Go by sale prices
To Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald: The news story “Revalued properties are still an issue in Allegheny County” noted great disparity between assessed property values and sale prices. Recent home sales “in Pine were on average $130,000 above their assessed prices.” Talk about not paying their fair share! In “economically depressed city neighborhoods — houses sold for less than their assessed values.” A home in Swissvale sold for $94,200 less than its assessed value.
This property-tax inequality is blatant favoritism of the affluent! You, Mr. Fitzgerald, fired Michael Suley, a former manager of the county Office of Property Assessment, who said, “The richer neighborhoods are underassessed. The poorer neighborhoods are overassessed, and the county is doing nothing to solve the problem.”
I'm offering some common sense: Every home's sale price should be the new assessed value. If everyone paid taxes on the true value of his home, Mr. Fitzgerald, you could ease the burden of so many struggling middle- and low-income citizens. After 40 years of paying property taxes, a senior citizen should be relieved of paying any more. If need be, kick in some of that casino profit money, as was once promised, or raise the county's additional sales tax a penny to accomplish senior citizen tax relief.
Fix this disgrace of a system. Put it at the top of your “to do” list, Mr. Fitzgerald. Work on it until it gets done — period. It affects so many people. Please address my letter.
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.
- ATI crying poor again
- Give Vick second chance
- EPA, methane & health
- Stop naming shooters
- Personal fiscal restraint needed
- e_SSLqProgressive’ should be ‘regressive’
- Producers, consumers hurt
- Don’t blame the union
- Confederate pride: Why?
- Overgrown North Versailles property needs attention
- Cops, stars shine