# Want to leave NYS in 2 years. Taxes are crazy!



## charly (Oct 15, 2012)

Thinking about selling our 96 acre farm in 2 more years. Have friends that live in TN,  they love it, 700 dollars a year for total taxes. That's why they left.  Any suggestions on good places to look. Would still like some acreage that I can cut my own wood , etc. I'm betting our taxes will be near 10,000 by the time we go to leave. Near 200 dollars a week for taxes, are you kidding me? They can have NYS. Still would like some change of seasons. Out in the boonies is fine.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 15, 2012)

Left the island in 90 taxes were almost 10000 then. In Ohio now I like it.


----------



## DAKSY (Oct 15, 2012)

I'm at $8K per year here. Looked at a LOT of Tennessee & North Carolina a coupla weeks ago, when we rode the Tail of the Dragon & I'm thinkin that the Western part of NC or the SE part of Tenn. is where I wanna go to. Didn't really look at real estate when I was down there, because that was my first trip to that area. Coupla more years til retirement & before than I will take a ride back down & see what's affordable...


----------



## webbie (Oct 15, 2012)

Heck, in NJ people pay 15K for taxes on a decent McMansion......

It's a lot of money, for sure - but you also have to weigh ALL the other factors. I lived in TN for a couple years.....where I was it was VERY hot, like a normal summer day was over 90.

You have to measure out all the various pros and cons......can you fit in with the culture? Enough things to do? Weather? How close to airports, the beach, friends, relatives or anywhere you might like to go? How about the medical care?

Do your research.....and then make the decision.

We were just talking yesterday about this type of thing.....I was saying that I would never feel at home in a place like California, no matter how beautiful parts of it are. I like the close together towns and rural areas of the NE.....pretty much feel at home anywhere from DC to Maine and east of Albany!

In TN we lived down south of Columbia - that's about 75 minutes south of Nashville. The land is much more fertile and the weather warmer than the higher hills of eastern TN (smokeys).


----------



## Backwoods Savage (Oct 15, 2012)

Holy Smokes! That is super high taxes! I would leave too.


----------



## charly (Oct 15, 2012)

Well thanks for all the feed back. And Bob see your a Harley Rider. I was a tech for 10 years at Spitzies Harley Davidson, 79-89. My buddies are always after me to get riding again. That had to be a nice ride down south. Yes I'll keep looking and perhaps head down to my friends place in TN. Myself, I like the seclusion, don't need a ton of people around at all to have a good time. You can always go to the people , and yet be away when you want the peace and quiet in my book. I'm not going to let these taxes suck up my money. I know better!


----------



## webbie (Oct 15, 2012)

If you can really "live where you live", it's a good thing to move there - I know a lot of people, though, that move somewhere in the boonies and then want to still live a lot of their old live! Next thing you know, they are flying places every couple of weeks, taking regular long drives in the car back to the old homestead, etc....

But, yeah, if seclusion is your thing - TN is really nice. The people are REALLY nice. Really.


----------



## charly (Oct 15, 2012)

webbie said:


> If you can really "live where you live", it's a good thing to move there - I know a lot of people, though, that move somewhere in the boonies and then want to still live a lot of their old live! Next thing you know, they are flying places every couple of weeks, taking regular long drives in the car back to the old homestead, etc....
> 
> But, yeah, if seclusion is your thing - TN is really nice. The people are REALLY nice. Really.


My friend who moved there loves the people, he fit right in. Makes great wine, raises bees, a real perfectionist. As soon as people taste his wines, everything he makes is spoken for. All organic, he use to make it all from his property when he lived here. But he loves TN and TN loves him. I'm getting into flying powered parachutes, so a nice hay field would be in my sites as well for property. Right now I can fly off the farm here. I'm sure there's still plenty of land still for sale in TN. Although, it seems more and more people are heading that way.


----------



## MasterMech (Oct 16, 2012)

Backwoods Savage said:


> Holy Smokes! That is super high taxes! I would leave too.


 
Paying NYC's bills is expensive. 

1260sq ft Ranch on 1 acre, private road, not a "ritzy" neighborhood either. $4K a year _after_ STAR exemption. And that is very low for the area, cross the county line and you'd prolly be in 5-6K for the same property. 

My in-laws have a bi-level in a village (pay village, county and state taxes) on less than .25 acre.  Taxes run north of 10K, but the village is kind enough to pick up trash twice a week.


----------



## Swedishchef (Oct 16, 2012)

Holy smokes....that sounds like high taxes!! My property tax is much lower. However, my income tax is MUCH higher than your. For an 80K salary, I fall in the 38% range. LOL. 

But 10K for property tax is out of my league...

Andrew


----------



## Ehouse (Oct 16, 2012)

Be sure to check on how retirement income is taxed.  Each state is different.

Ehouse


----------



## webbie (Oct 16, 2012)

What may seem expensive if often not - that is, if you have kids in school.

The cost for one kid in school these days in about 10K per year, most paid out of property tax, so the simple formula says this is the major problem.......or expense, however you want to look at it!

My sister moved to Florida where she taught in ugly little trailers out in the parking lot- the cost per kid is still up there!

Once in a while you can "fool the books" by moving, but sooner of later - even in rural areas- the bills will have to be paid. 10K per year doesn't fall from the sky....although it is true that some rural areas get "school welfare" just like many urban areas do. 

But it's hard for me to see how prop taxes can remain low in any area where there is a balance of population - that is,new families with kids, etc.

Maybe someone can explain it to me?


----------



## Jack Straw (Oct 16, 2012)

I am in Nashville this week and if you love music this is the place to be. You walk down the main strip and there are bands and singers playing in each bar (saloon) and they are for the most part very talented. I've seen things that I can't even talk about!
We are having one hell of a good time. I don't like hot weather so I'll stay in upstate NY.


----------



## charly (Oct 16, 2012)

Ehouse said:


> Be sure to check on how retirement income is taxed. Each state is different.
> 
> Ehouse


Good point, as my wife will be retiring from the State Police so I believe TN doesn't tax your retirement. A lot of people my wife worked with have moved there. But yes good point. Don't get me wrong, we love the farm here, but I don't want to eventually be able to do nothing but pay the taxes! We figured even putting cows on our farm for the summer and then selling them, we would still only pay for half the taxes. Other farmers I talked to here said the same thing. My friend has 65 acres and that's not enough to pay for the taxes, etc. He has to hay 10,000 acres to make some kind of a living, yet big brother gets to sell us gas a 4 dollars a gallon. Completely one sided! I think in the future you will see all government run farms, and LOL I can only imagine what more you will even be eating besides GMO foods. Keeps the medical people in business. Sad thing is,  kids will be going to the doctors more then the grown ups!


----------



## Vic99 (Oct 16, 2012)

Looks like you could do a lot better:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-taxes-2012


----------



## charly (Oct 16, 2012)

Vic99 said:


> Looks like you could do a lot better:
> http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-taxes-2012


Nice site,, looks like Virginia or Kentucky over TN. Pays to look ahead of time instead of just making a move for sure. Montana has none.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 16, 2012)

NH has no sales tax, but that means the property taxes are generally higher. It goes by town, however- I pay like $3600 a year on 2 acres with a modest house. Next town over is a lot higher


----------



## DAKSY (Oct 16, 2012)

This kinda says it all...


----------



## charly (Oct 16, 2012)

DAKSY said:


> This kinda says it all...


I saw that on face book. I said they can go suck on someone else for a while. I want to leave.


----------



## ScotO (Oct 16, 2012)

If I could talk my beautiful wife into moving to Alaska, I'd be gone in a heartbeat........Charly, that is ridiculous for taxes.

Yet another reason to love the dear politicians.....


----------



## f3cbboy (Oct 16, 2012)

NY does suck on taxes.  I have a 100' X 100' lot. thats right a whopping 10000 sq ft, less than a quarter acre.   1400 sq ft house that is about 110 yrs old.    I pay 185 dollars a week, $9600 per year.  I do have two kids in the local school district which i am very pleased with.


----------



## charly (Oct 16, 2012)

f3cbboy said:


> NY does suck on taxes. I have a 100' X 100' lot. thats right a whopping 10000 sq ft, less than a quarter acre. 1400 sq ft house that is about 110 yrs old. I pay 185 dollars a week, $9600 per year. I do have two kids in the local school district which i am very pleased with.


I met another guy who moved to Tennessee 10 years ago, he has 10 acres, a 3 bedroom , 2 bath ranch and pays 700 dollars a year for his taxes. My feelings are why give all your money away for taxes when you could be doing something for yourself with that money. Those idiots certainly didn't work for it. I was a Arborist for 15 years of my life and am not about to give my hard earned wages away that easy. I'll move. Can you imagine being able to pay for 7-10 years of taxes in another state with money you'd spend here in one year. It's a no brainer for me. You won't have to twist my arm to keep 8000 dollars a year for myself.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 17, 2012)

Seems to me that in general you get what you pay for. I know little about NY, but MN also is known for high taxes: real estate, income, sales taxes. But with those taxes we have good to excellent school systems, good roads, fabulous environment (from ag to forest to lake to wilderness) with a high level of environmental protection, great recreation during all 4 season, yes we have 4 seasons and the cold winters kill most of the bugs, great culture in Minneapolis-St.Paul and out-state centers as well. All of these are expensive. We also have high-tech industries and world-class medical facilities (Mayo Clinic, for example, among others), home to fortune 500 companies (3M among others). There is a reason for this -- well-educated work force and quality of life. In the final analysis, for me it is quite annoying and the epitome of greed for people to want everything good but not pay for it. And if someplace else seems to have it all and low taxes, then someone else, or the environment, is carrying the load, and Mother Nature won't accept abuse for long without changing something in a dramatic way that just might not be too good for evolution gone awry in the form of humans.


----------



## charly (Oct 17, 2012)

jebatty said:


> Seems to me that in general you get what you pay for. I know little about NY, but MN also is known for high taxes: real estate, income, sales taxes. But with those taxes we have good to excellent school systems, good roads, fabulous environment (from ag to forest to lake to wilderness) with a high level of environmental protection, great recreation during all 4 season, yes we have 4 seasons and the cold winters kill most of the bugs, great culture in Minneapolis-St.Paul and out-state centers as well. All of these are expensive. We also have high-tech industries and world-class medical facilities (Mayo Clinic, for example, among others), home to fortune 500 companies (3M among others). There is a reason for this -- well-educated work force and quality of life. In the final analysis, for me it is quite annoying and the epitome of greed for people to want everything good but not pay for it. And if someplace else seems to have it all and low taxes, then someone else, or the environment, is carrying the load, and Mother Nature won't accept abuse for long without changing something in a dramatic way that just might not be too good for evolution gone awry in the form of humans.


Jim , here we have no sewage, water or even garbage pick up. A woman from NYC came to a town meeting who's a real estate investor and said our taxes are higher here then NYC! They are making a few of us carry the loses from the floods here 2 years ago, Hurricane Irene. One 78 year old woman asked what she can do if she can't pay her taxes anymore, they told her to go take out a loan from a bank. Plus they only reassessed half of the town and are already collecting the increased tax rate from that part of the town. One guy stood up in the meeting and said that it was illegal to collect any increase until the entire town has been reassessed! They still sent out my new school tax bill! People are going to lose their farms here with such an increase. They went from 50% market value right up to 79% overnight and then going to 100% next year. One persons taxes in town went from 6000 dollars to 14,000 dollars overnight. You just can't do that to people. We're going from 5500 for school and property to about 8000 dollars and next year it goes to 100%. Increasing slowly over a 5-10 year period is one thing but to do this overnight is BS! Another great thing here, if you have 2 different 2000 sq.ft. homes, one is in nice shape the other is a dump,,,,, the dump gets a tax break and the guy who keeps his house nice gets hit with higher taxes. Some people voiced that they wanted to paint their homes but knew they would get hit with higher taxes. That is not right. 2000 sq ft should be taxed as 2000 sq ft. In fact raise the 2000 sq.ft. dump as an eye sore!


----------



## JustWood (Oct 17, 2012)

Dispute your taxes. 3  years ago they increased mine a little more than 400% in one shot with no improvements  in 4+ years.I went to dispute them with legit info on similar propertys and had them reduced back to where they had been. That told me that NYS was doing "re-ass's" just because they can.
That being said the western southern tier of NY isn't too bad on taxes and neither is western PA but in my opinion it's not going to stay that way long.
Currently paying approx. $2600 on 1500 sq ft house and 7000sq ft shop,storage and office.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 17, 2012)

I understand your pain and your complaint. My taxes are not low either. But aren't complaints about high taxes at least a little like complaints that "it's too hot"? I think that citizens need to educate themselves about the underlying facts related to high taxes and then make a decision as to what has to change, or what has to go, or what's not needed -- long term, not short term -- and then doing it.

Just cutting taxes is something like using a rag to wipe away sweat. It doesn't cure the heat. Something needs to be done and that something is more than a mantra. Whenever someone tells me that taxes are too high, I ask them to name a program from which they benefit substantially, and then I ask how much of that are they willing to give up to lower taxes. The answer is almost always the same, "nothing." Instead, someone else has the "unfair" benefit and that someone else has to give up their benefit. Might that be a root of the problem?

Even with the high taxes, most of us are much better off than people in most other parts of the world. And might that not be part of the problem too? How far and for how much have our wants replaced our needs? Few would disagree that we need solid education for our children -- they are our future. Children are incredibly expensive. All children are extremely valuable. And the list of truly valuable things is quite large. Valuable things are expensive. Perhaps smaller, less expensive cars; or smaller, less expensive houses; or fewer, less nutritious processed foods; or something less that the most expensive, life-saving procedure that prolongs life for a few weeks before the inevitable -- perhaps any or all of these and more is what needs to change so we can truly afford the things that are important.


----------



## charly (Oct 17, 2012)

LEES WOOD-CO said:


> Dispute your taxes. 3 years ago they increased mine a little more than 400% in one shot with no improvements in 4+ years.I went to dispute them with legit info on similar propertys and had them reduced back to where they had been. That told me that NYS was doing "re-ass's" just because they can.
> That being said the western southern tier of NY isn't too bad on taxes and neither is western PA but in my opinion it's not going to stay that way long.
> Currently paying approx. $2600 on 1500 sq ft house and 7000sq ft shop,storage and office.


Wow, your taxes are decent. I'll being going to the next meeting they have on the taxes. All the people at the last meeting were talking about hiring a lawyer for everyone. We found out the assessor devalued his home 2 years prior to raising it to the now 79%. He's clever! They reassessed one guy 30,000 dollars, never even went onto his property to see the house, the owner confronted the assessor saying his house can't be seen from the road. So basically the assessor just threw a number out there. They're all crooks! They spent 800,000 dollars restoring a flooded out old post office here, they could have built a new one for 200 thousand. They padded someones pockets with our money! I have an old 30x50 run in barn , I was going to knock down and just put up new and insulate it. They said my taxes would go up 1000 dollars a year for that. I'm going to polish a terd and fix up the present barn. Same thing with the 1840 farm house. We were going to side it, not now, repaint it instead. I put in for my farm ag exemption, a friend hays 40 of the 96 acres here, so I will see what that does for our taxes.


----------



## jharkin (Oct 17, 2012)

Maybe its just me, but $10,000 in property tax for 96 acres doesn't sound bad. I pay almost $6000 on a half acre lot. Land value is about half of my assessment.


----------



## charly (Oct 17, 2012)

jharkin said:


> Maybe its just me, but $10,000 in property tax for 96 acres doesn't sound bad. I pay almost $6000 on a half acre lot. Land value is about half of my assessment.


 Living out in the country I think it's high. Our house was built in 1840, foundation 1740. I just think in 10 years you'd have shelled out 100,000 dollars. That would buy a nice motor home, no more taxes!


----------



## jharkin (Oct 17, 2012)

I think my $6000 taxes are high also, but for that we get a school system that's in the top 10 of the state, a police force that is actually very visible and active in the community, well maintained park spaces & playgrounds, etc and a lot of other benefits. I don't complain.


----------



## charly (Oct 17, 2012)

jharkin said:


> I think my $6000 taxes are high also, but for that we get a school system that's in the top 10 of the state, a police force that is actually very visible and active in the community, well maintained park spaces & playgrounds, etc and a lot of other benefits. I don't complain.


I hear ya!


----------



## MasterMech (Oct 17, 2012)

jharkin said:


> I think my $6000 taxes are high also, but for that we get a school system that's in the top 10 of the state, a police force that is actually very visible and active in the community, well maintained park spaces & playgrounds, etc and a lot of other benefits. I don't complain.


 
My in-laws pay nearly 3 times what I do in taxes, live on a 1/4 acre lot, have roughly 2x the sq footage.  Their village police force merged (more like evaporated...) with the town, and they have a volunteer fire district like we do.  Both of us live within walking distance of a park with playground facilities, and the one in my area is huge with two full-size soccer fields.  We both live in top-rated school systems for the area as well.  Actually, the two biggest differences in services between the two locations is that they have a sidewalk and the village collects trash 2x a week.  I pay 30 bucks a month for once a week pick-up and they provide the 65 gal cans. Plus I don't have to shovel snow from the sidewalk. 

Nobody said the tax system was fair.....


----------



## TMonter (Oct 17, 2012)

webbie said:


> What may seem expensive if often not - that is, if you have kids in school.
> 
> The cost for one kid in school these days in about 10K per year, most paid out of property tax, so the simple formula says this is the major problem.......or expense, however you want to look at it!
> 
> ...


 
Because in some areas of the country Craig, people actually don't think the government should do everything.

Property tax here is about $700/year for about 1/2 Acre


----------



## Jack Straw (Oct 17, 2012)

The sad part is that you may not be able to sell your house unless you ask a low price, houses don't seem to be selling here. The trick here is to have a nice house on a few acres and then buy land without a house on it, not easy to do, but it avoids the high taxes.


----------



## charly (Oct 17, 2012)

Jack Straw said:


> The sad part is that you may not be able to sell your house unless you ask a low price, houses don't seem to be selling here. The trick here is to have a nice house on a few acres and then buy land without a house on it, not easy to do, but it avoids the high taxes.


That's what I was wondering, list 5-10 acres with the house and then the rest ,86 acres is on its' own. I 'll bet the survey wouldn't be cheap to have done. Plus would a separate land deed need to be drawn up and lawyers involved?


----------



## TradEddie (Oct 17, 2012)

charly said:


> Living out in the country I think it's high. Our house was built in 1840, foundation 1740. I just think in 10 years you'd have shelled out 100,000 dollars. That would buy a nice motor home, no more taxes!


Let me start out by saying than on principle, I don't believe that taxes should ever be levied on possession of anything, unless the intent is to discourage possession. Unfortunately, property taxes are a fact of life, so although inherently unfair, they should at least be applied as fairly as possible.  I think that that $10K/year on 96 acres of farm land in NY is well within the normal range of value / taxation across the country.  If it's not, then as suggested above, appeal, or sell some of the land.  A house and 96 acres in TN is going to cost you a heck of a lot less than in NY, you're comparing apples and oranges.  I'd much prefer to have 9 acres in upstate NY than 96 in TN.

TE


----------



## ColdNH (Oct 17, 2012)

Adios Pantalones said:


> NH has no sales tax, but that means the property taxes are generally higher. It goes by town, however- I pay like $3600 a year on 2 acres with a modest house. Next town over is a lot higher


 
That is really really cheap for NH, About as cheap as it gets. I cant be too far from you and I pay 7800 a year for an 2k sq foot cape on 3.5 acres in Bow. with that said, I love the house, I love the Location, I love NH and We plan on having kids in the future so I wouldnt change a thing.


----------



## charly (Oct 17, 2012)

TradEddie said:


> Let me start out by saying than on principle, I don't believe that taxes should ever be levied on possession of anything, unless the intent is to discourage possession. Unfortunately, property taxes are a fact of life, so although inherently unfair, they should at least be applied as fairly as possible. I think that that $10K/year on 96 acres of farm land in NY is well within the normal range of value / taxation across the country. If it's not, then as suggested above, appeal, or sell some of the land. A house and 96 acres in TN is going to cost you a heck of a lot less than in NY, you're comparing apples and oranges. I'd much prefer to have 9 acres in upstate NY than 96 in TN.
> 
> TE


My biggest gripe is an over night increase of 3-4 thousand dollars on your taxes. Some people saw 8000 dollars. I think that is a little unfair.


----------



## charly (Oct 17, 2012)

Jack Straw said:


> The sad part is that you may not be able to sell your house unless you ask a low price, houses don't seem to be selling here. The trick here is to have a nice house on a few acres and then buy land without a house on it, not easy to do, but it avoids the high taxes.


That was mentioned at the last town meeting I was at, homes won't sell. Anyone who received FEMA money for the flood supposedly can never build on that property again, so here's property sitting vacant contributing nothing to the tax base. Not good!


----------



## Gary_602z (Oct 17, 2012)

I can't complain on our property taxes here in Mich.! House valued around 175k plus 13 acres of land somewhere around 2300.00 total. We do have 6% state sales tax which is reasonable.
 When we built our house 19 years ago the property taxes were about that much and then they passed the Headlee amendment here that cut the property taxes about in half and raised the sales tax from 4% to 6%. I applied the savings in property taxes directly to our mortgage and payed it off in 13-1/2 years on a 15 year note.!

I would be happy if the Feds would come up with a national sales tax (but that is something for the Ash Can)!

Gary


----------



## charly (Oct 17, 2012)

Thanks for all the feed back. At least I have an idea of where I stand. News I got tonight from a friend was the town supervisor is taking the tax assessment thing to court to try and get it rolled back. It was ridiculous that the assessor only did part of the people here and then tried to implement the tax hike. What only some should pay the increase ? And also if more people are paying at a higher tax rate, you would think that there shouldn't be a big increase in each persons taxes, so far that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll see what the property taxes look like when they come. We have a great town supervisor, a retired State Trooper. He's involved in everything, sometimes even spotting him on TV at a few meetings. He's for the people big time,,, old school,, back when cops could kick your butt and send you on your way home, no lawyers to run to then, you learned and behaved!


----------



## Gary_602z (Oct 17, 2012)

charly said:


> We have a great town supervisor, a retired State Trooper. He's involved in everything, sometimes even spotting him on TV at a few meetings. He's for the people big time,,, old school,, back when cops could kick your butt and send you on your way home, no lawyers to run to then, you learned and behaved!


 
Well said I have great respect for our state troopers and most of the county and very few of the city! Actually got one of the city locals canned for calling one of my drivers a liar in front of a few people!

Gary


----------



## jebatty (Oct 18, 2012)

> Anyone who received FEMA money for the flood supposedly can never build on that property again, so here's property sitting vacant contributing nothing to the tax base. Not good!


 
This was a joke, right? I hope you are not saying that people should get FEMA money for a flood, and then rebuild so that they can get FEMA money again for the next flood. Seems to me that people who build in flood plains just might consider that a flood will happen and assume the risk of loss from a flood. Surely that's not asking too much. Some people call that personal responsibility. Others might call it reducing the cost of government by not asking other taxpayers to fund losses from intentional and poor decisions. Maybe this is one of the reasons taxes are so high. Everyone wants other taxpayers to compensate them for their poor decisions.


----------



## Jack Straw (Oct 18, 2012)

jebatty said:


> This was a joke, right? I hope you are not saying that people should get FEMA money for a flood, and then rebuild so that they can get FEMA money again for the next flood. Seems to me that people who build in flood plains just might consider that a flood will happen and assume the risk of loss from a flood. Surely that's not asking too much. Some people call that personal responsibility. Others might call it reducing the cost of government by not asking other taxpayers to fund losses from intentional and poor decisions. Maybe this is one of the reasons taxes are so high. Everyone wants other taxpayers to compensate them for their poor decisions.



You have a great point, but you have to know that we had what was called a 500 year flood. Quite a few homes got flooded that weren't in a flood zone. I do agree with you that the homes in flood zones should not be rebuilt, but there a lot of people who want to for some reason. 
Just imagine if you had 1000 taxable homes in your town and now you have 800, that's the problem.


----------



## charly (Oct 18, 2012)

jebatty said:


> This was a joke, right? I hope you are not saying that people should get FEMA money for a flood, and then rebuild so that they can get FEMA money again for the next flood. Seems to me that people who build in flood plains just might consider that a flood will happen and assume the risk of loss from a flood. Surely that's not asking too much. Some people call that personal responsibility. Others might call it reducing the cost of government by not asking other taxpayers to fund losses from intentional and poor decisions. Maybe this is one of the reasons taxes are so high. Everyone wants other taxpayers to compensate them for their poor decisions.


No , I'm simply saying we are losing all these homes, thus loosing the tax base.


----------



## charly (Oct 18, 2012)

Jack Straw said:


> You have a great point, but you have to know that we had what was called a 500 year flood. Quite a few homes got flooded that weren't in a flood zone. I do agree with you that the homes in flood zones should not be rebuilt, but there a lot of people who want to for some reason.
> Just imagine if you had 1000 taxable homes in your town and now you have 800, that's the problem.


Jack,
Talk about wasting FEMA money,,, how about all the FEMA trailers they had shipped here and there they all sat off of I88 never being used.If you were flooded out you had to find someone else out of the flood plane to let you put the temporary trailer on their property. Should have let people use them where they could , protecting their belongings. It's not like this would happen again in the next 100 years. Plus I heard they shipped ones here set up for the South with heat pumps . I heard people had 2000 dollar a month electric bills trying to stay warm in them, units constantly running.


----------



## Jack Straw (Oct 18, 2012)

charly said:


> Jack,
> Talk about wasting FEMA money,,, how about all the FEMA trailers they had shipped here and there they all sat off of I88 never being used.If you were flooded out you had to find someone else out of the flood plane to let you put the temporary trailer on their property. Should have let people use them where they could , protecting their belongings. It's not like this would happen again in the next 100 years. Plus I heard they shipped ones here set up for the South with heat pumps . I heard people had 2000 dollar a month electric bills trying to stay warm in them, units constantly running.



The response has been awful, they screamed about New Orleans and nothing has been mentioned about it here. We are a small, poor community and no one cares. They wouldn't let them put the trailers where it had flooded, so where were the people supposd to put them? You are correct about the electric bills.


----------



## jebatty (Oct 18, 2012)

Most people think that more development = more tax base = more taxes, and somehow that reduces "my taxes" or at least keeps "my taxes" low. The contrary in fact is true. Think for moment about a township with no development, just undeveloped land of whatever kind. That also means no people, no road system, virtually no need for police or fire protection, no children for schools, no sewer, no  water, no parks, no other public services. And all of this means low land values and very low taxes for the owners of that land to support the most basic of government services, like perhaps a few roads traversing the township to connect with other townships.

Now think of a few people moving into the township, building homes, even adding businesses, having children, etc. Then more people, etc. Suddenly the need for the whole host of government services arises. You can be sure that the few people will not pay the full cost of those services, but instead the township will raise needed money for services on all the land in the township, including the undeveloped land. The argument will be that the undeveloped land now is more valuable because it has become developable. So what happens? Those who are developing are paying less than the full cost of the government services the are demanding, and those with undeveloped land are now paying part of the cost of those who are developing and paying high taxes for government services they don't need. And this will happen because the developed land voters out-number the undeveloped land owners (who may not even be able to vote because they are not "residents" of the township and therefore have no say).

The spiral continues: more development, new development does not pay the full cost of needed services, and that cost is shifted to previously developed and undeveloped properties. Taxes sky-rocket.

The research shows that on average undeveloped land pays about $1.00 in taxes and receives only about $0.34 in services, while developed land pays about $1.00 in taxes and receives about $1.34 in services. But don't pay too much attention to the amount of the disparity. But also be clear that the disparity is there, it is real and it is expensive.

I'm not suggesting that we should not have development. But I think development should pay its full cost. If I build a new home on undeveloped land, why should I not buy in to the existing public infrastructure which others have paid for and from which I now benefit? And why shouldn't those who paid for it get a "rebate" or reduced taxes because of my buy in? Development is expensive, very expensive, and developers are not paying the cost. Other taxpayers are paying that cost. It seems to me that this development subsidy by other taxpayers should stop and developers should not only pay their own way but also refund the subsidy they are receiving.

Fortunately I live in a county and township that is quite averse to building new public roads and even improving existing public roads, and also averse to expanding public services. Our govt officials have at least some understanding of the exorbitant cost of development. Maybe we all should reconsider.


----------



## charly (Oct 18, 2012)

Basically what they are doing here is throwing the lost tax revenue from the floods on everyone who still lives here. They denied that was the cause of the big tax increase at a meeting I was at , but half way through the town meeting one state official at the meeting let the cat out of the bag by saying the money had to come form some wheres!  Business's that just got back on their feet here are going to be hit again with a full tax assessment next year. I think many will just leave. Good thing is the town supervisor is going to court over the taxe increase imposed on our town and is going to try to get it rolled back. We'll see what the outcome is.


----------



## TradEddie (Oct 18, 2012)

This is the same problem we have at every level, what would you have them do?  Nobody wants higher taxes, everybody wants some of the services, so if you can find any significant expenditure that 51% of taxpayers agree to cut, you've achieved a miracle.

TE


----------



## stee6043 (Oct 18, 2012)

jharkin said:


> Maybe its just me, but $10,000 in property tax for 96 acres doesn't sound bad. I pay almost $6000 on a half acre lot. Land value is about half of my assessment.


 
I was going to say the exact same thing.  And I live in the widwest...


----------



## stee6043 (Oct 18, 2012)

Gary_602z said:


> I can't complain on our property taxes here in Mich.! House valued around 175k plus 13 acres of land somewhere around 2300.00 total. We do have 6% state sales tax which is reasonable.
> When we built our house 19 years ago the property taxes were about that much and then they passed the Headlee amendment here that cut the property taxes about in half and raised the sales tax from 4% to 6%. I applied the savings in property taxes directly to our mortgage and payed it off in 13-1/2 years on a 15 year note.!
> 
> I would be happy if the Feds would come up with a national sales tax (but that is something for the Ash Can)!
> ...


 
Don't move to the suburbs of Grand Rapids...or Ann Arbor, Lansing, etc. You're making a killing in Lake Odessa.

EDIT:  Unless you're saying your total lot is valued at $175k including the 13 acres.  Then your taxes are probably spot on with our subarban rates.  Sorry to confuse.


----------



## Jack Straw (Oct 18, 2012)

A big problem here is that we have 4 levels of government; state, county, town and village with overlapping services. They all have highway departments that maintain our roads. We need to have just the county and state do road maintenance. It's the same problem with our education system, too many administrators and not enough money for teachers. We have 4 school districts with separate administrators, they need to be combined to one large district like they do down south. I am not saying we need to gut spending, but we need to be smarter on how we spend the money.


----------



## stee6043 (Oct 18, 2012)

Jack Straw said:


> A big problem here is that we have 4 levels of government; state, county, town and village with overlapping services. They all have highway departments that maintain our roads. We need to have just the county and state do road maintenance. It's the same problem with our education system, too many administrators and not enough money for teachers. We have 4 school districts with separate administrators, they need to be combined to one large district like they do down south. I am not saying we need to gut spending, but we need to be smarter on we spend the money.


 
Ohh man...go around suggesting "lets make our schools like the systems in the south" and see how much support you can get. ha. Education is very, very different south of the mason dixon line based on the folks I know that have lived in both...


----------



## charly (Oct 18, 2012)

We have no sewage, water or garbage pick up, which is fine with me. We have a fire department, rescue squad and a highway crew for the roads. Sheriffs and the State Police patrol the roads here. Good enough for me. I like it here for the self reliance.  I don't need a bunch of services along with higher taxes.


----------



## DAKSY (Oct 18, 2012)

charly said:


> We have no sewage, water or garbage pick up, which is fine with me. We have a fire department, rescue squad and a highway crew for the roads. Sheriffs and the State Police patrol the roads here. Good enough for me. I like it here for the self reliance. I don't need a bunch of services along with higher taxes.


 
We have sewer - a grinder pump system that is hooked into my breaker panel & that I pay rent on. No water. No trash pick up, but we DO have a transfer station, but we have to buy our trash bags from the town. We get our roads plowed. Staties & Sheriff's dept. Volunteer FD & EMTs. If we got MORE services, maybe I wouldn't consider my taxes too high. I have .253 acres, all hillside, that has 75' of frontage on a lake that is 8 ' deep after a BIG rainstorm. We have a lake association that is funded by the homeowners (those who care to join it) that pays a private contractor $5K per year to apply copper sulfate to keep the algae bloom down & another $15K every 3 -4 years to apply Aquathol to kill the Curly Leaf Pond Weed & Eurasian Milfoil. I have 3 more payments on the Mortgage & when that's paid off, I'll be able to afford the taxes, until I retire. Then I won't have a choice. I will HAVE to sell or I will lose it...


----------



## charly (Oct 18, 2012)

DAKSY said:


> We have sewer - a grinder pump system that is hooked into my breaker panel & that I pay rent on. No water. No trash pick up, but we DO have a transfer station, but we have to buy our trash bags from the town. We get our roads plowed. Staties & Sheriff's dept. Volunteer FD & EMTs. If we got MORE services, maybe I wouldn't consider my taxes too high. I have .253 acres, all hillside, that has 75' of frontage on a lake that is 8 ' deep after a BIG rainstorm. We have a lake association that is funded by the homeowners (those who care to join it) that pays a private contractor $5K per year to apply copper sulfate to keep the algae bloom down & another $15K every 3 -4 years to apply Aquathol to kill the Curly Leaf Pond Weed & Eurasian Milfoil. I have 3 more payments on the Mortgage & when that's paid off, I'll be able to afford the taxes, until I retire. Then I won't have a choice. I will HAVE to sell or I will lose it...


When I hear having to sell or lose it, that tells me that things are way out of hand with our government. Once you hit a certain age they should free you from taxes, like say 60. Taxes have almost equaled what a mortgage payment was 10 years ago!  Another corrupt thing is the government offering reverse mortgages to seniors. Screws any family members out of a family owned home that some one worked for all their lives. Total BS!


----------



## MasterMech (Oct 19, 2012)

charly said:


> When I hear having to sell or lose it, that tells me that things are way out of hand with our government. Once you hit a certain age they should free you from taxes, like say 60. Taxes have almost equaled what a mortgage payment was 10 years ago! Another corrupt thing is the government offering reverse mortgages to seniors. Screws any family members out of a family owned home that some one worked for all their lives. Total BS!


 
As a younger member here, that's the last thing I want to see.  More bills that my generation has to cover.  After all, the money has to come from somewhere......

As far as the reverse mortgage deal, well, there's this thing called personal responsibility.  Nobody is getting "screwed"  out of a home.  I sure don't want my kids waiting around for me to die so they can divide and conquer my estate.  I want them to go out and work for their own home and create their own financial security, not be dependant on me.  If they do that, then inheriting my estate will be of far more benefit to them and my future family.  Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, ....

Honestly, if you own your home and want to sell it back to the government rather than pass it to your kids, you have every right to do so.  Might not make you popular with your family but well within your rights IMO.


----------



## charly (Oct 19, 2012)

MasterMech said:


> As a younger member here, that's the last thing I want to see. More bills that my generation has to cover. After all, the money has to come from somewhere......
> 
> As far as the reverse mortgage deal, well, there's this thing called personal responsibility. Nobody is getting "screwed" out of a home. I sure don't want my kids waiting around for me to die so they can divide and conquer my estate. I want them to go out and work for their own home and create their own financial security, not be dependant on me. If they do that, then inheriting my estate will be of far more benefit to them and my future family. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, ....
> 
> Honestly, if you own your home and want to sell it back to the government rather than pass it to your kids, you have every right to do so. Might not make you popular with your family but well within your rights IMO.


I agree 100% with what your saying. I guess what gets me is the money these seniors will receive on a reverse mortgage won't even come close to what the house is worth,  figuring on how much longer will they really live. The government again is making out like a fat rat. Plus you have to keep the house in the same condition as when you first agreed to the reverse mortgage. So if it needs a new roof before they die , they have to pay for a new roof, etc. Once they can't afford to maintain something , I'm betting the agreement is over and they've lost everything. Again this just goes to show the cost of living is way out of hand here.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 19, 2012)

charly said:


> I agree 100% with what your saying. I guess what gets me is the money these seniors will receive on a reverse mortgage won't even come close to what the house is worth, figuring on how much longer will they really live. The government again is making out like a fat rat. Plus you have to keep the house in the same condition as when you first agreed to the reverse mortgage. So if it needs a new roof before they die , they have to pay for a new roof, etc. Once they can't afford to maintain something , I'm betting the agreement is over and they've lost everything. Again this just goes to show the cost of living is way out of hand here.


 
I'm not sure its the govt making out. It's private companies offering reverse mortgages. (am I missing something?)


----------



## Jack Straw (Oct 19, 2012)

I think that the house is sold when the homeowner dies and that the bank gets what they paid out plus interest and if there is any money left it goes to the estate.


----------



## charly (Oct 19, 2012)

Adios Pantalones said:


> I'm not sure its the govt making out. It's private companies offering reverse mortgages. (am I missing something?)


Oh,,,, thought it was the government offering the reverse mortgages. Misinformed.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 19, 2012)

If I was of a certain age, had bills, health problems, or just money worries- I'd definitely consider it. Whether they end up paying me less than the house is worth- you can't take it with you, and many will want to stay in the house they've built/lived in/loved. You get some cash, AND stay in the house? why not


----------



## jebatty (Oct 19, 2012)

> When I hear having to sell or lose it, that tells me that things are way out of hand with our government. Once you hit a certain age they should free you from taxes, like say 60.


 
Whoa, wait one minute! You really want the really wealthy to be free of taxes? I don't think you mean that.

The wealthiest 1% already control half the wealth in the US ... and "In 1962, the top 1% had 125 times the net worth of the median household. That shot up to 288 times by 2010 ...."  Filthy Rich. The top 5% of US citizens own 59% of the wealth. As the rich are getting richer, the middle class is getting poorer.

And you want more of that? I doubt it. It's not really a govt issue, it's a people issue, that is, people voting for congress members, House and Senate, as well as at state and local levels, who continue to pass laws that make the wealthy wealthier. It is about wealth distribution, but not taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Just the exact opposite -- take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich.

Wealth and money controls the votes, controls the political advertising, and ultimately dumbfounds and confuses the voter to believe the crap about too much govt, too much regulation, etc. Because under the "too much govt and too much regulation" scenario, which is controlled by the rich, the rich are getting richer. The rich structure govt and regulation to accomplish this. "Too much govt and too many regulations" is ruse perpetrated by those who, once they get into office, will make sure govt does their bidding and regulations insure their accumulation of wealth.

A beginning solution is to get the money out of elections. But even the Supreme Court is in the pockets of the wealthy, as the Citizens United case handed the country over to the wealthy in their ability to control govt and insure this continuing wealth transfer to the rich.

I suspect you are losing this battle and don't even know it because you are falling for the ruse and blaming govt -- instead, blame the wealthy who control the show and are making sure you lose ... lose your land, your home, your job, your health care, and the list goes on. Because every time you lose, they win. Hip Hip Hooray!


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 19, 2012)

Interesting thing they're doing on NPR- they get all these economists with various views together, find their common ground, and build a fictional political platform based on this.

First thing they all said- do away with mortgage deductions.


----------



## charly (Oct 19, 2012)

Maybe I should have stated that people earning under a certain income would no longer be taxed after 60, lets say anyone's total income that's under 80-100K. Just to let people survive. Let the rich pick up the tab! Yes the rich will always make the laws that protect themselves so they stay in power!


----------



## jebatty (Oct 19, 2012)

Mortgage deductions ... a tax subsidy to buy a home ... hmmm. For every action there is a reaction. If tax benefits one thing, then another thing loses. Plenty of room for differences of opinion here. One take is that the subsidy is an incentive or makes it cheaper to buy a home (can deduct interest), that increases demand for homes, and that bids up the price for the homes and bids up the interest rate through loan demand ... and just maybe the net economic impact on the homeowner is no change. And because taxpayer homeowners now have a deduction and pay less in taxes, income taxes need to be increased to cover the tax loss -- again maybe no real benefit to the homeowner ... just a ruse to make the homeowner think he has a benefit.

But who does benefits? As shown, probably not really the homeowner, who now pays more for the home and has a tax deduction but also an off-setting tax increase and higher interest rate, but just maybe it is the banks and the investors who provide the capital for loans who benefit and make more money, through higher interest rates on mortgages, and these investors own stocks that pay dividends at rates lower than income tax rates, and when they sell the stocks they get capital gains at taxes lower than income tax rates. So the investor-rich now make more money at low tax rates while the homeowner sees a tax increase to fund the extra income to the rich through lower tax rates on their dividend and capital gains incomes.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 19, 2012)

Their point was that the bigger the mortgage, the bigger the deduction. That benefits the rich at the expense of the poor/mortgageless.

Also- we have come to believe that this deduction is some constitutional right, rather than an entitlement. It's about $100B in lost revenue.

They had a lot of unpopular things to say.
No taxes on businesses- if you want to tax someone that's making a lot, then tax income- not the business.
Legalize pot.
A few others.

You should check out the NPR piece- they then have PR people try to sell it, write speeches to get these (assumedly, due to the wide variance in economist stances) sound economic policies into a palatable state.


----------



## TradEddie (Oct 19, 2012)

jebatty said:


> Mortgage deductions ... a tax subsidy to buy a home ... hmmm. For every action there is a reaction. If tax benefits one thing, then another thing loses. Plenty of room for differences of opinion here. One take is that the subsidy is an incentive or makes it cheaper to buy a home (can deduct interest), that increases demand for homes, and that bids up the price for the homes and bids up the interest rate through loan demand ... and just maybe the net economic impact on the homeowner is no change. And because taxpayer homeowners now have a deduction and pay less in taxes, income taxes need to be increased to cover the tax loss -- again maybe no real benefit to the homeowner ... just a ruse to make the homeowner think he has a benefit.
> 
> But who does benefits? As shown, probably not really the homeowner, who now pays more for the home and has a tax deduction but also an off-setting tax increase and higher interest rate, but just maybe it is the banks and the investors who provide the capital for loans who benefit and make more money, through higher interest rates on mortgages, and these investors own stocks that pay dividends at rates lower than income tax rates, and when they sell the stocks they get capital gains at taxes lower than income tax rates. So the investor-rich now make more money at low tax rates while the homeowner sees a tax increase to fund the extra income to the rich through lower tax rates on their dividend and capital gains incomes.


 
Wow.  Even more cynical than me!

TE


----------



## btuser (Oct 19, 2012)

As towns and states get less from the Federal government they make up the slack through taxing at the local level.  States for the most part and towns for certain can't run a deficit like the Federal government.   New schools used to get a ton of money at the federal level, now the states + towns eat it and here in NH it's been a traveling disaster to tax rates in certain towns.    This grow-our-way-out-of-it way of thinking is bad news.  The first 3 answers should always be NO, WE DON'T NEED A NEW SCHOOL/FIRE TRUCK/POLICE RIOT VEHICLE.


----------



## Flatbedford (Oct 24, 2012)

Adios Pantalones said:


> Interesting thing they're doing on NPR- they get all these economists with various views together, find their common ground, and build a fictional political platform based on this.
> 
> First thing they all said- do away with mortgage deductions.


 
I have looked all over the NPR site and can't find this. Sounds interesting. I'd like to read more. Have a link you could share?


----------



## bogydave (Oct 24, 2012)

*http://news.yahoo.com/state-local-taxes-highest-york-lowest-alaska-161341568.html*







Other good research sites:

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/check-taxes-in-your-state.aspx

http://www.retirementliving.com/taxes-by-state


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Oct 24, 2012)

Flatbedford said:


> I have looked all over the NPR site and can't find this. Sounds interesting. I'd like to read more. Have a link you could share?


http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012...lan-that-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012...ur-fake-presidential-candidates-first-real-ad


----------



## eclecticcottage (Nov 6, 2012)

charly said:


> Jim , here we have no sewage, water or even garbage pick up. A woman from NYC came to a town meeting who's a real estate investor and said our taxes are higher here then NYC! They are making a few of us carry the loses from the floods here 2 years ago, Hurricane Irene. One 78 year old woman asked what she can do if she can't pay her taxes anymore, they told her to go take out a loan from a bank. Plus they only reassessed half of the town and are already collecting the increased tax rate from that part of the town. One guy stood up in the meeting and said that it was illegal to collect any increase until the entire town has been reassessed! They still sent out my new school tax bill! People are going to lose their farms here with such an increase. They went from 50% market value right up to 79% overnight and then going to 100% next year. One persons taxes in town went from 6000 dollars to 14,000 dollars overnight. You just can't do that to people. We're going from 5500 for school and property to about 8000 dollars and next year it goes to 100%. Increasing slowly over a 5-10 year period is one thing but to do this overnight is BS! Another great thing here, if you have 2 different 2000 sq.ft. homes, one is in nice shape the other is a dump,,,,, the dump gets a tax break and the guy who keeps his house nice gets hit with higher taxes. Some people voiced that they wanted to paint their homes but knew they would get hit with higher taxes. That is not right. 2000 sq ft should be taxed as 2000 sq ft. In fact raise the 2000 sq.ft. dump as an eye sore!


 
We fought down our reassessment a few years ago on our Old House.  It was a good bit of work, but it paid off.  It's nothing special and it's small (see sig)-taxes are a tick under 2K with STAR.  The Cottage is higher (even though it's smaller).  No central heat helps keep the assessement lower.  A lot of folks I know won't pull a permit for non-visable work to keep from getting a hike in assessed value.

What you're speaking about is the exact reason we live in the Cottage instead of on a farm.  We looked at a 20 acre "farm".  Land hadn't been worked in AT LEAST 30 years, barn was coming down and the rest of the outbuildings were also in poor shape.  House was a cobblestone but poorly maintained.  8K a year in taxes.  As of right now, that place is abandoned, they couldn't sell it.  I think one of the big farms bought most of the acreage-or they're renting it.  We also looked at a 10 acre place.  Several nice 20 or so year old pole barns, house about the same age but small with no basement or central heat.  Abandoned (owner passed away) for about 3 years.  Overgrown.  Taxes are about 5-6K a year on that place.  All the acreage here is owned by huge factory farms for sileage.  Cows never see a blade of grass.  They're the only ones that can afford it.


----------



## eclecticcottage (Nov 6, 2012)

stee6043 said:


> Ohh man...go around suggesting "lets make our schools like the systems in the south" and see how much support you can get. ha. Education is very, very different south of the mason dixon line based on the folks I know that have lived in both...


 
I'd support it.  The main reason taxes are too high here is school taxes.  I know plenty of people that are the product of the NYS school system and the NC school system.  I have friends that teach here, and there.  If my taxes were equal to theirs, and the schools were also, I'd say GO FOR IT.  ASAP.


----------



## briansol (Nov 7, 2012)

Try new hampshire.   If you leave your extended land in 'current use', you don't really get taxed on it.  It just needs to stay natural and allow trail use through it/etc, without liability.  But you own it, and can take a chunk out of use if you want to build something, etc. and then you'd pay the taxes on it.
http://www.nhspace.org/downloads/SPACE_Laypersons_Guide_07.pdf

That's where i'm headed in a couple years, hopefully.


----------



## OhioBurner© (Nov 13, 2012)

Wow, big thread. I wouldnt blame you for those taxes. However I think its your locale, I mean NY is high in taxes but I'm guessing yours are higher than other similar areas. Truth is I am on the other side of the coin, would really like to move to NY in the next couple years. I know I'll pay more, but hopefully not too much more. Ohio has some cheap areas and some expensive areas. Were in between, but towards the cheaper side. But we live in a county that has practically nothing, and we live outside of town. Where we lived in Columbus just a few years back... our house was half the size, land was something like 100'x100' (2.2A now) and our taxes were almost $1,000 higher. Oh, but we got fancy streetlights (which I hated) and a fancy fountain that is about 200 feet wide in the center of town. Who gives a crap.

I really miss NY. More woods. Mountains. Much nicer rivers and streams, and lakes. Free access state land everywhere. Ohio has crap for state land, and the few places to go hiking arent nearly as nice. The Ohio countryside is far more populated I think than rural NY, at least from what I have seen from both.

But this is one thing I feared, charly, as you area is in the area I am considering near Albany. I work for the power company and a similar job exists in Albany that runs the grid in NY, I think I would have a good shot of getting that job if I wanted. So I'm looking at places 45min - 1hr drive away, hoping to find nice rural countryside that still drivable to the city. I really dont know anything about the area though. I grew up much farther north towards Watertown, and my family is up there still. So looking west/north of Albany (plus as close as I can get to the Adirondacks is an advantage too). It like to have a place just big enough to sustain heating with wood, and hunting deer off the land, without being too big I cant afford. I'm thinking maybe 20 acres might suffice, especially if there are lots of wood/fields around (dont want tons of neighbors, especially behind me). Maybe I am crazy, but cheap taxes aside, there isnt much I actually like about Ohio and lots I really want to move back to NY for.


----------



## charly (Nov 13, 2012)

Ohio Burner, by the time you want to move here, it could well be a buyers market with the taxes getting higher. National Grid is the local power company here in Albany. You should be able to find some nice places with in that driving time frame.


----------

