Revaluation Numbers

Should Have Been Dumped

To the Editor:

As you read this we, the residents of Newtown, have attended a town meeting where a date was set for Budget referendum 2003, version III.

It strikes me as odd that our town and school leadership continue to remain clueless as to the level of frustration and resentment felt by many of their constituents. For the benefit of those who cannot understand the level of frustration and disenfranchisement we feel, please read on.

How many residents have set out to abandon the needs of our school children? None! We love our children. And, yes, Mr Pitkoff, we care deeply about and value our fine schools.

Have we collectively turned our backs on public safety and town services? No! We support a safe and active town. Many of us even donate additional funds to the police, fire, ambulance, library, and historical societies of Newtown.

Are we frustrated by facing 20 percent to 30 percent tax increases driven by a revaluation gone mad? Yes!

The secret formula used in revaluation and the bogus mechanism for appeal that resulted in equally arbitrary “Not Warranted” judgments without explanation is at the root of this perfect storm. Homeowners presented unequally valued comparative properties and were rebuffed. When two similar houses, one on a paved road and another on a dirt road or next to a swamp were presented in appeal, it too was not warranted.

The result is rapidly increasing residential tax burden with overall tax relief for commercial properties.

Numbers from The Bee: 2001 Homeowners’ Share of Burden, 77.8 percent; 2002 Homeowners’ Share of Burden, 83.7 percent; 2003 Projected Homeowners’ Share, 90+ percent.

Revaluation numbers, from Dottie Evans piece in The Bee on February 13, 2003: 2003 Residential Average Net Valuation Increase, 61 percent; 2003 Commercial Average Net Valuation Increase, 20 percent.

My rough calculations: 2003 Residential Average Net Burden Increase, 15 percent (mine is +27 percent); 2003 Commercial Average Net Burden Decrease, 15 percent.

One need only look at Ms Evans’ numbers to clearly see that the homeowners’ increased burdens are made worse by countless windfalls for commercial property owners who will enjoy four years of tax relief.

What to do? Take the Glendenning revaluation and dump it in Taunton Lake. Wait, my apologies to the fish and residents of Taunton Lake, it stinks too badly to impose it upon them. On second thought, the landfill would be a more appropriate place for this piece of work.

Mitch Bolinsky

3 Wiley Lane, Newtown                                                 May 20, 2003