City to join lawsuit challenging rejection of appraisals during reassessment
Pittsburgh Controller Michael Lamb said he will appear in court Wednesday to join a lawsuit as a plaintiff on behalf of city residents who had certified real estate appraisals rejected by assessment appeals officers.
Various residents across Allegheny County on Jan. 7 sued the county and the Board of Property Assessment Appeals and Review, claiming that hearing officers improperly ignored solid evidence from homeowners appealing the property reassessments that the county performed last year. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that certified appraisals that homeowners presented as evidence were not properly considered and that homeowners got no explanation why such evidence is not accepted.
“It is our sense that the board has arbitrarily rejected certified appraisals,” Lamb said in a prepared statement. “Unlike the property assessment process itself, the appraisals were completed by on the ground appraisers who did thorough appraisals of the properties.”
An attorney for the plaintiffs has said he wants the county to go back through its appeals and correct the cases in which he says the outcome is flawed because the appraisals weren‘t considered.
In February, the controller's office established a program offering free assessment appeal services to Pittsburgh homeowners whose property value is $150,000 or less. The program also offered discount property appraisal services.
City residents with a certified appraisal who feel that it was arbitrarily rejected by the review board can contact the controller's office for a review of their case, Lamb said. Call 412- 255-2054.
Show commenting policy
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.
- Pirates inquire about Red Sox LHP Lester
- IceoPlex owner indicted, accused of avoiding $1M in payroll taxes
- Starkey: Would one big move kill Pirates’ future?
- Chevron puts Moon HQ plans on hold
- Police: Westmoreland women stole thousands to pay for dog show hobby
- Former walk-ons may lose scholarships under Penn State’s Franklin
- UPMC wants lawsuit tossed in Shick case
- Police investigate how woman fell onto CMU apartment roof
- Karzai’s kin killed in suicide bombing
- Obama’s many rules often violate statute
- Some Carnegie residents without Verizon landline service