A group of property-rich towns charges the recently adopted statewide property tax undercharges some taxpayers and overcharges others. The state says the system is fair, even if it's not perfect.
THE TAX IS UNDER ATTACK BY 27 SO-CALLED DONOR TOWNS, WHO SAW THEIR RATES GO UP AFTER IT WAS ADOPTED TWO YEARS AGO. THE TOWNS CLAIM IT?S UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE DIFFERENT TOWNS ASSESS PROPERTY DIFFERENTLY. THE LEAD LAWYER FOR THE DONOR TOWNS, TOM CLOSSON, CALLED THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM ?ANTIQUATED AND HANDICAPPED,? AND SAID IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE.
18 149 must be proportional. Not jus the rate, but the way the property is valued.
CLOSSON SAID SINCE DIFFERENT TOWNS VALUE PROPERTIES DIFFERENTLY, SOME TAXPAYERS END UP PAYING TOO LITTLE FOR SCHOOLS, WHILE OTHERS PAY TOO MUCH. BUT HE DIDN?T PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOWING HOW MANY TAXPAYERS WERE HARMED AND HOW MUCH THEY HAD OVERPAID. JUSTICE JOHN? BRODERICK JUMPED ON THAT POINT, ASKING HOW THE COURT COULD ASSESS THE FAIRNESS OF THE SYSTEM IF THE PLAINTIFFS THEMSELVES DIDN?T KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE.
If this system created disproportionality for five people, is it unconst?
No
What about a thousand.
Well, you?re getting closer, your honor.
THE COURT WAS AT LEAST AS SKEPTICAL OF THE STATE?S ARGUMENTS. ARTHUR GREENE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?S OFFICE CLAIMED THE ASSESSMENT PROCESSES WERE FAIR. BUT JUSTICE JOSEPH?? NADEAU WASN?T CONVINCED.
17 1200 NAD ? how can we be comfortable someone is going to be able to eval 100 ft on ocean in rye as opposed to 100 ft in waterville? How can we get there without a statewide standard.
GREEN REPLIED THAT IT?S DIFFICULT TO CREATE ONE SET OF BLACK-AND-WHITE STANDARDS FOR THE WHOLE STATE. AFTER ALL, GREEN SAID, THERE ARE MANY INTANGIBLE QUALITIES THAT AFFECT A HOUSE?S VALUE.
17 1242 There is a subjective element. // but subjectivity doesn?t make it unsound. // and subjectivitiy can be used to make things better as opposed to just applying rules off a page.
THE COURT ALSO SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF TIME DISCUSSING HOW TO FIX THE DAMAGE IF THE SYSTEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE RICHARD GALWAY HAD ORDERED THE STATE TO RETURN ALL 880-MILLION DOLLARS IT COLLECTED UNDER THE TAX. HE BASED THAT ORDER IN PART ON WHAT GALWAY SAID WAS THE STATE?S PROMISE TO RETURN THE MONEY. STEVEN?? JUDGE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?S OFFICE SAID THAT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. JUSTICE BRODERICK SAID THE ORDER TO RETURN THE MONEY SEEMED EXCESSIVE. BUT HE HARSHLY QUESTIONED WHY THE STATE HADN?T CLARIFIED ITS POSITION EARLIER.
26 28 Why in the world wouldn?t someone say what you just said here, eloquently. Judge, you misunderstood? Wouldn?t it be fair to the judge? I?m mystified.
THE STATE ARGUED IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO RETURN THE 880 MILLION DOLLARS, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO DO SO WOULD RESULT IN FISCAL CHAOS. IF A REMEDY IS NEEDED, THEY SAID, THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD COME UP WITH IT. IRONICALLY, THE STATE?S LAWYER STEVEN JUDGE TURNED FOR SUPPORT TO A CASE IT HASN?T EXACTLY APPLAUDED IN THE PAST ? THE CLAREMONT TWO DECISION ORDERING THE STATE TO PAY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
Give the legislature time to address the problem. No retractive relief or refund. The same as claremont 2.
THE DONOR TOWNS CLAIM THE STATE BROUGHT THE 880-MILLION DOLLAR PROBLEM ON ITSELF. THEY SAY THE STATE WAS TRYING TO RAISE THE STAKES BY SUGGESTING IF THEY HAD TO GIVE ANYTHING BACK, THEY SHOULD GIVE BACK THE WHOLE AMOUNT. THE TOWNS SAID THEY NEVER ASKED FOR THAT MONEY, AND THEY SUGGESTED THE COURT SEND THE CASE BACK TO JUDGE GALWAY TO DETERMINE A REMEDY. THE COURT IS NOW WEIGHING THE CASE. THERE?S NO WORD ON WHEN TO EXPECT A RULING. FOR NHPR I?M.
