Maplewood CC property taxes

Forgive me if this has been discussed, but how does the cc have such low taxes? In comparing my land tax rate to theirs, I pay about $39/sq ft. The Maplewood CC pays $1.80/sq ft. That's really messed up, especially considering that 90% of its members don't live in Maplewood. Don't tell me it's in a flood plain because I would estimate less than 20% is in a possible flood area.

It's in a flood plane and most of it is undeveloped. 

It's a religious institution whose members worship the Great God Golf.  

Soul_29 said:

It's in a flood plane and most of it is undeveloped. 

I guess you missed the 'don't tell me it's in a flood plain'. i said land rate not building rate  

Elle_Cee said:

It's a religious institution whose members worship the Great God Golf.  

Ha

it also has an island named after it.

SINYC said:

Soul_29 said:

It's in a flood plane and most of it is undeveloped. 

I guess you missed the 'don't tell me it's in a flood plain'. i said land rate not building rate  

It is actually almost 90% in the flood plain, and thus is undevelopable.  That significantly affects the value of the land.  Buildable land is worth much more than unbuildable.  The club and Memorial Park cover most of the flood plain, and they are there for a reason.  It was actually prudent planning by the developers.  Look at the terrain feature on Google maps, you can see how the land steps up as you leave the park and golf course.

Might there be some kind of agreement in place since they don't burden the school district?

Red_Barchetta said:

Might there be some kind of agreement in place since they don't burden the school district?

I don't burden the school district, can I get a tax break?

spontaneous said:

Red_Barchetta said:

Might there be some kind of agreement in place since they don't burden the school district?

I don't burden the school district, can I get a tax break?

No. 

Red_Barchetta said:

spontaneous said:

Red_Barchetta said:

Might there be some kind of agreement in place since they don't burden the school district?

I don't burden the school district, can I get a tax break?

No. 

Do you feel it would be fair for a business that doesn't burden the school district to get a tax break?

spontaneous said:

Red_Barchetta said:

Might there be some kind of agreement in place since they don't burden the school district?

I don't burden the school district, can I get a tax break?

No.  Neither do they.  

SINYC said:

Soul_29 said:

It's in a flood plane and most of it is undeveloped. 

I guess you missed the 'don't tell me it's in a flood plain'. i said land rate not building rate  

What would you like to hear, then, if not reality?

The AvalonBay project will burden the school district and still gets a tax break.  

It is not like this has not been discussed many times before. For example:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/1348-Taxes-and-the-Maplewood-Country-Club?page=1

https://southorange.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/5861-Maplewood-country-club-taxes

Robert_Casotto said:

The AvalonBay project will burden the school district and still gets a tax break.  

Perhaps you could share with us a study that delineates just how much of a burden it will be. I won't hold my breath.

spontaneous said:

Red_Barchetta said:

spontaneous said:

Red_Barchetta said:

Might there be some kind of agreement in place since they don't burden the school district?

I don't burden the school district, can I get a tax break?

No. 

Do you feel it would be fair for a business that doesn't burden the school district to get a tax break?

Yes. After all, aren't they the job creators?

The value of the property is directly impacted by the zoning and how much they can build on it.  If it is in a flood plain, and the zoning is recreation, it will worth far less than a property that is zoned to allow a high density project.  

I am more upset by properties being given a tax-exempt status.  The municipality has to provide services to churches, temples, etc so at the least they should be required to pay the municipal portion of the tax bill.  

mikescott said:


I am more upset by properties being given a tax-exempt status.  The municipality has to provide services to churches, temples, etc so at the least they should be required to pay the municipal portion of the tax bill.  

I agree wholeheartedly. 

Are the Station House apartments not in the flood plain?

No, they're not, according to FEMA:  http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?ROT=0&O_X=5384&O_Y=6567&O_ZM=0.113284&O_SX=1219&O_SY=611&O_DPI=401&O_TH=92042213&O_EN=92069657&O_PG=1&O_MP=1&CT=0&DI=0&WD=14436&HT=10787&JX=1358&JY=671&MPT=0&MPS=0&ACT=0&KEY=91870898&ITEM=1&PICK_VIEW_CENTER.x=498&PICK_VIEW_CENTER.y=365&R1=VIN

max_weisenfeld said:

SINYC said:

Soul_29 said:

It's in a flood plane and most of it is undeveloped. 

I guess you missed the 'don't tell me it's in a flood plain'. i said land rate not building rate  

It is actually almost 90% in the flood plain, and thus is undevelopable.  That significantly affects the value of the land.  Buildable land is worth much more than unbuildable.  The club and Memorial Park cover most of the flood plain, and they are there for a reason.  It was actually prudent planning by the developers.  Look at the terrain feature on Google maps, you can see how the land steps up as you leave the park and golf course.

It is nowhere close to 90% flood plain, maybe 50%.

Here's a more interactive map than the one posted earlier.

http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cbe088e7c8704464aa0fc34eb99e7f30&extent=-74.284595516477,40.723050210577284,-74.27443530872942,40.72573341412321

mikescott said:

I am more upset by properties being given a tax-exempt status.  The municipality has to provide services to churches, temples, etc so at the least they should be required to pay the municipal portion of the tax bill.  

I don't know about 'more upset', but I agree they need to pay their share of the burden.

you would be more upset if you lived in S. Orange - SHU takes up as much property as the MW CC and although they do pay something it is no where near what should be their fair share.  and they require the services of the police and fire departments.  

SINYC said:

max_weisenfeld said:

SINYC said:

Soul_29 said:

It's in a flood plane and most of it is undeveloped. 

I guess you missed the 'don't tell me it's in a flood plain'. i said land rate not building rate  

It is actually almost 90% in the flood plain, and thus is undevelopable.  That significantly affects the value of the land.  Buildable land is worth much more than unbuildable.  The club and Memorial Park cover most of the flood plain, and they are there for a reason.  It was actually prudent planning by the developers.  Look at the terrain feature on Google maps, you can see how the land steps up as you leave the park and golf course.

It is nowhere close to 90% flood plain, maybe 50%.


Here's a more interactive map than the one posted earlier.

http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cbe088e7c8704464aa0fc34eb99e7f30&extent=-74.284595516477,40.723050210577284,-74.27443530872942,40.72573341412321

Fine.  Say 50%.  You still can't tax them as you would developed land, let alone if there are any easements or prohibitions that may also be in place.

ctrzaska said:

SINYC said:

max_weisenfeld said:

SINYC said:

Soul_29 said:

It's in a flood plane and most of it is undeveloped. 

I guess you missed the 'don't tell me it's in a flood plain'. i said land rate not building rate  

It is actually almost 90% in the flood plain, and thus is undevelopable.  That significantly affects the value of the land.  Buildable land is worth much more than unbuildable.  The club and Memorial Park cover most of the flood plain, and they are there for a reason.  It was actually prudent planning by the developers.  Look at the terrain feature on Google maps, you can see how the land steps up as you leave the park and golf course.

It is nowhere close to 90% flood plain, maybe 50%.


Here's a more interactive map than the one posted earlier.

http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cbe088e7c8704464aa0fc34eb99e7f30&extent=-74.284595516477,40.723050210577284,-74.27443530872942,40.72573341412321

Fine.  Say 50%.  You still can't tax them as you would developed land, let alone if there are any easements or prohibitions that may also be in place.

I fully understand that but if compare homeowner's land assessments compared to theirs, it is really out of whack. Homeowners compared to the CC are assessed at $21.60 to the CC's $1 per square foot which is 2166% more per sq foot. I'm curious how they get that deal. Are our council/assessor given club memberships or were they in the past? Somethings not right.

Hope you have a good atty SINYC

By the way, how much would you pay for property in a flood plane?  Would you have purchased the house you are now living in if you knew it was in a flood plane.  

I suppose if I were to investigate this myself, I would start with the tax code and try to understand any differences in the treatment of residences versus clubs versus business establishments.

Then, I would want to understand any land use restrictions.  Could, for example, the MCC sell to a developer and, if so, could the developer put houses everywhere except for flood plain areas?

Maybe there are enough limits on use of the golf course land that it can only be open space.

The determination regarding flood plain status was done 100 years ago, not on line by FEMA.  Changing it now would probably be an illegal taking, but I am not a lawyer

mikescott said:

Hope you have a good atty SINYC

By the way, how much would you pay for property in a flood plane?  Would you have purchased the house you are now living in if you knew it was in a flood plane.  

A good atty for what?