Maplewood CC property taxes

mikescott said:

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.  

That is certainly true but I wouldn't expect it to be 2166% more. Are you a member of the CC Mike? What do memberships go for these days? Green fees?

SINYC said:

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.

There is no municipal infrastructure in place (sewer, roads, electric, gas, etc) on probably 90% of the MCC land, so any comparison to the tax on a homeowner's developed property (just the land, not improvements) is wildly inaccurate.  Lots of this type are taxed much, much lower than your average vacant buildable lot on a residential street.  Further, you cannot tax the land based upon what it could be worth if it were ever to be partially developed (not happening anyway).  Further still, while I'm not positive of this, I'm pretty sure the MCC is classified as a commercial property thus rendering any residential comparison moot on a whole different level.

Making ludicrous and baseless insinuations regarding possible impropriety on the part of the TC and the Tax Assessor's office isn't helping your argument.  Only math will.

SINYC said:

mikescott said:

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.  

That is certainly true but I wouldn't expect it to be 2166% more. Are you a member of the CC Mike? What do memberships go for these days? Green fees?

2166% is garbage.

ctrzaska said:

SINYC said:

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.

There is no municipal infrastructure in place (sewer, roads, electric, gas, etc) on probably 90% of the MCC land, so any comparison to the tax on a homeowner's developed property (just the land, not improvements) is wildly inaccurate.  Lots of this type are taxed much, much lower than your average vacant buildable lot on a residential street.  Further, you cannot tax the land based upon what it could be worth if it were ever to be partially developed (not happening anyway).  Further still, while I'm not positive of this, I'm pretty sure the MCC is classified as a commercial property thus rendering any residential comparison moot on a whole different level.

Making ludicrous and baseless insinuations regarding possible impropriety on the part of the TC and the Tax Assessor's office isn't helping your argument.  Only math will.

Those are all good points. Thank you.

I asked a question about cc memberships tongue in cheek. That being said, let's not pretend NJ is void of corruption in the tax system.

tjohn said:

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.

There is some flexibility to build, though I believe only attached units (6-10 per acre or thereabouts), and within a certain size and number.  There are environmental restrictions on building near wetlands (in addition to any flood plain-related restrictions), other setback requirements that might shrink buildable lot sizes to non-buildable, etc etc.  

SINYC said:

ctrzaska said:

SINYC said:

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.

There is no municipal infrastructure in place (sewer, roads, electric, gas, etc) on probably 90% of the MCC land, so any comparison to the tax on a homeowner's developed property (just the land, not improvements) is wildly inaccurate.  Lots of this type are taxed much, much lower than your average vacant buildable lot on a residential street.  Further, you cannot tax the land based upon what it could be worth if it were ever to be partially developed (not happening anyway).  Further still, while I'm not positive of this, I'm pretty sure the MCC is classified as a commercial property thus rendering any residential comparison moot on a whole different level.

Making ludicrous and baseless insinuations regarding possible impropriety on the part of the TC and the Tax Assessor's office isn't helping your argument.  Only math will.

Those are all good points. Thank you.




I asked a question about cc memberships tongue in cheek. That being said, let's not pretend NJ is void of corruption in the tax system.

Tongue in cheek or not, around 6 years ago, membership was about $13k a year.

ctrzaska said:

SINYC said:

mikescott said:

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.  

That is certainly true but I wouldn't expect it to be 2166% more. Are you a member of the CC Mike? What do memberships go for these days? Green fees?

2166% is garbage.

No, it isn't. There are approximately 3.5 million sq ft of CC land that is assessed at $6.5 million. I've looked up land rates on multiple houses throughout Maplewood and I see that the range per sq ft is $20-70, so the percentage is not garbage. For those in the $70/sq ft range the percentage is much higher.

max_weisenfeld said:

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

Who made the determination and how was it done?  I'm genuinely curious not because of MCC  but  because floodplain regulations are much newer than that and criteria are far different today than 100 years ago....

SINYC said:

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.

You state that you "pay about $39/sq ft."  That would mean that a 5,000 sq ft lot would pay $195,000 per year.  Do you actually mean that your property is valued at $39/sq ft?

tomcarlson said:

SINYC said:

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.

You state that you "pay about $39/sq ft."  That would mean that a 5,000 sq ft lot would pay $195,000 per year.  Do you actually mean that your property is valued at $39/sq ft?

Oh those pesky facts are getting in the way again...

SINYC said:

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?

For you tax appeal based on a comparison with the country club.

The country club is not a residence.  Even if it were, land that cannot be built on due to zoning and other restrictions is assessed at a much lower rate than land that can be built upon.  That is why some residential properties with large lots may have a similar assessment to properties with comparable structures on smaller lots in the same neighborhood.  

I was under the impression that in the valuation formulas, the greatest weight is given to the market value of a property, and not square footage.  

tomcarlson said:

SINYC said:

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.

You state that you "pay about $39/sq ft."  That would mean that a 5,000 sq ft lot would pay $195,000 per year.  Do you actually mean that your property is valued at $39/sq ft?

Yes, I wrote that incorrectly  

suggesting people are taking bribes