Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

‘Unfair’ acts are consistent

November 10, 2013

Despite a number of partnerships and similarities between the two, there rarely is harmony between the boards of the village of Fredonia and town of Pomfret....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(44)

Christopher

Nov-16-13 9:02 AM

Check around, see who (Town Officials) might have property that increases in value by a TON once they get village water!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Nov-13-13 12:30 PM

I guess the "we" crowd has been infected by the Judeye syndrome.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Nov-12-13 10:32 AM

Don't do anything crazy, I was only teasing you w/the HAHAHA's ;)

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Nov-12-13 9:51 AM

I suggest you read all the "we" comments and tell me that statement is not true. Have a nice day,going for a walk in my woods with my new Rossi Circuit Judge!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Nov-12-13 9:42 AM

detest?, all we are talking about is justification for policy

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Nov-12-13 8:57 AM

Rumblefish did you see Captains comments-the name escapes me? Did he not throw that property into the mix? The property is on the tax rolls. You used the term "we" and I proved you were in error. Putting words into my mouth such as saying,"I find nothing wrong with the reduction" is baloney. I simply posted data showing that the reduction was in line with other nearby properties. I might add that the Observer puts a bunch of money into the economy,pays taxes, and therefore has as much right as anyone else to request a reduction in property taxes. If you detest the Observer that much,don't subscribe!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Nov-12-13 8:41 AM

Joe seeing that you find nothing wrong with the reduction, then maybe all the property in the area should get the same as the Observer, after all "what's good for the goose, should be good for the gander" cut the tax roll, take revenue away from the city put a steeper burden on residential taxpayers, yes sir that's the ticket

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Nov-12-13 8:34 AM

we have and that comment only mentioned a location, not a name, you are the one who supplied that, so who owns that location, answer that and your argument will show that site has no bearing on Observer's property reduction

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Nov-12-13 8:24 AM

I think if you read Captains 10 Nov@0814 comments rumblefish you just might be wrong!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Nov-12-13 8:11 AM

ah Joe we did not introduce Chadwick Bay Lofts into this you did remember

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Nov-11-13 5:20 PM

Yes Captain I was very busy today handing out "thanks for your service" cards at the VA hospital. Now I did not defend squat as you would imply,I simply cited figures(not what I think,not what I say)from the Official Dunkirk ,NY tax rolls website. You can do all your little HA HA HA BS all you want while hiding behind some BS name. At least Christopher has the courage to use his real name unlike you and a couple of others. Who cares who owns Chadwick Bay Lofts Rumblefish,another conspiracy accusation coming forth?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Nov-11-13 12:54 PM

...he must be "busy" HAHAHA

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Nov-11-13 12:40 PM

oh Joe who exactly owns Chadwick Bay Lofts, we know do you

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Nov-11-13 10:47 AM

Further, after considering all the properties I listed that clearly had a positive affect on the assessed value of the OBSERVER's bldg, or should I say would have in any other part of the country, and to still defend its reduction, then the only logical conclusion is the city-wide re-val performed in '96 was seriously flawed. So if you're now willing to "shift gears" and defend the '96 re-val as well, then by all means, be my guest.

For the record, the most recent offer I received on my DK home (which is NOT in disrepair) is for $20K UNDER its assessed value. Out of all the properties I listed, including the Observer bldg, if they were put up for sale today, how many are worth LESS than 50% of their assessed value?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Nov-11-13 10:10 AM

Regardless of what joeblow thinks or says, since the last re-val in '96, and considering all the new major improvements, construction and investments consisting of millions and millions of $$$ in the immediate area where the OBSERVER bldg is located, what warranted (oh yeah, no comment) MORE THAN a 25% reduction for this bldg? Has it fallen into grave disrepair?

Can you believe this guy? He even defends such blatant favoritism when it's clearly unwarranted.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Nov-11-13 9:55 AM

rumblefish wrote; "..it's simple John D would be all over this reduction if it was anyone else as being bad judgment, by citing local economic issues for their criticism."

I couldn't agree more! This paper has revealed many times its hypocrisy, its preference for selective criticism over fair & objective reporting, and a malicious fixation to incite people against one another. It's really quite remarkable that local residents still buy it, albeit the Observer knows it has no competitor for printed local news.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Nov-11-13 9:38 AM

Oh and Rookies on the lake,90K.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

Nov-11-13 9:29 AM

Have either of you two looked at the actual tax rolls? Do you know what the bldg on the SE corner of E Second St and Washington Av is assessed at?(full market value)The name by the way is Chadwick Bay Lofts. I'll help you out,it is assessed at 300K less than Ogden Newspapers.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Nov-11-13 6:45 AM

we thank you Captain, and are glad someone else finds something fishy about Observer's Property tax assessment reduction, if one looks at council minutes, the original request was to lower value to under 300,000, and we also believe that major grant money is still to be spent in that area, it's odd for a city that is raising fee's and residential assessments to lower the Observer's isn't it

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Nov-11-13 6:22 AM

Mr. Pinecone is clearly a Town official. Comparing what a Village resident pays in Village taxes to what they pay in Town taxes is ridiculous. The Village provides water, sewer, street and sidewalk plowing, plowing od municipal parking lots, and the lots themselves, festivals and such, police and fire, I mean, how could anyone make a comparison to those 2 taxes, as the Town provides the Village with...? Since the Town officials are Republican, and it's the Republicans that want to sell the Nursing home, does Mr. Pinecone feel the same way about the various amounts of tax money cited for that cost, but $65 seems to be the number? I doubt it. Funny how that is.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Nov-10-13 8:14 PM

The name of the bldg on the SE corner of 2nd & Wash Ave escapes me, but it's the OBSERVER'S neighbor, and it recently received $2M+ in major improvements. The FSU Incubator, another neighbor, is another multi-million dollar investment. Demitri's, The Hotel, the Gas Station/convenient store, Rookie's on the Lake, and the Boardwalk are all similar or higher-priced commercial properties that are in the surrounding vicinity of the Observer, and most certainly raises its value. But for some odd reason (no comment), the Observer receives MORE THAN a 25% assessment reduction???

Of course, I'm sure this type of "proof" isn't good enough for JD's lapdog.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Nov-10-13 6:26 PM

On second thought, instead of "apparent need", maybe an "abuse of power" is a better choice of words.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Captain

Nov-10-13 6:12 PM

After reading this article, I don't regret rescinding the apology I made to JD the other day.

This time, there's no mistaking the words being used...and they're all his.

I presume JD "edited" Paul's article last week b/c he didn't want a private business publicly criticized, yet JD has no problem with doing this to local munis whenever he feels the need. Is this journalistic discretion or is it JD's apparent need to control what customers read?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commentor

Nov-10-13 4:30 PM

Well MrPinenut if you know but aren't telling can't be much or nothing.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rumblefish

Nov-10-13 2:57 PM

it obvious, so we have to believe that you are connected to the Observer

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 44 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web