Letters

For the second consecutive year, I’ve filed a grievance complaint with Southampton Village concerning the assessed value of my property — and for the second consecutive year, I have received unfair, irrational treatment from the trustees hearing my case.

I provided clear proof of the overassessment of my property by comparing my assessed value to the assessed value of six of my immediate neighbors. The trustees completely ignored this well-documented information. They offered a new assessed value, which continues to have my property substantially overassessed in relation to my neighbors. My property, which is the smallest (2,100 square feet) and the least valuable, continues to have an assessed value higher than my neighbors.

Presently, the village uses assessed values based on a 1992 appraisal, or based on post-1992 improvement or building costs. However, if you file a grievance, they base the assessed value on current market value, multiplied by a New York State-provided number of 0.63 percent. Why would the village use a New York State rate when you have the easily determined rate of village neighbors? That rate is 0.36 percent. The State of New York average property is not comparable to Southampton Village property.

Changing the assessed value of property before the roll is set does not cost the village a penny. Changing the assessed value after the roll is set exposes the village to the cost of the adjustment and to the cost of the litigation process.

I don’t know why the village chooses to play hardball with those fighting grievances. It aggravates complainants, perpetuates unfairness and causes a financial risk to the village. It’s just stupid behavior by the village.

Note that in the complaint process the resident provides facts to support the grievance. All information concerning real estate is in the public domain. Every property, acreage, square feet, buy/sell amount, Zillow, the Town of Southampton or other values are all public information. There is no confidentiality.

When the trustees decide in their secret deliberations, there is no appeal. As Roy Stevenson told me last year, “If you don’t like the conclusion, sue us.” There is no discussion, no negotiation, no appeal. “If you don’t like the conclusion, sue us.”

Trustees Gina Arresta and William Manger were judge and jury on my case this year. They demonstrated their vindictiveness, bias and stupidity.

This situation is another example of trustee action done in secret without public input and causing increased legal expenses. We need to find new trustees who will treat residents with fairness and respect.

David Rung

Southampton Village