So let’s talk about the property reassessment project that is currently in its final stages in the Town of Bethlehem. If you read The Spotlight, you may have heard a thing or two about it — first, from reporter Marcy Velte’s coverage, with an initial story dating back to almost a year ago when the whole thing got under way; and second, through the recent letters and comments that have made their way onto our letters to the editor pages and online forums. This is clearly a topic that has spurred some impassioned conversation about what it means to be a property owner in town, and many of those arguments were aired at a recent Town Board meeting. But before we talk about the reassessment, let’s get some things out of the way that are only counterproductive to a real and honest discussion about where we go from here. First of all, the reassessed values were not assigned in a way meant to penalize or reward property owners based on their political affiliation. The fact is, some numbers went up, some stayed the same, and some went down — all across the political spectrum. And those facts are out there for anybody with a computer and a little bit of time to check out for themselves. Both the property values from 2013 and the preliminary values from 2014 can be found on the town’s website, www.townofbethlehem.org, on the assessor’s page. Second, not doing a reassessment is not a viable long-term option. The last reassessment in Bethlehem was in 2006, and since that time, the stalled assessed value of some larger commercial properties had made it impossible to get a fair taxable value on new large businesses moving into town. One of the major impetuses for the current reassessment, as Marcy reported a year ago, was to make sure those new businesses were paying their fair share. And, as per state law, a town can not simply pick and choose what to assess; the process must cover every property in town. That said, there are some people who experienced a real sticker shock when they opened their letters and saw their new assessments. Some of those experiencing the biggest increases own vacant, undeveloped land within the town’s border that contributes to the open space viewshed and has a value beyond dollars and cents. Many of those landowners brought their concerns to the board April 9. With their voices at times cracking with emotion, some described how their assessments more than doubled, tripled and even then some. Many were genuinely concerned about where they would find the money to pay the bills. Some said they might be compelled to sell or clear cut their land to make ends meet. And others wondered how the values were arrived at when no one actually “walked the land.” And this is where we, as a town, have to move forward.
These increases, while painful to absorb, are not set in stone, and they don’t take into account various exemptions, such as STAR and agricultural, which can bring some costs in line. GAR Associates is holding preliminary meetings prior to the actual grievance day in May, and we can only hope that they take the time needed to get on the same page with the landowners as to what their property is actually worth. Even if some of those increases stand, it is important for property owners to know how and why those new values were assigned. We also hope the town sticks with the goal of holding a reassessment every four years because that is the only way to avoid big swings in value. This isn’t always an easy decision. Assessments are rarely a painless process, and those who initiate them will always be the “bad guy” to someone facing a higher tax bill. Finally, it’s important to remember that it is a little too soon to panic. The assessment on about half of the properties in town either decreased or stayed the same, while many others went up 10 percent or less. Come tax time, all of those people will likely see their taxes stay the same or go down.