Mr

I read with complete annoyance, Mr Donohue’s letter of 3/12/12. Mr Donohue ponders my motivation as either ignorance or disingenuousness. Mr Donohue’s fallacious assertion that the only alternative to the compliance plan was a million dollar full reassessment, 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, Mr 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. Mr 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 contributed 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 $40,000.00, 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 more.Not only is Middle townships process of only re-assessing 1/3 of the township unfair to the other 2/3’s of property owners, I have serious concerns of a “double hit”to those remaining 2/3’s who were not reassessed. The CMC taxes each town’s taxpayers pay are based on “net equalization” of each towns rateables. It is likely the 2/3 non-reassessed Middle taxpayers will see their tax rate per $100 of assessment increased to make up lost dollars for the 1/3 who had their assessment lowered. ADDITIONALLY..It is highly likely those same 2/3 taxpayers will see a higher county tax contribution to make up the loss of rateables from the 1/3 who had their assessment lowered at the county level. So it appears 1/3 would get two tax reductions and 2/3 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. As I concluded previously, political expedience seems to have been the order of the day.
Sam Kelly
Swainton
609-425-5098