new assessment outfit in nassau county

Has anyone heard that Harvey Levinson has now brought in a new reassessment outfit to correct what Cole, Layer & Trumble did,

[Mmmkay]

I bet this is going to cost each and every taxpayer in Nassau in more ways then one.

I bet this is going to cost each and every taxpayer in Nassau in more ways then one.

I agree, but why are they keeping this such a big secret.

Things are really heating up, two class actions now pending regarding the re-assessmanet, NYS law dictates that NO municipality in NYS can raise taxes more then 5% a year or 20% over a five years period. NC has totally disregard this law with there annual double digit increases, this could wind up costing the county hundreds of millions of $$$$ if they loose the class action.

[DonnaDonna]

Your not reading that law correctly. Municipalities raise TAXES more than 5% all the time. The law says ASSESSMENTS cannot be raised in an assessment jurisdiction an average of 5% a year or 20% over 5 years. If Suozzi and Hapless Harvey Levinson violated this statute, their arrogance should get them impeached!

Your not reading that law correctly. Municipalities raise TAXES more than 5% all the time. The law says ASSESSMENTS cannot be raised in an assessment jurisdiction an average of 5% a year or 20% over 5 years. If Suozzi and Hapless Harvey Levinson violated this statute, their arrogance should get them impeached!


I agree.
FACTS

2003/2004 residential property assessment's went up over 25%
2004/2005 assessment's went up over 21%
2006/2007 It has been estimated / established and now appears on the tax rolls, that the assessemnt's will near 30%,

The above does not even take in account the portion of the NC taxes which was went up over 35% the first two years Suozzi became county executive.

The Republican's are starting to look better as each day goes by.

Your not reading that law correctly. Municipalities raise TAXES more than 5% all the time. The law says ASSESSMENTS cannot be raised in an assessment jurisdiction an average of 5% a year or 20% over 5 years. If Suozzi and Hapless Harvey Levinson violated this statute, their arrogance should get them impeached!


I agree.
FACTS

2003/2004 residential property assessment's went up over 25%
2004/2005 assessment's went up over 21%
2006/2007 It has been estimated / established and now appears on the tax rolls, that the assessemnt's will near 30%,

The above does not even take in account the portion of the NC taxes which was went up over 35% the first two years Suozzi became county executive.

Didn't the lawsuit outcome suspend the 5% rule for the three years of the re-assessment? If so, does the judge have such authority? Where are the state electeds on this issue?

Your not reading that law correctly. Municipalities raise TAXES more than 5% all the time. The law says ASSESSMENTS cannot be raised in an assessment jurisdiction an average of 5% a year or 20% over 5 years. If Suozzi and Hapless Harvey Levinson violated this statute, their arrogance should get them impeached!


I agree.
FACTS

2003/2004 residential property assessment's went up over 25%
2004/2005 assessment's went up over 21%
2006/2007 It has been estimated / established and now appears on the tax rolls, that the assessemnt's will near 30%,

The above does not even take in account the portion of the NC taxes which was went up over 35% the first two years Suozzi became county executive.

Didn't the lawsuit outcome suspend the 5% rule for the three years of the re-assessment? If so, does the judge have such authority? Where are the state electeds on this issue?

The 5% per year, 20% over 5 year rule is a N.Y. State Law, and was never suspended or modified, as for the re-assessment it is not for 3 years but rather for 5 years.

While the LI Realty market is predicting that the housing maket bubble may burst, NC has gone ahead and raised as well as approved the assessment rolls on all residential dwellings for 2006/2007 by alsmost 30%.

These Dem's have crossed the line, they don't care about nobody but them selfs least of all the taxpayers of NC, Patronage is out of control, taxes are at an all time high and climbing, corruption is running rampert , litigation cases pending against NC are in the hundreds of millons of $$,

Time to take our county back and vote these scumbag politicians out of office come November.

These Dem's have crossed the line, they don't care about nobody but them selfs least of all the taxpayers of NC, Patronage is out of control, taxes are at an all time high and climbing, corruption is running rampert , litigation cases pending against NC are in the hundreds of millons of $$,

Time to take our county back and vote these scumbag politicians out of office come November.

You mean they've finally become just like the Nassau GOP, right?

Your not reading that law correctly. Municipalities raise TAXES more than 5% all the time. The law says ASSESSMENTS cannot be raised in an assessment jurisdiction an average of 5% a year or 20% over 5 years. If Suozzi and Hapless Harvey Levinson violated this statute, their arrogance should get them impeached!


I agree.
FACTS

2003/2004 residential property assessment's went up over 25%
2004/2005 assessment's went up over 21%
2006/2007 It has been estimated / established and now appears on the tax rolls, that the assessemnt's will near 30%,

The above does not even take in account the portion of the NC taxes which was went up over 35% the first two years Suozzi became county executive.

Didn't the lawsuit outcome suspend the 5% rule for the three years of the re-assessment? If so, does the judge have such authority? Where are the state electeds on this issue?

The 5% per year, 20% over 5 year rule is a N.Y. State Law, and was never suspended or modified, as for the re-assessment it is not for 3 years but rather for 5 years.

So...if my assessment and taxes went up 40% in one year, who do I sue?

Your not reading that law correctly. Municipalities raise TAXES more than 5% all the time. The law says ASSESSMENTS cannot be raised in an assessment jurisdiction an average of 5% a year or 20% over 5 years. If Suozzi and Hapless Harvey Levinson violated this statute, their arrogance should get them impeached!


I agree.
FACTS

2003/2004 residential property assessment's went up over 25%
2004/2005 assessment's went up over 21%
2006/2007 It has been estimated / established and now appears on the tax rolls, that the assessemnt's will near 30%,

The above does not even take in account the portion of the NC taxes which was went up over 35% the first two years Suozzi became county executive.

Didn't the lawsuit outcome suspend the 5% rule for the three years of the re-assessment? If so, does the judge have such authority? Where are the state electeds on this issue?

The 5% per year, 20% over 5 year rule is a N.Y. State Law, and was never suspended or modified, as for the re-assessment it is not for 3 years but rather for 5 years.

So...if my assessment and taxes went up 40% in one year, who do I sue?

Just sit back and lets see what the final verdict is with the two class action lawsuits against nassau county, The other option is to vote these tax and spend Democratic left wing liberals out of office come next November.

Lets not forget when news 12 interviewed Harvey Levinson (NC tax Assessor) the question posed was, at the present pace, NC taxes will have doubled in less then five years, Harvey Levinsins answer without a skip of the beat, "without a doubt they will doble". Thank Harvey for nothing,

Harvey, your a phony, your collecting a NC pension while still working for NC, Thought double dipping of this sort was illegal.

[DonnaDonna]

Guest, in 2003 I voted for O'Shea; at least he wouldn't be a rubber stamp for Suozzi like Levinson is. Everytime Hapless Harvey Levinson opens his mouth, my vote for O'Shea looks better and better.

[lil e birdie]

Not so fast, Batman... you said:
"I agree.
FACTS

2003/2004 residential property assessment's went up over 25%
2004/2005 assessment's went up over 21%
2006/2007 It has been estimated / established and now appears on the tax rolls, that the assessemnt's will near 30%,

The above does not even take in account the portion of the NC taxes which was went up over 35% the first two years Suozzi became county executive.
"

Now, not to be nitty-picky, but remember that these "increases" happened within the time period you state - roughly 2003 through 2007 (which partly hasn't even happened yet as the ol' calendar on the wall at 240 OCR reads, "2005"), and we're not even REFERRING to the 60 - year patterns of UNDER-ASSESSMENTS in the golden-coasted corridor from Garden City up on through GreatNeck and PortWashington...

but if any of you complainers happen to live in the aforementioned corridor, well, anytime you want to start adding up "what's fair," there's the ol' supercomputer at NYIT at your disposal...

Not so fast, Batman... you said:
"I agree.
FACTS

2003/2004 residential property assessment's went up over 25%
2004/2005 assessment's went up over 21%
2006/2007 It has been estimated / established and now appears on the tax rolls, that the assessemnt's will near 30%,

The above does not even take in account the portion of the NC taxes which was went up over 35% the first two years Suozzi became county executive.
"

Now, not to be nitty-picky, but remember that these "increases" happened within the time period you state - roughly 2003 through 2007 (which partly hasn't even happened yet as the ol' calendar on the wall at 240 OCR reads, "2005"), and we're not even REFERRING to the 60 - year patterns of UNDER-ASSESSMENTS in the golden-coasted corridor from Garden City up on through GreatNeck and PortWashington...

but if any of you complainers happen to live in the aforementioned corridor, well, anytime you want to start adding up "what's fair," there's the ol' supercomputer at NYIT at your disposal...

Whats your point? There are still many residential properties on the gold cost under-assessed, Example Billy Joel , who paid $26 million for his estate in Center Island and four months later was re-assessed at less the $6 million dollars. Since the Dem's took over the average NC residential real property taxes will have have gone up over 76% between, this does not take into account ones school taxes.

Not to bust your bubble, but the number's are in on your 2006/2007 re-assessments, just check on Nassau's web site, mynassauproperty.com or call the NC tax assessors office up,
And yes, Nassau County Tax Assessor Harvey Levinson certified and signed off on the 2006/2007 re-assessments and they are now available to anyone who wants to know.

Not so fast, Batman... you said:
"I agree.
FACTS

2003/2004 residential property assessment's went up over 25%
2004/2005 assessment's went up over 21%
2006/2007 It has been estimated / established and now appears on the tax rolls, that the assessemnt's will near 30%,

The above does not even take in account the portion of the NC taxes which was went up over 35% the first two years Suozzi became county executive.
"

Now, not to be nitty-picky, but remember that these "increases" happened within the time period you state - roughly 2003 through 2007 (which partly hasn't even happened yet as the ol' calendar on the wall at 240 OCR reads, "2005"), and we're not even REFERRING to the 60 - year patterns of UNDER-ASSESSMENTS in the golden-coasted corridor from Garden City up on through GreatNeck and PortWashington...

but if any of you complainers happen to live in the aforementioned corridor, well, anytime you want to start adding up "what's fair," there's the ol' supercomputer at NYIT at your disposal...

Whats your point? There are still many residential properties on the gold cost under-assessed, Example Billy Joel , who paid $26 million for his estate in Center Island and four months later was re-assessed at less the $6 million dollars. Since the Dem's took over the average NC residential real property taxes will have have gone up over 76% between, this does not take into account ones school taxes.

Not to bust your bubble, but the number's are in on your 2006/2007 re-assessments, just check on Nassau's web site, mynassauproperty.com or call the NC tax assessors office up,
And yes, Nassau County Tax Assessor Harvey Levinson certified and signed off on the 2006/2007 re-assessments and they are now available to anyone who wants to know.

If Harvey signed off, what about outstanding grievances?

Grievances can be filed on a yealy bases, But NC took this one step farther, if you won your 2003/2004 tax grievance they dont adjust your 2004/2005 assessment amount accordingly, and if you won both your 2003/2204 & 2004/2005, they make no adjustments to the approved and signed off 2006/2007 amounts.

Per NC, they stated if one want one taxes reduced in 2006/2007 one must file a grievance, they are not adjusting any assessment amounts to refelect past tax challenge reductions. And since now they figure re-assessment amounts two years ahead, and the deadline for grieving your 2006/2007 taxes has passed, the taxpayers once again are the looser.

Grievances can be filed on a yealy bases, But NC took this one step farther, if you won your 2003/2004 tax grievance they dont adjust your 2004/2005 assessment amount accordingly, and if you won both your 2003/2204 & 2004/2005, they make no adjustments to the approved and signed off 2006/2007 amounts.

Per NC, they stated if one want one taxes reduced in 2006/2007 one must file a grievance, they are not adjusting any assessment amounts to refelect past tax challenge reductions. And since now they figure re-assessment amounts two years ahead, and the deadline for grieving your 2006/2007 taxes has passed, the taxpayers once again are the looser.

But I grieved and haven't heard the outcome yet!!!

Grievances can be filed on a yealy bases, But NC took this one step farther, if you won your 2003/2004 tax grievance they dont adjust your 2004/2005 assessment amount accordingly, and if you won both your 2003/2204 & 2004/2005, they make no adjustments to the approved and signed off 2006/2007 amounts.

Per NC, they stated if one want one taxes reduced in 2006/2007 one must file a grievance, they are not adjusting any assessment amounts to refelect past tax challenge reductions. And since now they figure re-assessment amounts two years ahead, and the deadline for grieving your 2006/2007 taxes has passed, the taxpayers once again are the looser.

But I grieved and haven't heard the outcome yet!!!

What years did you file your grievance/grievances ? people who won there 2003/2004 & 2004/2005 years were already notified if they won and the amount. You can also check the NC web sit, www.mynassauproperty.com , any changes for the 2003/2004 & 20045/2005 years are on record and noted , check your hard copy tax bill with the amount online, if there the same, you can assume you did not win your case.

Why is Levinson waiting to 2007/2008 to follow NYS Law, caping how much any municipality can increase one real property taxes.

Why is Levinson waiting to 2007/2008 to follow NYS Law, caping how much any municipality can increase one real property taxes.

Harvey Levinson is nothing more then a Suozzi puppet, and Suozzi needs your money.

[DonnaDonna]

I read today's NEWSDAY artical on Hapless Harvey Levinson not doing his job as Assessor. That is, he is NOT providing the most accurate County assessment rolls for taxing agencies to levy fair and accurate taxes. He and the Suozzi appointed Board of Assessors voted unanimously ( no suprise )to cap assessments so their North Shore contributors won't pay their fair share. Once again, the South Shore will pick up MORE of the County tax burden because most of the properties capped are on the North Shore--where Suozzi, Jacobs, Weitzman and their DA Candidate Rice, all live. The artical also quoted Donald Schaeffer of the NYS A.C.L.U., one of the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit that led to Nassau's countywide assessment. Stay tuned for another ACLU lawsuit based on Hapless Levinson's election year stupidity that will cost Nassau taxpayers more millions of $$$. But by then, Suozzi and Levinson hope to be elsewhere... but we'll still be here to clean up their mess!

[Caps, Schmaps]

As good ol' Casey Stengel liketa say, "Cain't anybody here play this game?"

Sorry to remind you all of a name and face from the past, but Charlie OShea took a lot of flack over this "assessment cap" fantasy. Heres what he told me so many years ago...

No where in Albany does it say a law that mandates, requires, demands, insists, cajoles, or even tantrums, or otherwise specifies that there be a cap on the actual assessment of real property.

What the law states is that the assessment rate cannot change more than 6 per cent in any one, or 20 per cent in five, years.

That's not the assessed valuation, or the levy, or the actual taxes themselves, only the rate (which prior to the Cole Laydown & Fumble activities was printed right there on your tax bill ((around 2.5 per cent in most cases)) for all the world to see.

Now we have one half of one per cent or some such razor- thin slicing (see your tax bill for up- to- the- minute detalis) so as to keep the so-called sticker shock effect to a dull roar.

So let's let Newsday figure out how to print a retraction, and we all figure out why our lives turned out this way in beautiful Nassau County, NY (not FLorida)

[Accuracy At All Costs]

The amount of misinformation being spewed about on this thread is simply astounding. Harvey must really have you folks scared.

The 6% cap was first circumvented by O'Shea, but that conduct was approved by the Office of Real Property Services. The class action suits have NO chance of success. Repeart NO chance of success.

The imposition of a 6% cap after reassessment is complete only becomes a problem if properties continue to escalate at double digit rates. That seems unlikely. In the meantime, Levinson can continue to lobby state officials to remove the cap. Moreover, the 6% cap has little effect within an individual school district as houses within a school district tend to appreciate evenly. There May if houses continue to escalate at unprecedented rates that will be a subtle shft with respect to County taxes, but it will be less than $50.

When Levinson spoke of property taxes increasing, he was speaking only of school and town taxes. County taxes have remained stable for 3 years.

Bottom Line is homes are finally accurately valued in Nassau, and people are paying their fair share. There are very few exceptsions. Billy Joel's home is one, because Cole Layer Trumble did such a lousy job initially on that house, that cutting the rate by 3/4 could not catch the lost value. Even that home is now assessed in excess of $17million adding thousands to the school and county coffers.

One gets the feeling that no matter how fine a job Levinson does the posters on this board would not be satisfied. Could it be that they derive their income from the TOH patronage sty or do I smell a Young Republican posting a wee bit too often and without the brains he was born with.

[Zoomdoggie]

§ 1805. Limitation on increases of assessed value of individual
parcels. 1. The assessor of any special assessing unit shall not
increase the assessment of any individual parcel classified in class one
in any one year, as measured from the assessment on the previous year's
assessment roll, by more than six percent and shall not increase such
assessment by more than twenty percent in any five-year period. The
first such five-year period shall be measured from the individual
assessment appearing on the assessment roll completed in nineteen
hundred eighty; provided that if such parcel would not have been subject
to the provisions of this subdivision in nineteen hundred eighty had
this subdivision then been in effect, the first such five-year period
shall be measured from the first year after nineteen hundred eighty in
which this subdivision applied to such parcel or would have applied to
such parcel had this subdivision been in effect in such year.
If, in respect to any individual parcel classified in class one on the
assessment roll completed and applicable for the year nineteen hundred
eighty-two, the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-one
exceeds by more than twenty percent the assessment for the year nineteen
hundred eighty, such assessor shall compute the actual assessments to be
entered on assessment rolls applicable to the years nineteen hundred
eighty-two through nineteen hundred ninety as follows:
(a) compute the maximum permissible assessments for the years nineteen
hundred eighty-one through nineteen hundred eighty-five pursuant to the
limitations contained hereinabove as if the provisions of this
subdivision were in effect and applicable for assessment rolls prepared
in the year nineteen hundred eighty-one;
(b) subtract the maximum permissible assessment for the year nineteen
hundred eighty-one as computed in paragraph (a) hereof from the actual
assessment entered on the assessment roll completed and applicable for
the year nineteen hundred eighty-one and divide such result by four;
(c) the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-two shall be
the maximum permissible assessment for such year as computed pursuant to
such paragraph (a) minus the quotient determined pursuant to paragraph
(b) hereinabove;
(d) the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-three shall be
the maximum permissible assessment for such year as computed pursuant to
such paragraph (a) minus the quotient determined pursuant to paragraph
(b) hereinabove;
(e) the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-four shall be
the maximum permissible assessment for such year as computed pursuant to
such paragraph (a) minus the quotient determined pursuant to paragraph
(b) hereinabove;
(f) the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-five shall be
the maximum permissible assessment for such year as computed pursuant to
such paragraph (a) minus the quotient determined pursuant to paragraph
(b) hereinabove;
(g) commencing and applicable in the years nineteen hundred eighty-six
through nineteen hundred ninety, the limitations contained hereinabove
shall be computed as measured against the maximum permissible
assessments for the years nineteen hundred eighty-one through nineteen
hundred eighty-five as computed in paragraph (a) hereinabove and as
measured against the actual assessments for the years occurring after
nineteen hundred eighty-five.
2. The assessment roll of a special assessing unit wholly contained
within a city shall identify those parcels classified in class two which
have fewer than eleven residential units. The assessor of any such
special assessing unit shall not increase the assessment of any parcel
so identified in any one year, as measured from the actual assessment on

the previous year's assessment roll, by more than eight percent and
shall not increase such assessment by more than thirty percent in any
five-year period. The first such five-year period shall be measured from
the individual assessment appearing on the assessment roll completed in
nineteen hundred eighty-one provided that, if such parcel would not have
been subject to the provisions of this subdivision in nineteen hundred
eighty-one had this subdivision then been in effect, the first such
five-year period shall be measured from the first year after nineteen
hundred eighty-one in which this subdivision applied to such parcel or
would have applied to such parcel had this subdivision been in effect in
such year.
If, in respect to any parcel so identified on the assessment roll
completed and applicable for the year nineteen hundred eighty-four, the
actual assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-three exceeds by
more than thirty percent the assessment for the year nineteen hundred
eighty-one, such assessor shall compute the actual assessments to be
entered on assessment rolls applicable to the years nineteen hundred
eighty-four through nineteen hundred ninety-two as follows:
(a) compute the maximum permissible assessments for the years nineteen
hundred eighty-two through nineteen hundred eighty-seven pursuant to the
limitations contained hereinabove as if the provisions of this
subdivision were in effect and applicable for assessment rolls prepared
in the year nineteen hundred eighty-two;
(b) subtract the maximum permissible assessment for the year nineteen
hundred eighty-two as computed in paragraph (a) hereof from the lesser
of the actual or transition assessment entered on the assessment roll
completed and applicable for the year nineteen hundred eighty-two;
(c) subtract the maximum permissible assessment for the year nineteen
hundred eighty-three as computed in such paragraph (a) from the lesser
of the actual or transition assessment entered on the assessment roll
completed and applicable for the year nineteen hundred eighty-three;
(d) add such results of the computations prescribed by paragraphs (b)
and (c) hereof as are greater than zero and divide such sum by four;
(e) the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-four shall be
the maximum permissible assessment for such year as computed pursuant to
such paragraph (a) minus the quotient determined pursuant to paragraph
(d) hereinabove;
(f) the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-five shall be
the maximum permissible assessment for such year as computed pursuant to
such paragraph (a) minus the quotient determined pursuant to paragraph
(d) hereinabove;
(g) the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-six shall be
the maximum permissible assessment for such year as computed pursuant to
such paragraph (a) minus the quotient determined pursuant to paragraph
(d) hereinabove;
(h) the assessment for the year nineteen hundred eighty-seven shall be
the maximum permissible assessment for such year as computed pursuant to
such paragraph (a) minus the quotient determined pursuant to paragraph
(d) hereinabove;
(i) commencing and applicable in the years nineteen hundred
eighty-eight through nineteen hundred ninety-two, the limitations
contained hereinabove shall be computed as measured against the maximum
permissible assessments for the years nineteen hundred eighty-three
through nineteen hundred eighty-seven as computed in paragraph (a)
hereinabove and as measured against the actual assessments for the years
occurring after nineteen hundred eighty-seven.
3. If the assessment appearing on an assessment roll completed on or
after January first, nineteen hundred eighty-two for any parcel not

subject to the provisions of subdivision one or two of this section,
other than a parcel classified in class three, is greater than the
assessment appearing on the previous year's assessment roll the assessor
shall determine a transition assessment for such parcel for the first
assessment roll on which such greater assessment appears and for each of
the succeeding four assessment rolls by computing the difference between
such greater assessment and the assessment appearing on such previous
year's assessment roll and adding the following percentages of such
difference to the assessment appearing on such previous year's
assessment roll: in the first year, twenty percent; in the second year,
forty percent; in the third year, sixty percent; in the fourth year,
eighty percent; and in the fifth year, one hundred percent. If the
assessment of a parcel is increased during a period for which transition
assessments have been established because of any prior assessment
increases, such new increase shall be phased-in over a five-year period
as set forth in this subdivision, and such phased-in increases shall be
added to the transitional assessments previously established for the
prior increase; provided, however, that if in any year any such
transition assessment exceeds the actual assessment for such year, taxes
imposed on such parcel for such year shall be based on such lesser
actual assessment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, during the period of
any such transition, the assessment roll shall contain an entry of the
full amount of such greater assessment which shall be used by the state
board in its determination of class ratios pursuant to paragraph (b) of
subdivision one of section twelve hundred two of this chapter. In
establishing state equalization rates, class equalization rates, special
state equalization rates and special state equalization ratios under
article twelve, article twelve-A and article twelve-B of this chapter,
the state board shall use the transition assessments as provided for in
this subdivision in its determinations, or where the actual assessment
is the lesser, such actual assessment shall be so used.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision three of this section
no transition assessment shall be computed for any individual parcel for
a year in which subdivision one or two of this section were applicable
to such parcel, nor for any real property owned by the state and which
is subject to taxation pursuant to title two of article five of this
chapter, nor for any real property for which a statute provides that a
state equalization rate or special equalization rate shall be employed
to determine the assessed value or the taxable assessed value.
5. Nothing in this section shall prevent placing on the assessment
roll new property, additions to or improvements of existing property or
formerly exempt property or the full or partial removal from the roll of
property by reason of fire, demolition, destruction or new exemption and
such increase or decrease in value shall not be included in the
computation of the limitations prescribed by this section. Any parcel
which would be assessed at a greater amount but for the provisions of
subdivision one or two of this section shall be excluded from any survey
or computation made by any body or officer for the purpose of
determining a level of assessment to be used in the administrative or
judicial review of assessments including, but not limited to, class
ratios computed pursuant to paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section
twelve hundred two of this chapter, ratios computed by selection of
parcels or from actual sales of real property under the provisions of
subdivision three of section seven hundred twenty of this chapter, and
residential assessment ratios computed pursuant to section seven hundred
thirty-eight of this chapter, but not including state equalization rates
or class equalization rates. In the event that a parcel appearing on the
assessment roll completed in nineteen hundred eighty or any subsequent

roll is subdivided or consolidated with another, such assessor shall
make an appropriate allocation of the assessed value of such parcel in
the determination of the limitations prescribed in this section.

[Dante's Inferno]

Whenever Charlie O'Shea had a problem with State Assessment law, he didn't call press conferences and pass phoney rulings at the Board of Assessors. He would try to get the state agency in charge--the State office Of Real Property Services (ORPS)--to change the regulation, or he would, as a former state legislator, draft a bill with our state legislators to change the law. Levinson has shown himself to be completely inept during the 2 years he has been County Assessor. Running for Hempstead Supervisor is proof positive that he is bored with the job that he was elected to do. If so he should resign and allow County residents to elect someone who wants to do the job. In spite of all the garbage he had to put up with, I wonder if O'Shea would run again?

Whenever Charlie O'Shea had a problem with State Assessment law, he didn't call press conferences and pass phoney rulings at the Board of Assessors. He would try to get the state agency in charge--the State office Of Real Property Services (ORPS)--to change the regulation, or he would, as a former state legislator, draft a bill with our state legislators to change the law. Levinson has shown himself to be completely inept during the 2 years he has been County Assessor. Running for Hempstead Supervisor is proof positive that he is bored with the job that he was elected to do. If so he should resign and allow County residents to elect someone who wants to do the job. In spite of all the garbage he had to put up with, I wonder if O'Shea would run again?

Both OShea and Levinson suck.