Honestly, my property has some challenges. Anyone who has visited me will know all about that. (Like where the heck is it??) Yet the county has appraised it (in 2006) for just under $30,000 MORE than I paid for it - less than 3 years before that appraisal. That's just weird.

I wouldn't part with the place because I love it, but I'm also skeptical that it would sell for what they claim it is worth.

They told the guy with the 40 acres of untarnished woodland that had been in the greenbelt that they would adjust the more than 100% increase in his property taxes, BUT NOT UNTIL NEXT YEAR. Yes, that's right. They agreed it was too high. But too dadgummed bad. Too much trouble to change it for this year.

You'd think they WANTED him to sell his property for some developer's shacks, wouldn't you??

...as I understand it, if voted in this year (this month), it would apply for 2008 starting in January. But January is only half-way through the current fiscal year and won't have been calculated to include this freeze.

If I'm wrong, or if it doesn't matter, let me know and I'll change my vote. ;-) I DO want a tax freeze for seniors, I just want us to be able to PLAN for it. Like have it take place as of July 1st, 2008.

The problem with the Commission discussion of the tax freeze is that is a static analysis i.e. it assumes seniors will act the same, with or without a tax freeze. This is wrong. If a tax freeze is not enacted. some of our hard pressed seniors will move. They are then likely to be replaced with families with children. It will cost far more to provide schools for those children than the tax freeze will cost. A review of the numbers will prove that if less than 2% of our seniors move out - the rest of the taxpayers will end up worse off, without the tax freeze, than with it.