City Wants More For Vanessa's Chevy | New Haven Independent

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

City Wants More For Vanessa’s Chevy

by Thomas MacMillan | Jun 29, 2010 4:20 pm

(43) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Hall

Thomas MacMillan Photo (Updated) This tax season, Vanessa Fasanella’s 1997 Chevy Lumina is a year older, with more miles and more scratches in the paint. But according to the city, the car is worth over $400 more than it was last year. That means a higher tax bill for Fasanella.

“This is just stupid,” Fasanella said. It doesn’t make sense for her car to have appreciated in value over the last year, she said. Last year, it was worth $1750. This year it’s worth $2160, according to the city.

Fasanella’s Chevy Lumina isn’t the only used car that’s gone up in value on this year’s tax bills. Her husband’s car, a 2003 Ford Crown Victoria, was appraised at $4,800 on last year’s tax bill. This year, the city says it’s worth $5,080.

Last week, in a letter to the editor in the New Haven Register, John J. Freeman, Sr. wrote in to complain that the assessed value of his 2008 Toyota Highlander went up $2,580, making it $1,530 higher than it was in 2008 when he bought the car new.

Fasanella, who lives with her husband and two kids in Morris Cove, said she’s spoken with a couple of other people who have also seen an increase in assessed value.

City spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said the increase is due to a misinterpretation of tax bills and revisions in the car value guide used by the city for assessments.

The curious case of suddenly more valuable used cars became a subject for discussion on SeeClickFix, the community complaint site. This is the latest expression of taxpayer outrage, after citizens blasted the tax assessor’s office for allegedly arbitrarily raising property taxes on city artists. Meanwhile, an expose in the New Haven Advocate revealed citizens no longer have true legal recourse to challenge mistakes or arbitrary decisions by the assessor’s office, even though they’re supposed to by law.

When she got her tax bill last week, Fasanella did a double take. “I said, ‘No, no, wait. It’s so different!’”

“How are they valuing cars?” she said. “It doesn’t make sense.”

Fasanella said she plans on paying the tax bills, which are due on Thursday. “But I’m pissed. It’s ridiculous.”

Fasanella said she hasn’t contacted the tax office to complain. She said she didn’t think it was worth it, since she’s been so discouraged by previous attempts to communicate with the office. Once she called and let the phone ring 50 times before hanging up. She counted. (Consumer tip, for now: Call the mayor’s office first, then ask to be transferred to the assessor’s office. Your chances of reaching a human dramatically increase.)

Other times Fasanella has gotten answers that don’t make sense, she said. “Is anyone listening there anyway?”

She said she’d like an explanation of why her car’s value went up. “How can it appreciate?” she said. “I would like it to make sense.”

City spokeswoman Mayorga offered a couple of explanations. First, Following the recommendations of the state Office of Policy Management, the city uses a guide published by the National Automobile Dealers Association. “NADA has raised assessments of cars on a number of vehicles,” Mayorga said.

Mayorga said that increase accounts for the changes in the tax bills for Freeman’s Toyota and for a small part of Fasanella’s Chevy. The NADA value of her the Fasanellas’ Crown Victoria did not go up. Mayorga said she doesn’t know which cars in general have seen increases in assessed value.

“That still sounds like B.S. to me,” said Fasanella. How could her and two or three friends of theirs all have seen an increase in the assessed value of their cars? “Are we all just horribly unlucky?”

According to the NADA guide website, a 1997 Chevy Lumina with 132,500 miles on it, like Fasanellas, would be worth between $850 and $1,850 as a trade in, and $3,325 as a “clean retail.” Fasanella said her car is in far from perfect condition.

Mayorga’s second explanation is that in the case of Fasanella and her husband’s car, the increased assessment is due to the fact that last year’s bill was a supplemental bill in which the cars were assessed for only a portion of the full year. This year’s bill is for the full year.

“That is the same line the tax assessor gave me last year,” Fasanella said. She said she went through a tax assessing nightmare last year when she and her husband sold two cars and bought two new ones. She was sent an incorrect bill then too, she said.

The city’s explanation still doesn’t hold water, she said. Last year’s tax bill set the Lumina’s “gross assessment” at $1,750, she said. The bill then listed an exemption of $1,340, since Vasanella had only owned the car for part of the year. The gross assessment from last year ($1750) is still smaller than the gross assessment from this year ($2160).

Mayorga said that’s a misinterpretation of the bill. She said the gross assessment was in fact an assessment for only the period that Vasanella owned the car, and thus not the full value of the car. The exemption was a credit for having sold another car.

Mayorga said all residents with concerns about their tax bills can go before the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA).

But as the Advocate reported last week, the appeals board lacks two thirds of members, the remaining member has revealed significant gaps in knowledge, and the board does not keep minutes. Citizens have reported being summarily turned down even in cases of obvious city mistakes—for instance, when a for-profit coffee shop was penalized for not filing a not-for-profit organizational declaration, or when a homeowner was charged for a building on his property that doesn’t exist. A mayoral aide told the Advocate: “It is clear that the BAA lacks the appropriate training on the proper recording of minutes for public minutes. As such, the BAA will receive appropriate training and supports will be put in place to ensure that the board is prepared to provide the accountability that residents expect and deserve,”

Comments

posted by: davec on June 29, 2010 4:39pm

I’ll bet that See Click Fix would not describe themselves as the ‘community complaint site’; although that is what it has become. Has See Click Fix become something other than its original stated purpose? That’s a topic for another thread.
Now the city tax assessor’s office is messing with people’s car taxes? There will be hell to pay. I’m going home to see if my car is valued higher this year as compared to last year…everyone should and flood the office (and See Click Fix) with complaints if it is higher this year.

posted by: Joe on June 29, 2010 4:51pm

And this gross incompetence/negligence and downright dishonesty from the city is what we get for our 43.9 mil rate? This is a crime, and Mayorga doesn’t seem to have a clue about what she’s parroting.

posted by: anon on June 29, 2010 4:54pm

Considering how much it costs the city to repair the damage caused by vehicles, these taxes should be much higher.

Paying $100 for a year of free access to our hundreds of miles of roads, plus all the free services (e.g., snow plowing, accident investigations that cost the city tens of thousands of dollars a piece, emergency responses, pothole filling) is the biggest bargain on the planet.

Why do the majority of city residents (including children), who do not drive cars to work every day or even own them, have to pay such huge subsidies to the minority who do?

posted by: Doyens on June 29, 2010 5:23pm

My assessment went down by $60 - $30K miles and a year later. lol. The tax assessor’s office is a joke. Make no mistake, this is a John DeStefano, Jr. directive. If the city chose a different guide by which to figure a car assessments, it did so in order to jack up the assessments and certainly not for accuracy’s sake. Who at OPM suggested using NADA and why? OPM just called up one day and said, hey, you could rip more money off your citizens if you used NADA? That’s udder B.S. from message maven.

And let’s talk about transparency again. If this was above board, why was it not announced so people are not so damn mad and feeling like again, the mayor is just slamming us with dishonesty and more corruption and higher taxes?

Anon:
If you don’t own a car, you don’t pay. You are not subsidizing anything.

posted by: Jon Doe on June 29, 2010 5:24pm

This is just another way Mayor Johnny is killing the middle class in New Haven.

posted by: eli antonnio on June 29, 2010 5:27pm

Well, how the hell else is the city going to pay for Reggie Mayo’s salary?

posted by: cliff furnald on June 29, 2010 5:47pm

Well, to be fair: the value of used cars IS up… just check any used car lot. People are paying top dollar for used cars right now because
1. the banks are not loaning money
2. the “0 money down” deals are gone
3. No one is buying new, putting huge pressure on the used car market.

It’s really not surprising, on an economic level.

posted by: Ralph Ferrucci on June 29, 2010 6:17pm

Cars depreciate every year in value starting the minute you drive it off of the lot.

The Mayor needs to learn how to balance a budget without screwing over the working class. We can not afford all the increases he has put into the budget from higher home taxes and higher taxes on cars from the increased mill rate to the appreciated values of vehicle.

The city has increased the value of vanessa’s car but if she went to sell it she would not get the value the city says it is worth.

DeStefano you are so out of touch with reality. Maybe you should give up 2/3 of your yearly income to see how hard it is struggling in New Haven.

I would also love to see what book the assessor’s office is using for automobile values. Kelly’s Blue Book is the standard for all dealers and auto mechanics but values never appreciate in the book until a vehicle becomes a classic or antique.

posted by: streever on June 29, 2010 6:49pm

They shouldn’t even charge taxes on cars. They are not “assets” in the same sense that homes are. Let alone charge more. Cars devalue. They do not appreciate.

Anon, infrastructure is largely paid for by property tax, and the damages you describe have been attributed largely to heavy vehicles & environmental damages.

Do children ride in buses to schools, or in their mother’s car to sporting events? Do they buy food which was shipped in large tractor trailer trucks? You are ignoring reality to make a point against cars.

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on June 29, 2010 7:04pm

Thanks for the article on me, Thomas.

To anon: The increase isn’t justified when my property taxes have more than doubled in the last 4 years, AND all the talk we get from City Hall and the Tax Assessor’s office is showing us that they don’t know how to manage the money we do pay in taxes to them.

I will gladly pay for my residency in New Haven, but want it to be through fair and honest practices, not the web of lies that I have experienced thus far.

I guess I should consider myself lucky that I own three inexpensive cars that I own outright, with no car payments or high insurance costs.

posted by: Pedro on June 29, 2010 7:30pm

“Why do the majority of city residents (including children), who do not drive cars to work every day or even own them, have to pay such huge subsidies to the minority who do?”
Anon, this is a weak argument plain and simple and you know it. I would bet you that a majority of people who are above the poverty line own cars, and kids don’t pay ANYTHING, so stop including them as some sort of car-injured constituency. You could ask why we fund senior centers, when kids don’t use them, or subsidize job retraining programs when kids don’t use them, or give tax breaks to city business when kids don’t use them.

I’m all for car owners paying their fair share of car ownership costs if it’s done in a fair and equitable manner. Cranking up car values above what cars are actually worth does not do that.

I’m a bazillion percent for raising the gas tax and bringing back tolls in CT, as well as instituting congestion pricing to make it more expensive for all those who pass through our state just to get to transportation and vacation spots.

You also neglect the fact that cars bring a majority of city WORKERS into the city every day. While the reasons for people living driving distance away is a long and complicated one, cars are also the utility that allow a disparate workforce to come to a central place and conduct work. Unfortunately, the lure of free parking overcomes the suffering of long commutes, so cities have to price below what they should to remain competitive to the free parking suburbs.

The only way to start managing the impact of the automobile is to do it state-wide so that cities and suburbs are on an equal playing field. Parking should actually be one of the highest taxed uses of land, not the lowest. If you put a flat parking lot, you should be charged a much higher tax rate than if the structure was a productive use. There has to be away of accounting for this, and leveling the free parking playing field of the suburbs.

Having new haven go after car owners would only hit the middle class and force them to places where their car taxes would be next to nothing in other towns….then causing them to turn into commuters.

posted by: anon on June 29, 2010 8:20pm

Why should property owners and renters take on the whole burden of paying for our roads, when many people own cars that are worth more than the entire value of many homes?

We need a more progessive tax structure and a car tax is one way to reduce the burden on those least able to pay, e.g., the majority of residents who do not drive every day.

It’s true that heavy vehicles damage the roads, but all vehicles result in significant costs. If there were fewer, we would all save tremendous amounts of money. Many other cities have looked at this so-called “Green Dividend” and are taking actions to ensure that the burden of automobile use is shared fairly across society—not paid for primarily for the lowest-income residents, like it is now.

All that taken into consideration, all I’m saying is that the tax seems pretty fair to me. Maybe it should be a bit more progressive, e.g., lowered for people who own $2000 cars and raised for people who can afford cars worth more than $5000. Given the current state of affairs, the likelihood of regional tax reform anytime soon, and the fact that up to a third of residents in our city can’t even afford food in some neighborhoods, I’d rather raise taxes and expand the tax credit for working families than see taxes reduced on assets so that people can purchase larger vehicles.

posted by: Ned on June 29, 2010 8:21pm

Jessica Mayorga’s car taxes decreased. Look it up for yourself:

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/taxcollector/c2gtaxbilling.asp

posted by: Bill Saunders on June 29, 2010 8:42pm

Yes, this is BS, but IMHO, property taxes on automobiles should be collected in a uniform fashion by the State, not the Municipalities.

A car is worth the same, no matter what town it resides in.
In a town like Greenwich, for example, where the mil rate is 7.5, your tax bill would be six time less for the same HUMMER.

Afterall, unfair taxation is the oldest profession on the books

posted by: Uncle Nunzio on June 29, 2010 8:51pm

So wait… the towns and cities in CT don’t all use the same book? Instead it’s up to each town to determine what book to use? How is that fair? Can’t this be taken to the Attorney General’s office? or higher state authority?

posted by: Been Called Worse on June 29, 2010 9:17pm

My Porsche decreased in assessed value, go figure.

FYI - New Haven Assessor’s office has used NADA valuation for assessment for as far back as I can remember. That response from Mayorga is a red herring.

posted by: streever on June 29, 2010 9:30pm

Anon, ... again I repeat, most of the damage is caused not by normal automobile traffic but by large vehicles used for deliveries (such as groceries). Are you so enlightened as to purchase your groceries off of your rickshaw directly from the farm they are produced at?

While you are right in a deeper sense that the transportation system is heavily subsidized by people who don’t use cars every day, I doubt that you never use a car, and I’m sure you appreciate having a road system in place when you do. I’m sure you would appreciate the use of automobiles when you buy food if you thought about it, instead of trying to twist everything into a bizarre talking point regarding bicycle infrastructure.

posted by: robn on June 29, 2010 10:32pm

ANON,

I didn’t know so many people were driving Ferraris and Bentleys.

posted by: john on June 30, 2010 1:00am

this reminds me of a few years ago when my house suddenly rose in value according to the assessor, only to drop precipitously when the real estate market crashed.

funny, they haven’t been back to reassess.

posted by: Bill Saunders on June 30, 2010 1:01am

Another interesting note on personal property tax—because of the phase-in, car owners have already been paying a disproportionate amount of taxes, in essence partially subsidizing the increase home owners would have seen had there been no phase-in.

posted by: anon on June 30, 2010 1:24am

Pedro, you are grossly simplifying the argument.

“You could ask why we fund senior centers, when kids don’t use them”

Funny you mentioned this, because we do spend many times more per elderly resident than we do per kid. Currently, the government spends $9,000 per elderly person per year, versus just $900 per child. The result is vast numbers of children in poverty (compared to any other industrialized country) and dirt-poor social outcomes as a result. Maybe this is because kids do not vote?

Either way, the car tax seems pretty fair and should be considered in view of a more progressive tax structure that would produce much better social outcomes. Obviously the current system is getting this country nowhere.

I think your argument that marginally higher taxes would lead to more commuters just doesn’t make sense, and is a scare tactic designed to pander to suburban residents. The children in my neighborhood would probably look at you funny if you suggested subsidizing car owners (which is, in fact, what we do now, on a massive basis) instead of subsidizing a youth center or library for them.

posted by: L on June 30, 2010 6:47am

I, too, did a double-take when I got my tax bill for my car, also worth less this year, yet I am paying more. Of course, I won’t bother fighting it; what’s my time worth? I would care a bit less about paying more if we had more to show for it on the streets: bike lanes, more traffic-calming designs implemented, maybe even red light cameras, or at least increased police enforcement. I am dreading getting my home reassessed, as it is now worth a fraction of what I paid for it. My bad, I guess.

posted by: FairHavenRes on June 30, 2010 7:00am

Would someone (maybe the NHI?) explain the BAA process for newbies? I just received my first motor vehicle bill and it’s above and beyond even what NADA values my vehicle at. However when I call the Office of Assessment, I just get a recording about how the appeals process for the 2009 Grand List is already closed, even though I just received my bill. Oh and the voicemail is full, of course. How does one go about appealing? Do you just pay the bill first and then appeal? How could I have found out the assessment in time to file an appeal? There seems to be a dearth of information on the subject, conveniently enough, and it’s very confusing. I understand now why so many residents opt to keep their vehicles registered elsewhere!

posted by: Bill on June 30, 2010 7:12am

anon,
Why do the people in the suburbs have to subsidize New Haveners taxes? About 50% of New Havens revenue comes from the state.

posted by: freedom of the people on June 30, 2010 7:26am

Anon

although we do pay taxes we are not paying them for access to roads, so all roads would shut down if we didn’t right? crap people are don’t even know where there tax money goes they only have an idea.

posted by: Moira on June 30, 2010 7:33am

Bill Saunders is right. Unfair taxation is the oldest profession on the books. And now that I just received a $579 tax bill for my Subaru, I may have to resort to the “other” oldest profession to help me pay for it.

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on June 30, 2010 8:33am

(Morris Cove Mom = Vanessa Fasanella)

So, per Jessica Mayorga and the Tax Assessor’s Office, I shouldn’t be mad about this latest tax bill.

I pointed out that I was charged not once, but twice last year, even for cars I no longer owned. I was told that since I transferred my plates, and didn’t turn them into the DMV, that it was my own fault I had to pay more. The Tax Assessor’s office told me that they get all of their registratioin information from the DMV, but only once a year, on October 1. So if you sell your car or buy a new one after October, you are screwed.

I paid car tax last June, AND last December, and now again THIS June.

My tax bill from last December actually says that my car was only valued at 83.3% of its true value, because of when I bought the car.

But their math must be some type of super secret new math. Because nothing they told me makes sense. I have recalculated my gross assessments, and they are way out of line from what I was told on the phone.

Until there are standard practices in place, honest and fair practices, these tax bills will cause anger in all of New Haven, and many people will go further into debt trying to pay them.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on June 30, 2010 10:34am

Who is subsidized the most:
http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/subsidies_not_just_for_the_poor
Gas Taxes and Costs of Roads:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008264.html
Who pays for roads:
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/11/24/new-report-road-funding-from-non-road-users-doubled-in-25-years/
City dwellers subsidize suburbanites:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/06/04/why-nyc-residents-should-care-about-the-upstate-sprawl-bomb/
Inner city neighborhoods that have been abandoned by jobs, commerce and middle class residents thanks to suburban subsidies make poor people fat:
http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=20525&utm_source=AllTodaysNewsRSS&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+sightline/fHib+(All+Today’s+News+-+Sightline+Daily)
Driving also makes you fat:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1650173/urban-sprawl-is-bankrupting-and-killing-us-building-walkable-places-is-the-answer
No such thing as free parking:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/HartfordCourant.html
Using transit saves money:
http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2010/Pages/100504_Ridership_Report.aspx
How to make transit more viable as an alternative to driving:
http://thecityfix.com/new-bus-only-lanes-for-manhattans-east-side/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+thecityfix/posts+(THE+CITY+FIX)

Bill,
About 50% of downtown New Haven is used for parking, with Yale owning another substantial part of the downtown area. Downtown is also where most of the revenue for the city comes from. In the 50s and 60s, we demolished tax generating properties and replaced them with parking lots for suburban commuters, these choices are still with us today.
New Haven also takes care of the regional homeless, and houses most of the poor people since suburbs don’t have their share of affordable housing and transit options. Suburbs are certainly getting the better deal here, and the price we’re paying is the quality of our cities.

posted by: JB on June 30, 2010 11:05am

Sure enough, I checked, and our two cars went up in value this year too. Amazing! I can’t wait to see what they’re worth next year.

posted by: Tom Harned on June 30, 2010 1:03pm

Does this mean I should be putting money into cars instead of my 401K?

posted by: White Dog on June 30, 2010 1:21pm

“Worth” is anything a fool will pay for it.
Tax value is anything the govt. uses for tax valuation….a fantasy number.

posted by: Doyens on June 30, 2010 2:25pm

This story is emblematic of Mayor John DeStefano and his top lieutenants, and reflects how out of touch they all are since finding the warm bosom at the top layers of public employment.

This is a failure to communicate, failure to use technology effectively, and failure to foresee or appreciate that citizens who are already getting by with less, and making extraordinary sacrifices, are watching every penny because they need it. Consequently, misleading, inaccurate and incomplete information only causes more unneeded alarm and stress.

These are the facts:

1. Assessor Bill O’Brien is on vacation for two weeks at one of the two most important times of the year. Bad decision.

2. Jessica Mayorga’s entire statement about the cause of the higher assessments on depreciating assets is completely incorrect.

3. The city’s website with information about the assessor’s office and routine questions and answers is woefully inadequate. Towns much smaller than ours (Torrington, Middlefield and Waterbury) have done a much better job of using their website to effectively communicate and provide real and useful information about assessments in general and cars in particular.

4. Story basics - There are two main valuation tools for autos and trucks - Kelly and NADA. Kelly gives lower values and NADA gives higher. The difference is about 25%. OPM recommends NADA and has at least since the 1980s, according to Donna Ralston, Chair of the Motor Vehicle Committee of the CT Association of Assessors.

All 169 towns and cities in CT use NADA and they use the “clean retail” value. This means your car regardless of condition is valued as if a dealer has gone through it, put on new tires, fixed the dings, dents and scratches and that the engine is excellent running order.

This likely is not the real value of your car, but tough - it’s state law. You are assessed at 70% of that figure. These valuations flux with the market - some go up, some go down, Ralston says. Some people, particularly those with trucks and some SUVs, saw the sharpest increases in assessments. According to Ralston, this is because last year, the CTDMV used the wrong NADA software in applying it to the motor vehicle list that was sent to the towns and cities. The correct software was used this year.

However, for citizens across the state, and New Haven especially, the problem is not the assessments. It’s the spending and borrowing.

Your mill rate is directly related to the cost of government - when it’s cost quadruples the inflation rate, when your mayor borrows money like he’s dying tomorrow and spends it faster than it comes in, your mill rate goes up. Your mill rate went up this year because the mayor is spending $10 million more dollars than he takes in. Rather than cut spending, the mayor makes us hurt more, cut more at home so he doesn’t have to cut more on his end.

So, the bottom line:

Your assets are worth less this year than last but your ass-is sure to pay more this year than last anyway. The remaining question is when will we get the government for which we are so dearly paying?

posted by: pat on June 30, 2010 3:22pm

My vehicle also was assessed at a more than double what its’ worth, so I am documenting its current value by photos, a written estimate from a mechanic on the cost of work it needs, plus print outs from Kelly Blue Book online and Edmunds.com online.

Since the City charges interest at 1.5% per month on unpaid taxes, I am paying one-half the tax now, but plan to fight the assessment. Please note: forms for appeals are not given out until August and hearings are not held until September - but the interest period is still running.

The best thing to do is appeal each and every incorrect assessment until the City institutes a more reasonable assessment on autos.

This unfair approach to taxing us causes people to disrepect government. Most people will pay their fair share, but the process has to be fair and people have to have confidence in it.

And the City has to start by answering the phone!

posted by: NewHavenerToo on June 30, 2010 5:33pm

Why is this NOT surprising???

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on June 30, 2010 7:25pm

Morris Cove Mom = Vanessa Fasanella (above)

Spoke with WTNH’s Erin Cox came out to see me and my Chevy today. And she had just come from the Mayor’s office with their explanation.

The Office of Policy and Management (OPM) in Hartford sent a memo to all municipalities last October, dictating what they were allowed to do.

It stated that they should use the NADA car values, AND gross assess on the retail value! So my beaten Chevy with 132,914 miles on it, and many scratches, dents, and dings, is worth *gulp* $3,325!

The memo put the assessing job in each town’s hands, so there will be a wide divide between what your car is worth here versus what is it worth to say, West Haven.

I have alerted all the reporters, from newspapers and TV, that I know, and have sent a letter to the Attorney General’s office.

These practices seem shady at best, and are one of the more insane ideas I’ve ever heard of here. But I’m sure it all makes sense to the politicos and the rich old white men who make the rules.

To the rest of us though, it is insanity! And frustration beyond belief, as there is no one on our side here, no one.

posted by: Charlie O'Keefe on June 30, 2010 8:18pm

This is theft by the city from its citizens. It is dishonest and must be stopped. Can anyone organize a tax strike where we citizens withhold our taxes for several months in protest. If city hall can’t or will not serve its citizens interests then we must protest.

Mr Doyens, are you up to this.

posted by: Threefifths on July 1, 2010 8:18am

If you are retired,You can get around this car tax.All you have to do is become a part time resident and you will not have to pay one dime.I found out this is what the rich due in this state.

posted by: Free New Haven on July 1, 2010 1:13pm

An online database has been started that will track the cases of fraud and mismanagement in the city. Please send your links to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) - any commentary that you would like to add to the link explaining it will be posted on the website anonymously: http://www.freenewhaven.com

posted by: miked on July 2, 2010 11:17am

I had the same reaction when the taxes on my piece of junk stayed the same as last year. The bottom line is (without trying to break it down as to where the money is going and what political system is in place) that the city and country are broke and will do anything to suck tax money out of the people. Any little crumb would suffice I guess. Its not just going on here in New Haven. It is everywhere.

posted by: MadResident on July 2, 2010 3:12pm

... I will be voting for NONE of the current city officials next time there are elections. ... My bill values my car at over 3x what it is actually worth. If I were to have an accident today and total it, I would barely get anything from insurance. Yet, according to the city, I should get quite a large check. They ... should be ousted!

posted by: New to New Haven on July 27, 2010 12:14pm

I just moved up here (to New Haven) from Philadelphia a few months ago, and have never experienced in my 35 years a Vehicle Tax (other than the standard $35 yearly state registration fee). In PA you do have to get a Safety and Emissions inspection yearly which can go from $49 on up depending on the vehicles condition.

I do agree that using the NADA estimated value to determine the cars worth should/is illegal. It is an estimated value, kind of like saying I will pay sales tax on $150 of groceries since I estimate I will spend this much at the market.

What about instituting a yearly inspection at a state run facility like they have in New Jersey. It is free to have your car inspected (actually paid for by the State). This would guarantee a few things. 1) The Value of Vehicles would be more fairly determined, 2) Proof of Insurance, 3) Safer Vehicles on the Road, 4) Possible Employment opportunities - among a few other things I can think of.

posted by: davec on July 27, 2010 1:13pm

New To New Haven,
A state run facility in Connecticut has been proven time and time again to only guarantee one thing; corruption.

Welcome to New Haven, yer a Nutmegger now.

posted by: Brown on July 28, 2010 11:26am

This is a crime, plain and simple. They force these untruthful increases on us and if we don’t comply, we get our cars towed or booted! This is actually a prominent reason that I’m choosing to NOT live here after I finish my master’s. It is my sincere hope that this drives people out from the city, pardon the pun.

I’ve NEVER lived anywhere that enforces these type of taxes, and corrupt manner of it all makes it far worse.

I typically ride my bike wherever I go. I’ll still pay the same inflated taxes as everyone else. All the while my car will be sitting in the driveway. Is this fair? Tolls and gasoline taxes are directly related to usage, yet these apparently don’t do enough? Yes, tax us for our unused cars, please! It makes all the sense in the world!

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form