Some elderly homeowners add their names to lawsuit against the town
BARRINGTON — The recent revaluation accepted by the Barrington Town Council has affected local property owners in different ways. Many have seen a decrease in their property values while an estimated 25 percent have seen an increase.
Those who received increased assessments will also see a rise in their tax bills. For some, especially Barrington senior citizens who are living on fixed incomes, the increases may be enough to force them into selling their homes.
Constance DiSano is one of those senior citizens.
Ms. DiSano spent last winter with layers upon layers of blankets on her bed to keep warm as cold air blew through her bedroom window. The upstairs is closed off because of the costs associated with heating it. She dodges rain drops that enter her three-room home through a leaky roof that desperately needs replacing.
Ms. DiSano’s house, originally built as a summer home in 1930, was converted into a year-round home 26 years ago by her late husband, Frank. He bought the Orchard Avenue home for $6,000.
Living on a fixed income has forced Ms. DiSano to make tough financial decisions, and often times she has had to spend her money on things other than home repairs. She’s not happy about the situation but acknowledges there is little she can do to change it.
Her predicament took a turn for the worse earlier this year when she went to her mailbox and retrieved her new property assessment, formulated by Vision Appraisal Company and approved by the Barrington Town Council.
The assessment on her home went up, and Ms. DiSano wants to know why. She can’t understand how the appraisal company could increase the value of her small home, located in a modest neighborhood, while its condition continues to worsen.
“I retired to take care of my husband; now I have arthritis so bad I can’t work. I was behind on my taxes and lost my insurance. I went in and appealed and it went down a couple of thousand, but it is still more than before,” she said.
Now she is close to losing her home — the tax increase resulting from the $10,000 bump in her recent revaluation is too much for Ms. DiSano to absorb.
“I want to know how it can go up. The rain is coming in and the windows are falling apart. I need medical insurance, and there are no raises in Social Security this year. I hope to live here a few more years. I feel like they (the town) don’t care where we go,” she said.
Throughout the debate over the recent reval, town officials have urged residents facing increases to seek appeals if they believe their assessments are not fair. They have also advised elderly residents to apply for certain tax exemptions. Ms. DiSano said she already receives exemptions, but they are not enough to compensate for the increase she is facing.
“It’s sad that at this day and age you lose your house. We are not people brought up on fancy food. Frankie must be rolling over in his grave. He always called it the ‘house that jack built,’” she said.
Robert Johannis has lived in Barrington since his birth 77 years ago. He and his family have owned and operated Johannis Greenhouses on Sowams Road since the late 1950s. It’s a small nursery with older buildings that hardly warrants an assessment increase, said Mr. Johannis.
In 1991 the Johannis family made a deal with the Barrington Land Conservation Trust, protecting a large portion of the property as open space. They sold about 28 acres and donated another 4; the land lies in both Barrington and Swansea, Mass.
The family pays about $21,000 in property taxes each year on the remaining five acres it owns. That number is expected to skyrocket, as the Johannis family’s recent assessment showed a $100,000 increase.
“We went down on the building and up on the land. It’s way out of line,” he said.
His commercial property at 425 Sowams Road is one of several parcels the family owns. In 2007, it was assessed at $377,000 and in 2009 it jumped to $486,300.
“It’s got to change. This is the worst decision the town council has made (approving the assessment report). It just doesn’t make sense. There was no rhyme or reason to the revaluation,” Mr. Johannis said.
Like Ms. DiSano, Mr. Johannis has joined Barrington for Equitable Taxes, a residents group that recently filed a lawsuit against the town.
Carolyn Ryan, of 417 Sowams Road, is a widow trying to make ends meet in an unstable economy. Her recent property assessment went up more than $20,000; the land value fueled the increase.
“My taxes are going up and I can’t afford it,” she said. “You get to this point in life and you can’t do what you want to do. After my husband died 10 years ago, I learned to cut down. I am not able to put away much and I have started to take out from the savings, and there’s not a lot to take out.”
Like Ms. DiSano and Mr. Johannis, she has joined BET’s lawsuit.
“There are good people behind us with BET. I have no alternative but to join in and hope we win,” Ms. Ryan said.
Lisa Browning, a member of BET, said it is situations like the ones facing Ms. DiSano, Ms. Ryan and Mr. Johannis that make the reality of the revaluation concerning.
“Over 500 Barrington residents are named in the lawsuit,” said Ms. Browning. BET officials updated that figure to 700 early last week. “We are adding more names every day. There is absolutely no financial obligation if you are a litigant. BET is accepting contributions and has collected 75 percent of our goal. Also, BET strongly encourages all litigants to file an appeal through the town’s appeal process.”
Tax assessor’s office accepting appeals
Property owners who are not content with the recent revaluation can file an appeal with the tax assessor’s office. According to an official in the assessor’s office, residents can get an appeal application form at the town hall or on the town’s website www.ci.barrington.ri.us and return the completed application with any supporting information to the assessor’s office. The tax assessor, Michael Minardi, will review the information and notify the property owner of his findings — there may or may not be any change. The deadline to file an appeal is Dec. 28, 2009.
Involved in the lawsuit
According to organizers for the residents group Barrington for Equitable Taxes, more than 700 local property owners have signed on as plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the town over the recent revaluation. Filed in Rhode Island Superior Court, the suit calls for the town-wide statistical revaluation to be thrown out and have the town re-do the revaluation at its own expense. BET has reportedly raised more than $160,000 to cover legal fees associated with the lawsuit; if the group wins, it wants the town to pay for all its legal fees.
Those who implemented this reval travesty work for the town and therefore don't have to worry about flat income or pay cuts. After all, their pay raises are guaranteed for no reason other than they are on the job. The reality is that the town assessor, with the blessing of every other manager and council member agreed to rewrite the basis for how to apportion property taxes without ever considering the impact in these harsh financial times. The biggest travesty was doing this with one shot from a financial sledge hammer instead of phasing in the changes over time. Yes, I heard the excuse, the town was not allowed to phase this in. That is the most illogical and stupid reason ever. If they could do it with a sledge hammer, they could do it with phases. A classic case of the workman blaming his tools.
It was poor planning and excuses after the fact by everyone involved. The kind of poor planning that gets people fired in the private sector, but pay raises when on the public payroll.
Shame on you Town Council! You are so quick to open the town to new residents with your new housing, but then shamelessly turn your back on the heart and soul of this town. If this is the face of the new democratic party, then I am getting off at the next stop. Although you will never admit wrongdoing, I am embarrassed for you. This town is being destroyed from within. We will become a "children in school" only community. As they graduate, parents will leave for cheaper living and sell to a young family to start the cycle all over again. Taxes will rise so only the super rich can stay here. Lived here all of your life and have your modest home rise in price so that you can no longer afford to stay? Your Town Council does not care.
Why should these folks, who have contributed so much to this community, be harmed so badly?
Why should they have to bear the burden of improperly raised assessments during one of the worst economic meltdowns in our lifetime?
To add insult to injury, they will be picking up the tab for hundreds and hundreds of errors that Town Council was told about well before they made the choice to turn their backs on people like this.
They were informed that Owings Stone was incorrectly assessed. 4 Owings Stone sold last week for $605,000 - Vision assessed at $509,500.
They were informed that Broadview was incorrectly assessed. 4 Broadview sold for $560,000 on 5/29/09 - Vision assessed at $443,200. 16 Broadview Drive sold for $765,000 on 6/12/09 - Vision assessed at $673,000.
They were informed that Jennys Lane was incorrectly asessed. 33 Jenny's sold for $1.24 million recently - Vision assessed at $768,000.
Why should these three folks have to pay for these and hundreds of other gaffs?
How can we let this happen?
...... "Many have seen a decrease in their property values while an estimated 25 percent have seen an increase. Those who received increased assessments will also see a rise in their tax bills."
While this is accurate, the problem is far bigger. It is important to note that more than 55% will see a raise in taxes, including many whose assessments stayed the same or were reduced less than 11%, in part, because this 55% is shouldering the burden of the hundreds of under-assessment errors previously referred to.
There are many that have been surprised that their taxes are going up, when they thought they would be "safe" due to a reduced assessment. To see the exact number of your next tax bill, go to the BET website - www.barringtontaxes.homestead.com.
Start looking closely at the assessments. Were they a pretty good estimate of what the properties would have sold for as of late last year? Were most older homes valued at very low values, because they are pretty much obsolete and depreciated? Are choice sites --- with views or proximity to town -- valued more than less choice sites, just as the market values them? Would people be happy to get an offer for that amount on their property if they were considering moving?
Taxing land values is the most just way to pay for town services. Those whose properties are very valuable ought to be paying more than those whose sites are worth little. An older person may really really really want to leave their valuable land to their heirs, free and clear. But does that mean that the younger working people ought to be forced to subsidize that older person and their desire to leave their out of town heirs a valuable property? I don't think so.
One possible solution would be to permit elderly people to defer, with interest, some portion of their property tax, as a lien against the property, to be satisfied when the property is sold or transferred.
Maybe a commercial nursery is no longer a best use for a downtown site. Our assessments and taxes ought to give us signals for that sort of thing. Frequent reassessment, with emphasis on getting the valuation of the land right, is important, because most of us don't like to think about these things unless we have to.
And maybe Barrington needs some additional housing options, including snug, modern, affordable, navigable housing for its seniors, including those who don't have a great deal of income. Housing need not be expensive to build; what costs is the land! And if Barrington can find some well-located land and build appealing and affordable housing for seniors, perhaps the valuable sites they are now underusing can be put to use by families who need more space, or entrepreneurs with a business plan, who might create jobs which would help the local economy, and/or find ways to create businesses their neighbors would patronize.
We need to take a closer look at our incentives. Connecticut just passed a bill so that New London could use Land Value Taxation. It bears watching.
Good ideas, lvtfan. Creative thinking. Problem solving. Exactly what we are not getting from the current town council.
A few clarifications:
Sadly, the last time "entrepreneurs with a business plan" presented a senior housing project, for behind Shaws market, it was beaten back by the "not in my backyard" crowd.
The commercial nursery is not in a "downtown site," it is as far from downtown as you could possibly be, on Sowams Road, near Barneyville Road.
Not all elderly are looking to leave property to "out of town heirs." There are many multi generational families in town. Dozens have signed on to the suit.
Bottom line - everyone should be paying taxes based on full and fair market value as stated by RI law. Currently, under the Vision results, there will be many paying too much and many more paying too little.
Barrington deserves better.
lvtfan - In answer to your question.... "Start looking closely at the assessments. Were they a pretty good estimate of what the properties would have sold for as of late last year? " ..... Some are, too many are not. This is reason for the suit in a nutshell.
When you look at the worst offenders, and share them with someone who has not needed to educate themselves about this issue, the first question is "HOW could this happen?." The second is, "HOW could the town council let this happen?" Common sense tells us that a home on Brentonwood should not drop more than $600,000 in value, and that a home on Rumstick that sold for $1.4 million in 2007 should not be dropped to $866,000, or that a 3 year old custom waterfront home with a new dock should not be dropped from $1.03 million to $640,000. These are just a few of the hundreds of obvious and egregious errors shown to the council.
Look at the spreadsheet of all properties in town on the BET website. The facts speak for themselves. There are significant tax reductions on homes that are assessed below fair market value. Hundreds of them. Be sure to look at upper Rumstick (from the center to the stop sign at Chachapacassett), Lantern Lane, Ferry Lane, Jennys Lane, Owings Stone, Broadview, Baron, Mathewson Lane, Mid Nayatt (from Tillinghast to the stop sign at Wahington). Brentonwood, Alfred Drowne, Pezzullo and others.
When you look at the assessed values and ask the question you posed - "were they a pretty good estimate of what the properties would have sold for as of late last year?" there are too many "no" answers.
Then, look at the folks on Anoka, Pine Top and other modest properties to see the large tax increases on homes that had raised assessments, when they should not have.
The Vision method did not work for us. The proof is in the results. This never should have happened. All it would have taken is one good real estate agent (or one experienced tax assessor) looking over the results to point out errors the computer model was generating, based on questionable judgements and maniplated data. (Nayatt, next to RICC, is not a neighborhood 50 -same as Roberta Plat. Homes that were "average" condition three years ago, should not jump to "very good" when nothing has been done to them.)
Again, I believe Barrington deserves better.
Run for office, every one of you. You think you have great ideas that would solve the problems of the time. Put your neck on the line and stop being a talking head!
ConcernedPerson - you have no right to tell anyone that their opinion is invalid because they are not currently in office. That is absurd. I guess when you do not have the facts on your side this is the best you can do.
A letter of resignation from the Town Council President would be a step in the right direction.
I need medical insurance, and there are no raises in Social Security this year. I hope to live here a few more years.
I feel like they (the town) don’t care where we go,” she said.
.............Of course they don't. I remember well the zoning stonewalling that went on with affordable housing at Sweetbriar.
ConcernedPerson - Does the apology you left on a LTE yesterday (re-printed below) hold true for the uncalled for comments here, as well?
"I agree that one need not be a volunteer in order to express an opinion. And I know that a few of the folks who participate in these discussions also participate in working towards progress for our community - being part of the solution. I think that I was a little critical myself in suggesting that people get involved - be part of the solution - rather than sitting in the 'peanut gallery' being critical all the time. "
Let's stick to the issue.... Do you not acknowledge the errors in asssessments? And the hundreds of errors made by Vision? And the lives affected by these errors? You run around on this site condemning people for not running for office. What about the facts? Do you even know the facts?
It takes a lot of effort, courage and unlimited amounts of unavailable time to work toward a solution, because the council could not see the facts, and lacked the courage to fix a disaster in the making. Putting in the hours and hours of work, exposing the facts, moving forward with a legal challenge and righting the ship that the council has capsized requires a massive effort, and is certainly not "sitting in the peanut gallery." Keeping in mind that this article is about the real life disasters created by Vision and the council, it would be of better use to offer a big thank you to those who are putting in the tremendous effort, intellect and money to fix this mess.
Well the U.S. Census Bureau statistics now show that this spring, 21.5 percent of Rhode Island residents either were unemployed and looking for a job; working only part-time because they could not find a full-time job; or had given up on even seeking employment. This Census Bureau data was just reported in the Providence Business News in addition to the revised RI unemployment rate of 12.4%.
This is the environment our Town Council decided to retool the formulas used in apportioning property taxes. Our mistaken belief was that the decisions of our well educated leadership would carry the wisdom of Solomon. Unfortunately their judgment now resembles the incompetence of Wall Street (I don’t care because I don’t have to).
