggest spender of tax dollars in the budgets.

You know the old expression about how one thing leads to another?

I know the old expression that repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.

Your home was underassessed.  That's why your tax bill went up, you were underpaying before.

It's been a while since I have had to go over these details, but it's been a while since someone tried to make that same phony argument about a tax revaluation 20 years ago.

You are indeed sainted, compassionate, and one of a kind! To be distressed that you were underpaying taxes in one house, and distressed that you were in a new house in a “better” neighborhood, with proximity to the train station,  village, and park, and perhaps not paying your “fair” share until the first reveal in 20 years took place, 20 years ago! 

You were b*tching (appropriate term) about that same change in a tax bill, and I was providing context.  

So take your sarcasm elsewhere, because it doesn't change the fact that you weren't telling the whole story back then, and still aren't.

One other fact about that revaluation -

All of our friends and neighbors in our former neighborhood were also paying too much property tax on their homes.  The people who came to the Municipal Building demanding that the revaluation be cancelled were, in effect, demanding that our friends and neighbors keep paying too much, just so that those in the (as Ms. Mtierney termed it) "better" neighborhood could pay less.  

mtierney said:

There have been regular annual reveals since then.

No there hasn't.

ridski said:

Smedley said:

well in choosing to use a word or not I generally go by whether it’s an actual word. Perhaps you have an alternative criteria, like whether or not you approve of the word.

Few things more perfectly describe the intrinsic racism in our society than white people stealing a word describing awareness of injustice from people of color and turning it into an insult.

So what is your answer - to not use, or perhaps even ban, the word woke? I recognize of course that the right uses the word as a cudgel, but it strikes me as just dropping it is a de facto concession to the right that the word is indeed an insult, and the right wins.

As woke means being alert to injustice in society, especially racism, being woke is a good thing. But I also think it's possible to be too woke. For example, the recalled SF school board was too woke.  

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

well in choosing to use a word or not I generally go by whether it’s an actual word. Perhaps you have an alternative criteria, like whether or not you approve of the word.

I hope you saw last night's episode of United Shades of America on CNN. All would have been explained.

Never heard of this show until now. 

Smedley said:

So what is your answer - to not use, or perhaps even ban, the word woke? I recognize of course that the right uses the word as a cudgel, but it strikes me as just dropping it is a de facto concession to the right that the word is indeed an insult, and the right wins.

This began with someone’s saying that anybody who uses “woke” as an insult can’t be taken seriously and your replying (I paraphrase), “But the dictionary.” Leaving plenty of room for people to choose not to use the word that way themselves and to dismiss those who do, and leaving only you to ask whether they thought a ban sounded like a good idea.

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

So what is your answer - to not use, or perhaps even ban, the word woke? I recognize of course that the right uses the word as a cudgel, but it strikes me as just dropping it is a de facto concession to the right that the word is indeed an insult, and the right wins.

This began with someone’s saying that anybody who uses “woke” as an insult can’t be taken seriously 

Actually it began with someone saying 

"anyone using the term "woke" without irony has forfeited the right to be taken seriously."

Which is materially different from your recollection. 

nohero said:

One other fact about that revaluation -

All of our friends and neighbors in our former neighborhood were also paying too much property tax on their homes.  The people who came to the Municipal Building demanding that the revaluation be cancelled were, in effect, demanding that our friends and neighbors keep paying too much, just so that those in the (as Ms. Mtierney termed it) "better" neighborhood could pay less.  

wrong on many levels.

Those who paid two little or too much were convinced that the firm which handled that “first in 20 year reval” did a poor job. No way did the fractioning of Maplewood create equality — rather it created angry areas of frustrated homeowners— balkanization of Maplewood.

What was done is done. It could have been better handled.

Edited to add:

Notice how Nohero and others never comment on the issue, message, or discussion? Just trash the messenger. How grown up is that?

One of the best examples of the misuse of "woke" -

Florida's "STOP the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees" Act.

Smedley said:

Actually it began with someone saying

"anyone using the term "woke" without irony has forfeited the right to be taken seriously."

Which is materially different from your recollection.

It wasn’t a recollection. What I did was I went back into the discussion, reread “using the term ‘woke’ without irony” and, as I did the first time given the context, took ml1 to be referring to anyone who used it unironically as an insult rather than anyone who unironically meant the dictionary definition of “aware of the injustice of the society in which one lives.”

ridski said:

Few things more perfectly describe the intrinsic racism in our society than white people stealing a word describing awareness of injustice from people of color and turning it into an insult.

mtierney said:

nohero said:

One other fact about that revaluation -

All of our friends and neighbors in our former neighborhood were also paying too much property tax on their homes.  The people who came to the Municipal Building demanding that the revaluation be cancelled were, in effect, demanding that our friends and neighbors keep paying too much, just so that those in the (as Ms. Mtierney termed it) "better" neighborhood could pay less.  

wrong on many levels.

Those who paid two little or too much were convinced that the firm which handled that “first in 20 year reval” did a poor job. No way did the fractioning of Maplewood create equality — rather it created angry areas of frustrated homeowners— balkanization of Maplewood.

What was done is done. It could have been better handled.

Edited to add:

Notice how Nohero and others never comment on the issue, message, or discussion? Just trash the messenger. How grown up is that?

The substance of Nohero's message was that the revaluation was long overdue.  Could it have been handled better?  Certainly, but it was long overdue.

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

Actually it began with someone saying

"anyone using the term "woke" without irony has forfeited the right to be taken seriously."

Which is materially different from your recollection.

It wasn’t a recollection. What I did was I went back into the discussion, reread “using the term ‘woke’ without irony” and, as I did the first time given the context, took ml1 to be referring to anyone who used it unironically as an insult rather than anyone who unironically meant the dictionary definition of “aware of the injustice of the society in which one lives.”

OK. But that wasn't how I read it. I read it as anyone who uses the word woke in any other way than the word as a parody of itself.  

Smedley said:

OK. But that wasn't how I read it. I read it as anyone who uses the word woke in any other way than the word as a parody of itself.  

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/cancel-culture?page=next&limit=720#discussion-replies-3570117

ml1:

fwiw, I have a hard time respecting the opinions of anyone who uses the terms "woke" or "cancel culture" not ironically. To a great extent it signifies either partisan hackery or gullibility.

mtierney said:

nohero said:

One other fact about that revaluation -

All of our friends and neighbors in our former neighborhood were also paying too much property tax on their homes.  The people who came to the Municipal Building demanding that the revaluation be cancelled were, in effect, demanding that our friends and neighbors keep paying too much, just so that those in the (as Ms. Mtierney termed it) "better" neighborhood could pay less.  

wrong on many levels.

Those who paid two little or too much were convinced that the firm which handled that “first in 20 year reval” did a poor job. No way did the fractioning of Maplewood create equality — rather it created angry areas of frustrated homeowners— balkanization of Maplewood.

What was done is done. It could have been better handled.

Edited to add:

Notice how Nohero and others never comment on the issue, message, or discussion? Just trash the messenger. How grown up is that?

I did comment on the issue, the message, and the discussion.

And your response telling me I'm "wrong" is more of the misinformation.  There were "angry and frustrated homeowners" because they were told that it was "unfair", and the "balkanization" was caused by disinformation about how the property tax system works.

And 20 years on, the same misinformation should not be spread again.

.

Smedley said:

Actually it began with someone saying 

"anyone using the term "woke" without irony has forfeited the right to be taken seriously."

Which is materially different from your recollection. 

it's also not suggesting a ban on the word. Go ahead and use the word "woke" in attempting to be taken seriously. You're free to use any means of expressing yourself. But it won't make me think you're serious, smart or thoughtful. And I doubt I'm alone in that. 

Sorry, not sorry. 

ridski said:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/cancel-culture?page=next&limit=720#discussion-replies-3570117

ml1:

fwiw, I have a hard time respecting the opinions of anyone who uses the terms "woke" or "cancel culture" not ironically. To a great extent it signifies either partisan hackery or gullibility.

I'm very consistent on this. 

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

well in choosing to use a word or not I generally go by whether it’s an actual word. Perhaps you have an alternative criteria, like whether or not you approve of the word.

I hope you saw last night's episode of United Shades of America on CNN. All would have been explained.

Never heard of this show until now. 

if you're feeling insulted by how I refer to the usage of "woke", you'll hate this episode.

ml1 said:

if you're feeling insulted by how I refer to the usage of "woke", you'll hate this episode.

I don't normally watch the show, but last night was a good episode.

Bell is remarkably patient and good natured while talking to utter idiots. That woman who said the Irish were treated worse than slaves, for instance.