Concerned Remaining Taxpayers Will Take a Double Hit

To The Editor:
I read with complete annoyance, Tim Donohue’s letter of March 14. Donohue ponders my motivation as either ignorance or disingenuousness. Donohue’s fallacious assertion that the only alternative to the compliance plan was a million-dollar, full revaluation, causes just such concerns to his own motivation.
My household was one that faired well in this current fiasco. I am motivated only for those who must now pay a greater share. Beyond his letter, Donohue advises that his self-serving letter was done as a public service; that’s exactly the kind of service we’ve been getting for some time now. Donohue states he read my letter “with some consternation.” I read his letter with total disappointment.
His veiled name calling and diversion with a multitude of misleading facts, causes me to believe any respect I had for this man was completely unfounded. I have no political ambitions and no family members to benefit from my participation in this process. I hoped that my understanding and involvement could cause some advocacy for the many folks who are not getting it from our elected representatives.
Here are some excerpts from comments made by one individual and commented on line to my letter. I have not verified their accuracy but they certainly sound credible to me:
This is a ridiculous plan on so many levels and totally unfair to most of the taxpayers of Middle. The cost of a township wide re-assessment in Lower Township was $40,000, paid to the township tax assessor in overtime. He performed an in-house electronic re-assessment on properties based on recent comparable home sales prices for that specific area. Some home sales areas retained more value and some lost some. Not only is Middle township’s process of only re-assessing a third of the township unfair to the other two thirds of property owners, I have serious concerns of a “double hit” to those remaining two thirds who were not reassessed.
The Cape May County taxes each town’s taxpayers pay are based on “net equalization” of each town’s ratables. It is likely the two-thirds non-reassessed Middle taxpayers will see their tax rate per $100 of assessment increased to make up lost dollars for the one third who had their assessment lowered. Additionally, it is highly likely those same two thirds of taxpayers will see a higher county tax contribution to make up the loss of ratables from the one third who had their assessment lowered at the county level. So it appears one third would get two tax reductions and two thirds would get two tax increases to make up the difference.
I heard from many sources that there were these types of alternatives, yet our representatives refuse to acknowledge any of this. Political expedience seems to have been the order of the day.
SAM KELLY
Swainton