The attorney for a New York company has filed a lawsuit in Common Pleas Court claiming Westmoreland County's tax assessment system is unconstitutional.
At issue is the assessment of the 13.2-acre Jeannette Glass site owned by the Zion Bullitt Avenue LLP. In November, the county's assessment appeals board denied a bid by the Zion company to have the property's value lowered.
Company representatives contend the vacant and blighted site is worth just $500,000. For taxing purposes, the county has placed a fair market value of the property at about $2.6 million.
Westmoreland uses values assigned to properties in 1972 as a baseline for its assessments.
“The appellee's decision is erroneous and incorrect as a matter of face and as a matter of law because the base-year system used by the appelle is unconstitutional,” attorney Aaron Kress wrote in the lawsuit.
Westmoreland's assessment system is among the oldest in the state.
The Zion property was sold for back taxes in October when the Westmoreland County Industrial Development Corp. paid $305,000 for it.
That sale has not been finalized because the company filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the purchase. The lawsuit is pending.
According to tax records for the property, in each of the past three years Zion owed more than $11,000 to the county, more than $17,000 to the city of Jeannette, and more than $44,800 to the school district.
Rich Cholodofsky is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-830-6293 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.