Guest Editorial in our local paper today, and my Letter to the Editor reply
Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 4 months ago to Government
Reassessing reassessments
That castle is worth what I say it is
There is an interesting court case moving ahead in Racine County that could have a substantial impact on all Wisconsin homeowners.
The larger issue at play is the citizens’ right to exercise their rights within their home without the government retaliating against them. It all started with a lovely couple in the Lorimar Estates subdivision of Dover and their town’s effort to reassess the neighborhood.
In 2013, the town of Dover decided to reassess properties to make sure they were correct. This is a normal process that all local governments go through from time to time. Some do periodic reassessments of wide swaths of territory. Some just reassess every time a property is sold. Some just slowly work through the entire list of properties year after year.
It is a necessary part of government to make sure that properties are appropriately valued to make sure that the property taxes for those properties are also appropriate.
In Dover, the town hired a private company to do the reassessment of the Lorimar Estates subdivision. If you have never had the process of going through an assessment of your home, the process is fairly straightforward.
The assessor takes a look at the outside of the property and compares it to the neighbors’ houses. Then, if the homeowner grants permission, the assessor will enter the home and evaluate the interior.
The purpose of the interior portion of the assessment is to see if any major modifications had been made since the last assessment – particularly those that might have been done without a permit. A remodeled kitchen, finished basement or severe structural failures could dramatically alter the value of the property.
When the assessor came to the home of Vincent and Morganne MacDonald, they refused to allow the assessor entry into their home. It is fully their right to deny entry to their home to anyone. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects their right to deny government agents, which is the role the assessor was serving, entry into their home without a legal warrant and due process. When denied entry, the assessor moved on without incident.
All was fine until the MacDonalds received their new assessment. It had been increased 10.56 percent. Thinking that a 10.56 percent increase was excessive given that they had not made any substantial improvements to their property since the previous assessment, the MacDonalds did a little digging.
What they found was that of the 43 properties assessed in their neighborhood, the owners of four of them refused to allow the assessor entry to the interior of the home. Those four homes, including the MacDonalds’, saw an average 10.01 percent increase in their properties’ assessed values. The 39 homes into which the assessor was granted entry saw an average 5.81 percent decrease in their properties’ assessed value.
The fact those homeowners who exercised their right to deny entry to the assessor saw such a high increase while the other homeowners saw a decrease rightly struck the MacDonalds as unfair and they sought out their options.
Under Wisconsin law, if a homeowner refuses to allow an assessor entry into their home, they are prohibited from appealing the assessment to the Board of Review or anywhere else. You read that correctly. If a homeowner decides to exercise their right to be secure in their home, the government can assess their property at any value whatsoever, with all of the subsequent property tax ramifications, and the homeowner has no process available by which to appeal the arbitrary decision of the assessor.
This longstanding stipulation of Wisconsin law that truncates citizens’ due process rights to penalize them for exercising another right is finally being challenged in court. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has taken up the MacDonalds’ case and filed suit in the Racine County Circuit Court.
While it is fantastic that the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is taking up the case and trying to level the playing field for homeowners, the Legislature can make it easier by changing the law. When the new members of the Legislature take their seats in 2015, they could save the litigants and courts a lot of trouble and expense by rendering their case moot.
There is no reasonable reason to truncate the assessment appeals process just because homeowners do not want an agent of government roaming around their home. The Legislature should change this law.
Owen Robinson - a rather right leaning commentator.
My Letter to the Editor response.
I'm going to have to take exception to the commentary by Owen Robinson in the 14 Aug issue of the NewsGraphic regarding property tax assessments. Owen seems to believe that the difference in the process by which property taxes are assessed on properties that either allow inside inspections or not is flawed. I contend that the entire system of property taxes is flawed and immoral, and thus this difference is immaterial.
What is the underlying morality of the property tax method? It is either that 1) It is morally just to take more money from those who have more expensive property, or 2) Those with more expensive property get more services from government, and thus should pay more for those services. Let's dispel each of these two myths starting with the second one first. Let's just take our local community of the city of Cedarburg. Do the residents of Landmark Drive, where Zillow shows a residence valued at $660k, enjoy better schools than the residents just a few hundred yards west of them on Hamilton Rd. where the residence is valued at $255k by Zillow? Do they have better roads? Do the police respond differently to a call for assistance? Do the roads get plowed more quickly or thoroughly? The answer to all of these questions is NO. For all intents and purposes the government services received by all residents in a taxing district is the same. If it were not, we'd have plenty of lawsuits claiming discrimination. Thus, the "you have more so get better services" argument is bogus.
How about the morality from taking more from those who have more? I harken back to a philosopher/economist from the early twentieth century who espoused, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Yes, that's Karl Marx, the creator of Marxism - that social/economic evil that we fought a cold war, and several small hot wars, to defeat. Is it really moral to demand to take more from one of us merely because they have been successful? Does that encourage productivity and entrepreneurship or sloth and laziness? Which is more moral and right?
No, Owen, the difference in assessments between those that allow inside inspections and those that don't isn't flawed. The entire system of property taxation is flawed, and immoral.
That castle is worth what I say it is
There is an interesting court case moving ahead in Racine County that could have a substantial impact on all Wisconsin homeowners.
The larger issue at play is the citizens’ right to exercise their rights within their home without the government retaliating against them. It all started with a lovely couple in the Lorimar Estates subdivision of Dover and their town’s effort to reassess the neighborhood.
In 2013, the town of Dover decided to reassess properties to make sure they were correct. This is a normal process that all local governments go through from time to time. Some do periodic reassessments of wide swaths of territory. Some just reassess every time a property is sold. Some just slowly work through the entire list of properties year after year.
It is a necessary part of government to make sure that properties are appropriately valued to make sure that the property taxes for those properties are also appropriate.
In Dover, the town hired a private company to do the reassessment of the Lorimar Estates subdivision. If you have never had the process of going through an assessment of your home, the process is fairly straightforward.
The assessor takes a look at the outside of the property and compares it to the neighbors’ houses. Then, if the homeowner grants permission, the assessor will enter the home and evaluate the interior.
The purpose of the interior portion of the assessment is to see if any major modifications had been made since the last assessment – particularly those that might have been done without a permit. A remodeled kitchen, finished basement or severe structural failures could dramatically alter the value of the property.
When the assessor came to the home of Vincent and Morganne MacDonald, they refused to allow the assessor entry into their home. It is fully their right to deny entry to their home to anyone. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects their right to deny government agents, which is the role the assessor was serving, entry into their home without a legal warrant and due process. When denied entry, the assessor moved on without incident.
All was fine until the MacDonalds received their new assessment. It had been increased 10.56 percent. Thinking that a 10.56 percent increase was excessive given that they had not made any substantial improvements to their property since the previous assessment, the MacDonalds did a little digging.
What they found was that of the 43 properties assessed in their neighborhood, the owners of four of them refused to allow the assessor entry to the interior of the home. Those four homes, including the MacDonalds’, saw an average 10.01 percent increase in their properties’ assessed values. The 39 homes into which the assessor was granted entry saw an average 5.81 percent decrease in their properties’ assessed value.
The fact those homeowners who exercised their right to deny entry to the assessor saw such a high increase while the other homeowners saw a decrease rightly struck the MacDonalds as unfair and they sought out their options.
Under Wisconsin law, if a homeowner refuses to allow an assessor entry into their home, they are prohibited from appealing the assessment to the Board of Review or anywhere else. You read that correctly. If a homeowner decides to exercise their right to be secure in their home, the government can assess their property at any value whatsoever, with all of the subsequent property tax ramifications, and the homeowner has no process available by which to appeal the arbitrary decision of the assessor.
This longstanding stipulation of Wisconsin law that truncates citizens’ due process rights to penalize them for exercising another right is finally being challenged in court. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has taken up the MacDonalds’ case and filed suit in the Racine County Circuit Court.
While it is fantastic that the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is taking up the case and trying to level the playing field for homeowners, the Legislature can make it easier by changing the law. When the new members of the Legislature take their seats in 2015, they could save the litigants and courts a lot of trouble and expense by rendering their case moot.
There is no reasonable reason to truncate the assessment appeals process just because homeowners do not want an agent of government roaming around their home. The Legislature should change this law.
Owen Robinson - a rather right leaning commentator.
My Letter to the Editor response.
I'm going to have to take exception to the commentary by Owen Robinson in the 14 Aug issue of the NewsGraphic regarding property tax assessments. Owen seems to believe that the difference in the process by which property taxes are assessed on properties that either allow inside inspections or not is flawed. I contend that the entire system of property taxes is flawed and immoral, and thus this difference is immaterial.
What is the underlying morality of the property tax method? It is either that 1) It is morally just to take more money from those who have more expensive property, or 2) Those with more expensive property get more services from government, and thus should pay more for those services. Let's dispel each of these two myths starting with the second one first. Let's just take our local community of the city of Cedarburg. Do the residents of Landmark Drive, where Zillow shows a residence valued at $660k, enjoy better schools than the residents just a few hundred yards west of them on Hamilton Rd. where the residence is valued at $255k by Zillow? Do they have better roads? Do the police respond differently to a call for assistance? Do the roads get plowed more quickly or thoroughly? The answer to all of these questions is NO. For all intents and purposes the government services received by all residents in a taxing district is the same. If it were not, we'd have plenty of lawsuits claiming discrimination. Thus, the "you have more so get better services" argument is bogus.
How about the morality from taking more from those who have more? I harken back to a philosopher/economist from the early twentieth century who espoused, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Yes, that's Karl Marx, the creator of Marxism - that social/economic evil that we fought a cold war, and several small hot wars, to defeat. Is it really moral to demand to take more from one of us merely because they have been successful? Does that encourage productivity and entrepreneurship or sloth and laziness? Which is more moral and right?
No, Owen, the difference in assessments between those that allow inside inspections and those that don't isn't flawed. The entire system of property taxation is flawed, and immoral.
The second point was weaker. For one thing Karl Marx died in 1883. So, he was not a 20th century philosopher. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was popularized - not invented - by Karl Marx in 1875. (See Wikipedia "from each according, etc.")
And of course, it is only a statement of altruism common to Christianity:
Acts 4:32–35: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. ... and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
And it is not unique to them. The evolutionary benefit of distribution is pretty easy to see. It is not universal. (In some societies, hunters sneak their kills home after dark, lest they be forced to share.) But it is common enough that the sneaky hunters stand out as interesting exceptions.
In the Middle Ages, it was called "noblesse oblige" and it is why Carnegie endowed libraries. I suppose that in an Objectivist future, the passing billionaire will have distributed his property among his investors as a final dividend.
But that all is a different discussion entirely, and one that is difficult to encapsulate in three sentences.