by Mark Fenske
In response to the article “Tax Bills cause stir,” (Hollis Brookline Journal, July 11) I caution all residents to evaluate the fairness and accuracy of the recent tax revaluation. I, for one, found that in review of my tax card, both inaccuracies and inequities may exist, some of which, generally apply.
I called, set an appointment. Notably, the Avitar/town review process was pleasant and I left feeling my points and concerns were truly heard. I do not believe Avitar’s efforts to be directly at fault. The process has been hindered by historic inaccuracies, yesteryear’s small town latitudes on construction and the limited depth of investigation that was prescribed. Questionable values and inconsistent data may apply on a number of old homes in town. I assume newer homes’ cards to be more accurate due to documentation, codes, regulation and development standards that are much different than even that of 20 years ago.
My investigation indicates that “antique homes” were classed in the sales data pertaining to “new homes” and resulted, in my case, to roughly a 40 percent value increase on my tax card. A sales data review by my realtor and documented sales quickly scanned by one of the Avitar associates, could supply no precedent that any increase should apply to antiques. With an unparalleled winter heating cost approaching, it is doubtful that drafty windows, hollow un-insulated walls, and hungry old heating systems are going to help substantiate such a value increase.
Through the discussion over my card, it was said that old houses are built better than new ones. While I believe this to be true to some degree, vintage construction is also a liability. While the craftsmanship of 150 years ago may be idolized as better, those standards and practice apply to a lifestyle and to construction materials not present today. I am reminded of this as I pass through town and see one of our local craftsmen scratching his head as to how to replicate parts to make the library steeple weathertight and keep it from toppling. To maintain the integrity, safety and character of older construction, you don’t just go to Home Depot and pick up what you need.
This is just one of many problems facing the owners of older homes. As a story, years ago, when I needed to do a repair, I’d head over with a termite eaten sample of the required replacement stock to Bingham or Tapply Lumber. I left plenty of time, as there was always a neighborly discussion to be had with say Bill Ingram on the world, town history, politics or the trees that were felled to make these unique (today) materials. A month later, the new old style material sometimes was ready.
Today it is harder to find such resources and more expensive to accommodate those repair needs. Old homes are in constant need of repair to keep them livable and marketable, so if a homeowner cannot get the appropriate service and materials, it is increasingly difficult to maintain the overall value of the property.
Of course, no one wants to discuss probably the largest contributor to the “built better, lasts longer” topic as it applies to antique homes: lead paint. It is in old homes that lead paint seems to be many times the only thing holding it together, and kept mold, rot, insects and decay away. Although I’ve worked tirelessly in appropriate manner to abate potential hazard from this, certainly the lead paint issue is more than a double-edge sword from a property tax value standpoint.
And contemplate the seriously undersized framing that allows for that typical four-inch sag in the middle of each room, compromised further by notching and boring to accommodate plumbing and electric never intended to be there. Sorry, the “better built” argument doesn’t hold water for me.
The kicker was to find out that the old back cellar and the manure mow under the barn, both with five-foot something head clearance and dirt floors, were classed as full basement since, in some manner, these spaces could be used as storage (as found practical by chipmunks and squirrels that amass their acorns and wild cherry pits there presently).
I see a distinct and important inequity when equal value is assessed to both a poured concrete basement of today’s standard and to a space designed two centuries ago just tall enough for a manure cart to catch horse droppings through a trap door in the rickety barn floor.
Typically, I refrain from capitalizing indiscriminately on this space, as my flood insurance agent tells me that stored items are not covered under your policy in the Federally Designated Flood Hazard Area. The flood zone, encompassing much of the village downtown, has apparently not been acknowledged on the values.
Aside, the value of the barn is essentially to its outward aesthetics — quaint on a drive by. I note that my barn is assessed as if it serves some essential function in today’s lifestyle, yet since its framing is not designed to support my “horseless carriage,” it only occupies space where a usable garage might stand.
The essential concern is that the town may need to expend an increased effort to enable a true valuation on especially these antique homes. I suggest they look closer than a drive by and provide resources to update town records and substantiate values. This updating would prove a prudent investment, in my opinion. This should include the sighting of wells and septic systems. While encroachment of buildings, structures and wetlands is readily apparent, many of these lots encroach each other unnoticeably with well and septic setback radiuses. All encroachments affect/restrict appeal, flexibility of use or development and ultimately value. Had this work previously been accomplished, it would have avoided approval of a septic system inadvertently installed within the state minimum of my antique shallow well. Although I haven’t made formal complaint, this stands as example of a short (maybe too budget minded) approach of verifying data — and certainly does not help substantiate the aforementioned 40 percent value increase.
Some of the tax card accuracy burden falls on the town, yet each resident must do his/her part to get records up to date and correct. Unfortunately, the town appraiser is typically met with, “Quick, lock the doors and pull the shades; don’t let them in.” Yet, a specific number of tax dollars needs to be raised by the town and state, regardless. By withholding access for inspection, a resident taxpayer may get away with something, but the fact is, it is at the expense of one or more of your neighbors. If you pay a little less then your share, your neighbor has to pay more.
I am all for paying my full pro rata share of taxes. What doesn’t work is an increase in valuation when there may be document errors, when decision-making lacks pertinent basis and when the impacts of development and lifestyle change may call for no change or possibly a devaluation.
Please make sure you are not also on the short end of the stick, and if you find you’re on the long end, have the integrity to right the error.
Mark Fenske is a resident of Brookline.