Great post, Fred! Thanks!
Thanks Dustin.
In defense of some of our legislators as they are in the time where just about all bills are bad.
This bill is a classic pile of *** that only Rep. Mark Gottleib could have pulled off. He is willing to say anything and everything in order to help local governments jack up property taxes. It looks like he screwed his fellow Republicans again.
Edited By Siteowner
Great Fred. Thanks. Used this and Chris Schneider's good piece on voting as a privilege in today's FoxPolitics.net commentary. Also included as an Opinion piece in today's FoxPolitics News. http://www.foxpoliticsnews.net.
I wonder what my assemblyman has to say about this, I think I will ask.
Now that The Empress and I are about to become homeowners this kind of stuff hits much closer to – home.
Fred, thanks for bringing this to light. While we sleep, so does our "media".
Problem is, this is bad legislation that now relies on Jim Doyle's "power of the pen" to be reversed. That's an optimistic hope on anyone's part; Diamond Jim's never met a property tax dollar he didn't like.
We're probably hearing about this one too late in the game. As a property owner who has faced an unfair, personally motivated assessment, contested, and won, it is my opinion that something like this could make it to the governor's desk without one blurb about it from one of our big-city local dailies (J/S, WSJ) is a gross disservice to the reader/taxpayer.
I guess we know where they stand on increased taxation, though... yet again. I'll expect a J/S editorial over the next few days, explaining why this is "courageous" legislation, and why anyone opposed to it is a cretin.
WOW.. Nice job Fred (as usual) I had to repost the whole thing.. Hope you don't mind.
Not at all E.
Great catch, Fred. Wonder if the MJS will pick up on this?
Amazing, isn't it? And that's how those we voted for continually screw us once they are in office! By passing bills in the middle of the night or by adding convoluted addendums that they KNOW the people don't want. And the news media is right there in bed with the bastards.
Hope the people of Wisconsin fight this to the end.
Uhm, the Journal Sentinel picked up on this over a month ago!
Jan. 21, 2008
Proposal limits tax reviews
http://www.jsonline.com/story/in....aspx?
id=709582
Well now that is a wonderful development....
Although it was before the bill was passed
AB 580 is supported by Wisconsin Property Taxpayers, Inc. Why? Because it protects all property tax payers by assuring the assessments are accurate, fair, and based on the value of the property, not just simply some number negotiated to settle a court case.
Here’s how the process currently works for residential and commercial property: If a property owner disagrees with the assessment, he files an objection with the board of review and presents his case. The board of review makes a decision. If the property owner disagrees with that decision, he has two options: He can file an appeal and pay $100 to the Department of Revenue (DOR), or he can file an appeal with the circuit court. Most homeowners file with DOR. Many commercial properties go to circuit court.
What is happening currently is that some property owners come in to the board of review, and don’t present any case at all. Then – using the information provided by the assessor at the board of review – they appeal directly to the circuit court. Judges don’t like these cases. They (the cases) are boring and technical, and can last for days. Judges would prefer that these matters be resolved where they should be: at the board of review.
The bill would allow for change in the board of review process. It creates a new option that municipalities could adopt, by ordinance, to make the board of review more meaningful and effective, and hopefully reduce the number of cases that would be appealed to circuit court. This new process is not a mandate. No municipality would be required to adopt it. Many communities probably would not.
Key points of the bill:
First, the property owner can request an extension of up to 60 days, if he needs time to prepare his case. Additional extensions are available, if needed.
Second, in advance of the board of review, the assessor and the property owner must exchange information. That way, the property owner can know what the assessor is going to present and be better prepared for the board of review.
Third, the bill requires that the board allow a reasonable amount of time for a hearing, sufficient for both sides to present their case. (Some claim that this has not always been the case in all communities throughout the state.)
Fourth, under the process created by the bill, a person who objects to the assessment is required to present a full case at the board of review. (How could the board of review be expected to change an assessment if they haven’t received any information in support of changing the assessment?)
Fifth, the bill empowers a judge to remand a case back to the board of review.
Finally, the decision of a board of review could still be appealed to the DOR or to circuit court. However, the court can only hear (1) information that was presented at the board of review, (2) information that the board of review wrongly refused to consider, (3) information that wasn’t available at the board of review (like a re
Finally, the decision of a board of review could still be appealed to the DOR or to circuit court. However, the court can only hear (1) information that was presented at the board of review, (2) information that the board of review wrongly refused to consider, (3) information that wasn’t available at the board of review (like a recent sale of a comparable property), and (4) any other information that the judge considers relevant.
There are other provisions in the bill that were specifically designed to protect property owners and assist them at the board of review. The bill allows for depositions, which do not occur under current law. In addition, the bill has increased notice requirements. (Unless your property has been recently reassessed you won’t receive a notice, and may find it difficult to learn when the open book and board of review are being held. If a municipality is using this new process, they are required to post the date on their web site, so anyone who wishes to contest an assessment may do so, even if there haven’t been changes to that assessment.
Representatives of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, along with city, village, and town representatives were involved in the drafting of this bill. The goal was to make the board of review process more effective, while protecting property owners.
That is why the bill passed. It allows – but doesn’t force – municipalities to adopt an improved process to reach an accurate assessment, giving property owners more time and more information for their appeals at the board of review.
You guys in Wisconsin need a Proposition 13 like we have in California. It makes things simple. The only time a property is reassessed is if you make a major additon to your house or if you sell the property, at which time the new owner is assessed 1% of the selling price as his/her share of taxes.
Naturally the state legislators are always trying to undermine Proposition 13, but it's worked for us property owners for years. And no matter how much the state whines about lack of revenue, the numbers of properties that change hands regularly, the inflation of prices of properties, new houses that are continually being built or added to, the state gets more and more revenue every year. When they whine about not having enough money because of our low property tax, that's a SCAM.
They do add "fees" of one sort or another every year, and this year we here in the county voted to add an additional "fee" to fund better fire protection, but we voted on that and approved it, which is the way I think it ought to be before anything is added onto a property tax bill.
Commenting by HaloScan
