Appeals & Allegheny County
In his letter “Realtors, appeals & disclosure I”, Michael J. Suley notes the thorny issue of Mt. Lebanon government challenging property assessments based upon recent sales of homes, something which has come to be called “the newcomer's tax,” as the phenomenon does not ensnare longtime residents.
This issue, and that of reassessments in general, serves to illustrate why many are leaving Allegheny County for greener pastures in neighboring jurisdictions.
The state Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, decreed that only Allegheny County would be required to meet the standard of regularly reassessing properties. Butler County has not performed a reassessment since 1969 and does not challenge its assigned home values based upon recent sales. What elected official of Butler County who would like to be returned to office would advocate for a reassessment, given how it savages residents and its vast expense?
The secret that Allegheny County would prefer individuals not recognize is that great communities like Cranberry, Butler County, not only offer taxes that I have found to be about half of those imposed in my overtax-and-overspend community, in which commissioners and the school board have taken leave of their senses, but that reassessments are not an issue because they are not performed.
Take it from me — one who had to fight for a just outcome, including expending time, effort and a $106 filing fee for a second-level appeal of my latest reassessment. The Allegheny County homeowner is being crushed through not only tax liability but a reassessment system inflicted on it exclusively. It is madness.
Oren M. Spiegler
Upper St. Clair
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.
- Wolf is the right choice
- ObamaCare solution
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Shame on Wolf
- Gun questions for mayor II
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Wake up, voters
- Positive promise
- Wrong on EPA water proposal
- Justice incomplete
- Picking our pockets