Tuesday, July 16, 2024
93.6 F
HomeLarchmontIn Larchmont, $Millions Remains Untaxed, Says Report

In Larchmont, $Millions Remains Untaxed, Says Report

Larchmont Police Dept.and Village Hall
Larchmont Village Hall


More than $220 million in taxable value, found by Mamaroneck at Larchmont’s priciest homes, has been “left on the table by the village board’s decision to stick with its old assessments,” reports LoHud.

In Larchmont Village, 66 of the higher-valued Larchmont properties were valued by Mamaroneck for more than $1 million more than the village, the report says.  That means that added taxable value won’t be taxed by the village.

Those homes are yellow on this fascinating color-coded map.

A 2014 state report reveals that municipalities in Westchester, as well as Rockland, Nassau and Suffolk – regularly fail to update their rolls.

“High-end homes in (Larchmont) tended to be underassessed and got hit with huge increases while lower-priced homes tended to be overassessed and saw reductions. In practical terms, that means owners of lower-priced homes have subsidized those at the top end – for years,” writes LoHud.


Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Larchmont 4ever??
Larchmont 4ever??
October 15, 2014 3:11 PM

re “Math is Difficult”…I guess it is — for you at least.

point of
this article is that the burden of taxation is unevenly spread, so
people whose houses are relatively under-assessed are getting a free
ride on the back of those whose houses are over-assessed. Take some of
the houses on Pryer Lane, assessed by Larchmont for as much as 2 million
less than the ToM’s assessment…as much as a >50% discount on the
value of those homes. In contrast, the homes in the Village have
perhaps a 5 or 10% discount. So, let me guess whether Math is Difficult
lives in a big (under-assessed) house, or a cozy (equally assessed)

I guess we should be reassured by Math is Difficult that
class inequality doesn’t really exist…it’s a fiction perpetrated by
the liberal media, no doubt!

And we should all be glad that the rich folks on Pryer Lane aren’t getting a free ride!

Math is Difficult (but fun)
Math is Difficult (but fun)
October 15, 2014 6:05 PM

Hey genius, why don’t you re-read my post. I had no agenda and I believe I clearly stated “I don’t know if the proper analysis would draw any different conclusions.”

My criticism was with the quality of the analysis and the suggestion that a) tax revenue would be higher if millions of dollars weren’t “left on the table” – which just isn’t true; b) with the focus of both the map and the article on the $ differential of the valuations (which is irrelevant) vs. the % differential (which is the salient point); and c) with the lack of the appropriate reference point which is to what extent the VoL’s TOTAL valuation is below ToM (if the whole Village is under assessed by 20%, then you’re not underpaying if you are too). All I was suggesting was that either the writer didn’t know how to do the math correctly or was writing with a clear bias (which you seem to share), and that a true journalist with the raw data should attempt to do it correctly.

And, since you ask, I happen to live in a big house that is OVER assessed by the VoL vs. the ToM valuations (which means I am definitely OVER paying, since it is clear that as a whole the VoL assessments are below those of the ToM). But I am sure you could care less about that, since in your world I’m guessing it is fine to over pay, as long as you are “rich.”

The reason why most people aren’t good at analysis is because they let their initial bias get in the way of what data tells them (or interpret all the data through the lens of that bias). Perhaps you should questions your own assumptions/biases before challenging the facts which I am simply stating about the quality of the analysis that was done. It’s very clear from your other posts on this site that you have a strong point of view about development and the disappearance of the “Larchmont you love,” which it seems equates to “big houses and rich people are bad.” I have no such agenda one way or the other (and actually value what the diversity of having BOTH brings to our community). My only hope is that when people, journalists included, purport to do “analysis,” they do it properly (or seek out someone who can) and don’t just simply portray “data” in a certain way to serve their political bias. But maybe in a world dominated by Fox News and Rachel Maddow that’s just too much to ask!

Larchmont 4ever??
Larchmont 4ever??
October 19, 2014 1:08 PM

Dear Math is Difficult,

Okay we get it, the LoHud reporter wasn’t exactly on the ball. At least as far as there being untold millions more taxable value as yet unassessed. He/she was wrong about that, and should take Remedial Math 101. (You smart boy you!)

But his/her point about inequitable assessment was spot on. Things aren’t fair. The little people do pay too much in taxes, and so do would-be masters of the universe like yourself.

Sir, you get me wrong. Like yourself I also live in an enormous Larchmont mansion–though, unlike yours, mine is vastly under-taxed. (Thanks for subsidizing my lifestyle by the way…I hope your over-assessment continues unabated!). My decades of legal tax underpayment has allowed me to amass my fleet of Bugattis, my private island, and my matching his-and-hers private LearJets.

In the mean time you and the other little people slave away to pay your outrageous taxes. Let’s all hope it stays that way!

Dwight D. Seigneur

P.S. I stopped watching Fox News long ago…too liberal by far!

Math is cool
Math is cool
October 22, 2014 11:13 AM

I appreciate your retro style, but LearJets are so 80s. You should really get yourself a G-VI or a Boeing BBJ – it’s the only way any self-respecting “would-be master of the universe” should travel to his/her private island…

Math is difficult
Math is difficult
October 10, 2014 5:27 PM

The “analysis” in the referenced LoHud article is a joke. No more taxes would be collected if the ToM valuations were adopted, it would simply re allocate Village of Larchmont taxes among homeowners based on their relative values. In addition, the map’s focus on the $ valuation differential and not the % value differential is a complete distortion aimed at riding one of the media’s favorite topics de jour – class inequality. The proper analysis would be to calculate the total value of all property under the Village assessments and compare that to the ToM re-assessment to determine the % by which the entire village is under assessed. Then map out which homes are “undervalued” on a % basis by more or less than the overall difference. If the Village as a whole is valued at 10% less by the VoL than by the ToM, then someone like the homeowner of 7 Bay Avenue who is “under assessed” by $577k (a little less than 10% below the ToM appraisal of $6m) is actually paying their fair share of the taxes (despite being a big red square on the map), while someone like the homeowner of 2166 Boston Post Road who is “under assessed” by a seemingly paltry $87k (and represented by a very benign looking green square) is actually the one who is not (since they are more than 10% under assessed). I don’t know if the proper analysis would draw any different conclusions, but an enterprising and thoughtful journalist would the underlying data and the time might try to actually find out. And by the way, the only people who should care are the residents of Larchmont Village itself.

• C O M M U N I T Y • C A L E N D A R •

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x