At today’s County Commissioners Meeting the question was asked,” were the Commissioners singling out Mr. O’Neal when they asked; why he failed to bring an appraisal or maps to his hearing”. Please review the video of the hearing, it is obvious that the Commissioners where asking;”after you told the public what to do in preparation for your appeal, why do you come, alone(no lawyer), without the appraisal(you stated you had), and the maps(you said people must have to prove the boundaries where wrong).
You must do your homework, or get new glasses and a hearing aid. The Commissioners where only saying that Tom was acting as a hypocrite, they just danced around the issue. I, on the other hand, can put things in a more direct way, cause I’m not running for “Mr. Nice Guy”.
In order to make myself clear: Hypocrisy ( hi pok’re si ), n., pl. –sies. 1. the act or fact of putting on a false appearance of goodness or religion: Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks Invisible, except to God alone. (Milton) 2. a pretending to be what one is not; pretense; sham. I have said for some time now that the Taxplayers are a sham. Get it ?
What I don’t get is; why can no-one see the fact that the sham is to drive down land values, because Clean and Green is based on these values. The lower the value, the lower Clean and Green is set. If the values are set at market value, Clean and green has a cap, which limits the amount of tax that can be assessed. This should be enough for the land-barons, but in their infinite greed; they want more.
After today’s meeting, and the camera was off, I was approached by the new secretary of the Bedford County Taxplayers Club, who told me;” you’re the media, you have no right to applaud for anyone ( meaning; any opposing view ), when it has been witnessed that Elizabeth ( of the Gazzette) applauds for the Taxplayers speakers. Should I spell it out again ?
Pretending to be something your not is all this group of idiots can do, given the fact that; they have no facts to rely on, only the sad old rhetoric that the Commissioners noted when they ask; “ if no-one has anything new to add to the debate, would they not take up the time”. You’ll have to look at the video once again, for their exact words; I’m just expressing the obvious intent. I have heard all the crying I can stand. If you review the video, you will hear Harry Seiman speak directly to the point, and make sense.
It was also asked;” could you have the County Solicitor speak at a meeting?” This is the best idea I’ve heard yet. I’m sure the Solicitor would have to speak to the Laws that are very clear to some, but I’m sure the Taxplayers would not like what they hear, any more than Ebersole or Herline. Fat chance we’ll ever hear from him. Once again Commissioner Ebersole says;”sue me”, to which John Rafter pointed out;” that’s easy to say, since I would have to pay for lawyers, and the taxpayers would have to defend thecounty”.That’s the facts, you decide.
J.R. YOUNG
#1 by speak easy dude on October 20, 2009 - 11:26 am
Quote
you couldnt put it any better than that , yahkob . great speech!!!!
#2 by yahkob therlow on October 14, 2009 - 7:54 am
Quote
It seems to me the tax collectors love this forum for it perpetuates the con of tax collection. Tax colletion on private property is unconstitutional and an outright stealing of the peoples wealth.
STOP CO-OPERATING!
#3 by stupid concerned land owner on October 3, 2009 - 1:07 pm
Quote
i like your fighting spirit Zoey , i know im stupid and wont say another word after this writting . good by !!!
#4 by zoey on October 2, 2009 - 5:38 pm
Quote
Concerned land owner, I retract calling you stupid, how does miss informed sound for a lack of anything else that you would understand. Just remember that this is an open forum and everyone is allowed to have an opinion even you. I guess I should be offended by your comment also but then I understand how an open forum works.
You aren’t the only one who stood in line. I did that also and so did a lot of others. A lot of those have been satisfied with the values that they have received. But then again that is something that you don’t understand. Something that you don’t hear, or you may hear but just aren’t listening to because you need the drama and want to believe the worse.
No I am not a renter and I pay well above and beyond my fair share of taxes. Not big enough for a tax break like the land barons but big enough to have my land values way way over assessed. I also work hard at making a living, but I now hold a position that allows me the luxuries of my home. I didn’t move the head of the line either I worked hard to get where I am at today. I started at the bottom. I don’t feel that I am any better than the next guy, so don’t whine to me about being the lower class. I don’t see people in that way. I feel we all put our pants on the same way, one leg at a time and would never think of treating anyone any differently then I would want to be treated.
No need to feel sorry for me. But I would do my homework before you comment anymore so you are less uninformed and your comments are more structured.
You need to stop listening to what the gossip is and get the facts.
#5 by jryoung on October 2, 2009 - 11:43 am
Quote
§ 137b.53. Calculation and recalculation of preferential assessment.
(a) New values each year. As described in § 137b.51 (relating to assessment procedures), the Department will determine the land use subcategories and provide to a county use values for each land use subcategory. The Department will provide these land use subcategories and use values to each county assessor by May 1 of each year.
(b) Option of county assessor in calculation of preferential assessment. A county assessor shall calculate the preferential assessment of enrolled land using one of the following methods:
(1) Calculate the preferential assessment of all of the enrolled land in the county each year.
(2) Establish a base year for preferential assessment of enrolled land in the county, and use this base year in calculating the preferential assessment of enrolled land in the county, unless recalculation is required under subsection (c), (d), (e) or (f).
(c) Required recalculation of preferential assessment if current assessment is based upon use values higher than those provided by the Department. A county assessor shall calculate the preferential assessment of all enrolled land in the county using either the current use values and land use subcategories provided by the Department or lower use values established by the county assessor.
Example 1: All of the enrolled land in a particular county receives a preferential assessment under the act that is calculated with use values that are lower than the use values provided by the Department. The county has the option of either continuing to assess all enrolled land using its lower use values or recalculating the preferential assessment of all enrolled land using the use values provided by the Department.
Example 2: All of the enrolled land in a particular county receives a preferential assessment under the act that is calculated with use values that are higher than the use values provided by the Department. The county shall recalculate the preferential assessment of all enrolled land using either the use values provided by the Department or lower use values determined by the county assessor.
(d) Required recalculation of preferential assessment if farmstead land has not been preferentially assessed as agricultural use, agricultural reserve or forest reserve. A county assessor shall recalculate the preferential assessment on any tract of enrolled land which contains farmstead land if the earlier calculation did not value and assess the farmstead land as agricultural use, agricultural reserve or forest reserve. This recalculation shall be accomplished in accordance with § 137b.51.
Example: In calculating the preferential assessment of enrolled land, a county has assessed farmstead land at its fair market value, rather than as part of the land that is in agricultural use, agricultural reserve or forest reserve. The county shall recalculate these assessments so that the farmstead land receives preferential assessment, rather than assessment based on fair market value.
(e) Required recalculation of preferential assessment if contributory value of farm buildings has not been used in determining preferential assessment of land in agricultural use, agricultural reserve or forest reserve. A county assessor shall recalculate the preferential assessment on any tract of enrolled land if the earlier calculation did not consider the contributory value of any farm buildings on that land. This recalculation shall be accomplished in accordance with § 137b.51.
(f) Required recalculation of preferential assessment in countywide reassessment. If a county undertakes a countywide reassessment, or a countywide reassessment of enrolled land, the county assessor shall recalculate the preferential assessment of all of the enrolled land in the county, using either the current use values and land use subcategories provided by the Department.
Cross References
This section cited in 7 Pa. Code § 137b.51 (relating to assessment procedures).
#6 by John on October 2, 2009 - 10:41 am
Quote
Two things:
I am not a renter. But they pay taxes too! When an apartment complex has a tax increase, the landlord passes it along to the renters as rent increases. Sorry, no one is excluded from the effects of taxes, unless you are exempt of course.
#2 You sound bitter at the “rich”. When the two commissioners lowered the homesite under each house to $12,500, that helped the richest of us the most. If you live on an acre worth $20,000, and someone rich lives on an acre on a beautiful lake worth $70,000, now they are both $12,500. What you support just hurt you by fooling you into thinking they were lowering taxes, when they were just lowering assessments and shifting taxes.
#7 by stupid concerned land owner on October 2, 2009 - 12:24 am
Quote
zoey, i can do without the name calling ,just shows how rude you are . i may not be smart as you think you are , but i hear what people are saying and its not good . i stood in line for 8 hours, believe me it wasnt fun , you should of heard the comments that were made . missed a days work of minimum wage ,trying to get my land values down . but some people i know sitting in there rich fancy houses could care less about us lower class , trying to hold on for what we worked hard for . i feel sorry for you !!!!
#8 by stupid concerned land owner on October 1, 2009 - 11:51 pm
Quote
sounds to me you dont own no land , probaby a renter !!
#9 by John on October 1, 2009 - 7:40 pm
Quote
JR- I appologize if you thought i was attacking you. I can see how you might get defensive these days. I really think you are on the right track. I bet I am on this site as much as anyone. I am a supporter. But I don’t think any assessment values have impact on clean and green values. If that were the case, the old clean and green values would be VERY VERY low because the values were set back in 1957. But I don’t think they were much lower a year ago. As a matter of fact, I doubt the State has Bedford’s new assessments. So they set their numbers by what they find the farmers can produce, not on assessments.
I could be wrong, but I really don’t think so. If I was wrong, but clean and green numbers would go up or down in York County when they reassessed, but I don’t think they did.
By the way, York reassessed twice since I bought land there in 1995. And they didn’t have these problems. Why? Because a small group wasnt able to con a couple commissioners. As a matter of fact, the commissioners stayed out of it. Can you imagine?
Sorry again if I came off wrong. I just think you might be off when it comes to clean and green and where the state gets its figures.
Keep up the good work!
#10 by jryoung on October 1, 2009 - 6:58 pm
Quote
John, Duh, you answered your own question, the state sets the clean and green BASED ON ESTABLISHED VALUES, driving down values drives down clean and green, if the values were raised clean and green has a cap to overcome it, I did my homework AS ALWAYS
#11 by John on October 1, 2009 - 6:14 pm
Quote
JR- I don’t believe you are correct in your understanding of Clean and Green. I believe the State sets those values based on some sort of market. So the Commissioners and large land owners can screw things up all they want, the State will still do their studies and come up with a number every year. The assessment process and the Clean and Green value process are mutually exclusive. At least that is my understanding. You can check by looking up the historical Clean and Green rates for PA. Bedford never used them, but they were there, and didn’t change much year to year.
Here is what I beleive their motivations were: To drive the values so low that they would not have to sign up for Clean and Green. And why would someone NOT want to sign up: Because the County rolls back and collects 6 years worth of owed taxes at the market value if someone opts out of Clean and Green or subdivieds thier property. So, if you own a large track of land, and you know it is worth every bit of $1.7 million, and you know you will sell it for that price or more someday, you certainly don’t want to pay taxes on that assessment. And if you join Clean and Green, you wouldn’t want to pay the roll back (by the way, that seems like a fair trade for having reduced taxes for as long as you are in the program!!!) taxes!! So what do you do? You organize, sling mudd, and go to dozens of commissioner’s meetings until they lower your assessment to the point where you don’t present any viable information to prove it is wrong when you appeal it!
In essence, they want the Clean and Green break without signing up. That way they can sell in a couple years! And, by the way, it is much easier to sell your farm for $1.7million when you can tell the buyer from Maryland “Look how low your taxes are here in Bedford”
Let me translate: “Look! We had two commissioners shift alot of our taxes onto others!”
#12 by John on October 1, 2009 - 6:02 pm
Quote
Concerned land owner- the fact is that the taxes will be collected. No matter how this ends up- every single dollar will come in to the schools, the municipalities, and the County.
It is so very simple: pretend you have four identicle properties in the entire county ( that is it, just 4!) and the total taxes were $100. Each property would pay $25. Now, if you drop the assessments in half on two of those properties for any reason (such as “people on fixed incomes…….hardship……..poor us…..), here is what the taxes for all four would look like:
Two would pay $33.33
and two would pay $16.66
So the $100 would be collected, but two people would be paying part of the share of the other two. If you are truely worried about the poor and the people on fixed incomes, you need to worry about all of them. Because some will be helped by this, and a ton will be hurt by it.
Lowering assessments does not lower tax dollars one bit. It just shifts them!
And here is something I learned: the reason the school board was suing was because the broken assessment system we had was causing them to lose state aide. Now that one really hurts because we actually do get less from the state without paying less in taxes. So, if the school gets less in state aide, they HAVE to make it up with local real estate taxes. In other words, if the system works, we pay money to the state, and we get our share back. If the system reverts to the 1958 broken values, or Herline and Ebersole do too much damage, we pay money to the state, but get less back, and the shortfall is made up with a higher milage rate!!!
I don’t believe everyone is self serving and has an agenda, I just think people don’t know how the math works out!
#13 by zoey on October 1, 2009 - 10:11 am
Quote
I am not on anyone’s side stupid. I am stating my opinion. At least I have one and don’t need some bogus club to stand behind me.
But then again I only stated fact and if you would’ve known anything when they capped the land values ALL of the large land owners were happy and even applauded the fact that they went down. So get your facts straight and check them out. Get your head out of the haymow before you make a comment. And if you can’t take the heat get off the FREE PRESS.
What I have written isn’t what you call nonsense. It is what they are doing. Anyone with just the least bit of common sense that follow the Free Press, Gazette, Altoona Mirror or the local Bedford Radio station would have sense to know this.
If you have anthing esle stupid to say bring it. I’m waiting with some more facts for you. Maybe this is were you might get all your updated info and bring you out of the stoneage
#14 by concerned land owner on September 30, 2009 - 10:51 pm
Quote
I know who’s side your on from the way your writing this nonsense , NUTS!!!!
#15 by zoey on September 30, 2009 - 9:49 pm
Quote
Check your facts. Evidently you aren’t following anything that is going on and have your head stuck in the ground. The values have been changed. So wake up concerned. You have to get with the times and just listen and take a look at the videos. You evidently spend time on here so stop the crying act. If you filed an appeal your values will come down. If not you will have to wait till next year.
#16 by concerned land owner on September 29, 2009 - 10:24 pm
Quote
commissioner howser thinks everybdy is rich , people on fixed incomes cant afford these sky high 4000 dollar an acre values , they’ll lose everything they have . i dont know what your thinking !!!!!!
#17 by zoey on September 29, 2009 - 8:21 pm
Quote
J.R. I could not have said it any better, except to the fact that the double standard still are in place at these meeting.
I especially like the fact that when Chalfant got up and left. He was tired of hearing the truth. His word were picked up as he left. “I’m tired of listening to this stuff.” I guess the truth finally got to him.
Well Mr. Chalfant so are we, we are tired of hearing from you week after week the same old stuff, time and time again. And you forgot the fact that when you tried to address Mr. Seaman who you were really suppose to address things to. But then double standards are at their best with you. Keep in mind you are to be addressing the commissioners. You seem to want to remind everybody else that when things aren’t going your way. Talk about personal attacks that were totally unprofessional, which this act shows you are not. What the man had to say was viable. Your attack on him shows that what I have been saying all along, the Taxplayers Club is nothing but a group of bullies with nothing better to do.
Again kudos to J.R.Young another well article well written. Keep up the excellent work. Soon everyone will see the club for what they really are. HYPOCRITES !!!!!!