What I find missing in this discussion is how the cap program also discriminates against new and first-time homeowners by forcing them to subsidize taxes for existing homeowners, not just the elderly. It's extremely unfair.
Misery / disbelief / disappointment: my situation as a senior who has tried to get reasonable answers & some useful direction. I recently had a (so called) adjudication & very clearly asked for a copy of the minutes... Still waiting on that. I did receive a confusing letter from NSAAT w no direction other that to make an appeal. (Oh Yay) I thought that was what we did! Their message states that if I am not satisfied then then I can make (another) appeal. Good Lord, I honestly thought that this is why we had the teleconference following my letter of appeal! So, much for helping to keep seniors in our homes! Incidentally, I did suggest that it is time to get themselves organized & have an up to date directive to where we van find good guidance w contact data which they did not possess. Both the 'Judge' & the ?NSSAT employee agreed that this made good sense.
There are two sides to this issue - Deny is only illustrating one side.
Seniors on fixed incomes living in houses they purchased 40 years ago would have to sell and move away if the CAP was removed. Any change to the property tax system would need to include consideration of this fact which was the basis for the introduction of the CAP in the first place
There are seniors who don’t own their homes. And there are seniors who don’t benefit from CAP, sometimes just because they had to move down the street. But I am in support of very flexible payment programs for seniors. Thanks for reading.
Your assumption is that the city SHOULD be raising and spending 100 million more each year. No thanks.
Many of us older home owners have incomes that have not risen in step with the inflation of the past two or three years. The tax burden even with the CAP is substantial.
Some of us are even very small landlords who have not raised rents by market or inflationary pressures and would be forced to make large rent increases to cover the increased tax burden.
Please note that "landlord" is not a bad word as you seem to imply. I rent my old unit far under "market" to appreciative young people, just like some other "landlords" I know.
What I find missing in this discussion is how the cap program also discriminates against new and first-time homeowners by forcing them to subsidize taxes for existing homeowners, not just the elderly. It's extremely unfair.
Misery / disbelief / disappointment: my situation as a senior who has tried to get reasonable answers & some useful direction. I recently had a (so called) adjudication & very clearly asked for a copy of the minutes... Still waiting on that. I did receive a confusing letter from NSAAT w no direction other that to make an appeal. (Oh Yay) I thought that was what we did! Their message states that if I am not satisfied then then I can make (another) appeal. Good Lord, I honestly thought that this is why we had the teleconference following my letter of appeal! So, much for helping to keep seniors in our homes! Incidentally, I did suggest that it is time to get themselves organized & have an up to date directive to where we van find good guidance w contact data which they did not possess. Both the 'Judge' & the ?NSSAT employee agreed that this made good sense.
There are two sides to this issue - Deny is only illustrating one side.
Seniors on fixed incomes living in houses they purchased 40 years ago would have to sell and move away if the CAP was removed. Any change to the property tax system would need to include consideration of this fact which was the basis for the introduction of the CAP in the first place
There are seniors who don’t own their homes. And there are seniors who don’t benefit from CAP, sometimes just because they had to move down the street. But I am in support of very flexible payment programs for seniors. Thanks for reading.
Your assumption is that the city SHOULD be raising and spending 100 million more each year. No thanks.
Many of us older home owners have incomes that have not risen in step with the inflation of the past two or three years. The tax burden even with the CAP is substantial.
Some of us are even very small landlords who have not raised rents by market or inflationary pressures and would be forced to make large rent increases to cover the increased tax burden.
Please note that "landlord" is not a bad word as you seem to imply. I rent my old unit far under "market" to appreciative young people, just like some other "landlords" I know.
Oo hi everyone!!!!. decentralized sports betting platform for crypto folks - https://tinyurl.com/3fbhv4ts