LETTER TO THE EDITOR---SKEPTICISM REGARDING CHANGE TO PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT IN CROTON

Welcome to Everything Croton, a collection of all things Croton--our history, our homes, our issues, our businesses, our schools--in short, EverythingCroton.

To the Editor:

I do understand the skepticism regarding the recent change to the property tax assessment system in Croton. Given past history, it would not be out of the question for one of our elected officials to use their office for personal enrichment. But I have yet to see evidence of such behavior on the part of the current Mayor, and in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

The assumption is that since the Cortlandt assessor roll results in a lower tax on the residence of Mr. Pugh, this means that Mayor Pugh used his office for pecuniary advantage. It is a fact that Mr. Pugh’s taxes are lower due to a decision made by the Board of Trustees. But it does not follow that any of those voting did so for the purpose of benefiting Mr. Pugh.

Property tax assessment formulas are a zero-sum endeavor. In theory the formula should result in every homeowner paying their “fair” share. A common misperception is that because a particular homeowner has a different property tax under the new system this means that they are paying more or less than their fair share: in other words, that they were under-paying or over-paying for the past years when the Croton tax assessor’s formula was used. Property taxes are normally based on assessed value. Of course, this begs the question as to how the “assessed value” is computed. Since homes in Croton are not fungible and people own their homes for several years, the actual tax bill for any given home may not accurately reflect the value of the home: this is why there is a grievance procedure.

There has been no evidence that the Croton assessment formula was not neutral, nor that the Cortlandt system is not neutral. So it is entirely possible that Mr. Pugh’s taxes were correct under the old system and are correct under the new system. It is also possible that Mr. Pugh was paying more than his fair share under the Croton formula and/or less than his fair share under the Cortlandt formula. Absent an analysis of the reason for the disparity, we simply don’t know. If anyone is going to criticize Mayor Pugh on this issue, they should review the property tax histories (which are public) and figure out why there issuch a large percentage difference.

Some might argue that the mere fact of personal pecuniary benefit (i.e., a lower tax bill) resulting from a vote to change to the Cortlandt assessment formula means that a legislator voting on such a bill is not voting in the interests of their constituency, or that the legislator should recuse themselves. I don’t agree with that. It is true that a re-zoning law affecting a particular legislator should result in a recusal; which is what the late Ann Galelli did when there was a zoning change which benefited her. But since every member of the Board of Trustees was affected by the assessment change, it is impossible to expect recusal.

It is also illogical to think that Mr. Pugh would prefer to have the Cortlandt assessor determine his taxes as opposed to the Croton assessor. It is worth remembering that during the Gouveia fiasco, Laurel Gouveia was to retain a life estate in the property and have the absolute right to restrict the use of the property by the titular holder (Village of Croton), but the property was to be exempt from taxation since technically it was owned by the municipality. The Croton assessor had no problem with this blatantly illegal scheme, but the Cortlandt assessor took the correct position that retention of the life estate meant that there could be a reduction in tax but not an exemption. At very least this suggests that if Mr. Pugh wanted a pliable assessor, he would have simply arm-twisted the Croton assessor and not voted to eliminate his office in favor of an assessor who was not under his thumb.

I would also point out that Mr. Pugh brought up the possibility of eliminating the village court in favor of the town court. The effort failed, but it would have resulted in the loss of a paid position (Village Justice) that was a safe seat for his political party, and the loss of two paid positions (Associate Justice and Prosecutor) that were mayoral appointments. In other words, Mayor Pugh put what he believed to be the best interests of the taxpayers ahead of the patronage opportunities of continuing with business as usual.

In both the decisions regarding the Village Court and the Village Assessor, Mr. Pugh followed a framework of reducing taxes by implementing shared services. The idea of efficiencies resulting from shared services goes back to the Cuomo administration and the implementation of the property tax cap.

Local politicians don’t like shared services because it reduces their power (and sometimes patronage appointments and budget). Were we setting up a municipal structure today, we would never consider such a duplicative and expensive system as exists currently. Our trustees and mayor should be actively looking to reduce expenditures by means of shared services, and as taxpayers we should encourage them to do so.

I normally adhere to not raising personal matters in Gazette letters, but part of the reason why I am willing to give Mr. Pugh the benefit of any doubt on this issue is because of what he has done as a homeowner and I think that is relevant to this discussion.

The house Mr. Pugh bought had languished on the market for more than a decade. Realtor signs came and went, but the property was in horrible shape and overpriced. The garage had three-foot high red letters spelling out “S---- HOUSE” which were visible from Old Post and all the way to Highland. I recall one of my contractors who was working on the kitchen and when he looked out the window, he said “I bet that hurts your property value.” There was also the time when the fire department came to put out a fire because the owners were burning trash in the backyard and almost set the neighbors tree on fire. The astounded police officer responding to the call explained that the bonfire was not permitted and that Croton had a sanitation department to assist in getting rid of trash.

Neighbors thought that the Pughs were crazy to buy the dilapidated house. They did a gut renovation and fixed the exterior, painting and planting flowers. Mr. Pugh is out there shoveling his walkway, takes his trash cans in promptly, and took down the garage lettering. I have my issues with Mayor Pugh, but  couldn’t ask for better neighbors than the Pugh family. If anything, as homeowners and taxpayers we should be incentivizing such behavior.

If we are to say that the vote of Mayor Pugh was for the purpose of putting money in the pocket of Taxpayer Pugh, I think there needs to be more than a conclusory “He voted to consolidate; his taxes went down; ergo his motivation was improper” argument. Based on the evidence available, I don’t see that the criticisms are valid.

--Paul Steinberg, Croton-on-Hudson