The Truth And Insight Of
| On January 21, 1998, the Chairman
of Voice PAC, Gary J. English testified at the Allegheny County's Commissioner's Meeting.
The following is an excerpt of the testimony given that day: .....County Assessments Assessment Board Member Mickey Kaufmann, who also serves as Treasurer of the Committee For Good Government PAC that solicited campaign contributions from Real Estate interests. Mr. Kaufmann is in a reciprocal position to potentially lower the contributor's assessment. ...a conflict of interest. Yet, he still sits on the Property Assessment Board. Membership has its privileges Assessment Board Vice-Chairman Richard Odato, had his own
property assessment lowered through a discontinued practice known as "Field
Settlements" in the amount of $30,000. Commissioner Dunn, your property assessment has gone up nearly $20,000. It must be due to the recent improvements on your home. Commissioner Dawida your property has had a very modest increase,
averaging just 3/4 of 1% in each of the 21 years you have owned your home. That equates to
just $5,000. Commissioner Cranmer - On WTAE Radio, you justified your mortgage with Dimitri, stating your property was worth $250,000. Currently, you have this property listed for sale at $269,000. The 1998 Assessments indicate your property still has a market value of $92,400. Chairman Cranmer are you true to your belief, or is the Assessment Board in error again by $176,600 ? Ah yes, Membership has its privileges. -Gary J. English |
After this testimony, a week
had passed before the media reported the story. This gave Commissioner Cranmer the
opportunity to run for political cover when the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an article titled:
Cranmer asks for,
gets his home reassessed By Mark Belko *Post-Gazette Staff Writer - January 28, 1998 |
| The article reported that it isn't very often
that someone pulls strings to get his property taxes raised. In this case,
Allegheny County Commissioner Bob Cranmer. One would likely agree. In fact, it
raises the question; could you make the same phone call to the Property Assessment
Department to dispatch an assessor if you felt your property was over-assessed? It was reported that Cranmer's chief aide, Art Victor, had contacted Assessment Board Chairman Richard Odato, which ordered the reassessment. This action resulted in nearly a 100% increase. Cranmer's response was, "I asked for it. I got it." Cranmer claimed that the revaluation was to make a point that, "nobody is immune." This has the appearance of abusing one's power in office. The motive for the reassessment is suspect, as the time-line was about a week after Gary English raised the issue at the County Commissioner's meeting. Was the assessment done to cover his political posterior? How long has Commissioner Cranmer felt that his property assessment was underassessed? Cranmer stated his reason for the assessment, "just to deal with the issue before it becomes an issue. Sooner or later I'm going to be held to scrutiny". Oddly enough, the issue was already under scrutiny. At the time, Commissioner Cranmer had his house on the market with an asking price of $249,900. That's $157,500 more than the fair-market value set at $92,400 by the County Assessment Department. Yes, the value on Cranmer's house does raise an interesting set of questions. Namely; How did the Assessment Department through Sabre Systems miss the Commissioner's property assessment in the first round of court-order reassessments. The county-wide reassessments are being done in three phases. The first phase was done on a basis of properties that were over/under assessed by 40% or more. In the case of Commissioner Cranmer, his new property assessment had increased by 100%. ! The Commissioner further stated that he knew that his property was incorrectly assessed stating that it was, "dramatically underassessed. " |
The following day the Post-Gazette wrote an editorial titled.................
| Cranmer’s value The commissioner shoulders his taxpayer's burden *Post-Gazette Editorial -January 29, 1998 |
The editorial stated that, "Equality under the law means citizens shall be treated equally. However, is it equality that a Commissioner can make a phone call to have his home reassessed yet the average home-owner can not do the same? The view taken in the editorial considered the doubling of Commissioner Cranmer's assessment as a "free appraisal". This so-called free appraisal really came at the expense of the taxpayers, and would only affirm his asking price of $249,000. In light of the new assessment, it mentioned that Commissioner Cranmer's tax bill will be "commensurately higher" in relationship to the new valuation. This gives the appearance that the Commissioner was victimized like so thousands of other property-owners in Allegheny County. This portrays the Commissioner as wearing the "white hat" and stated that, "His honesty deserves to be emulated by other taxpayers." Is this truly the case, or will the motives and truth of the matter come to the surface in the future? Time will tell........... |
Thirteen days later..............the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an article
titled
| Cranmer 'tax me' gambit rejected By Mark Belko *Post-Gazette Staff Writer -February 11, 1998 |
The article reported that the Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review voted 4-3 to against increasing Cranmer's property assessment. Despite the Commissioner's beliefs that his property is "'dramatically underassessed", the board appropriately ruled. Though it may pain oneself to see this happen, the outcome of the vote was an appropriate ruling that the process was considered "spot assessing", and illegal practice. Assessment solicitor, Craig Stephens, recommended that Cranmer file a formal appeal if he wants his assessment raised. Stephens felt it would have an appearance of preferential treatment over others. Commissioner Cranmer puttin' on the ritz said, the decision was "ludicrous and nuts," and further said it was getting to the point that "it's absurd". How absurd is it, or was it all an act? Did Bob Cranmer file an appeal to "pay his fair share ??? |
.................four months later
| On June 30, 1998, after the
Chairman of Voice PAC, Gary J. English testified at the Allegheny County's Commissioner's
Meeting. His testimony was about to uncover the fact that Commissioner Cranmer did
not file a property assessment appeal. The following is the testimony given that day: County Houses I'm here to speak on houses in Allegheny County. But I will focus on just three houses. First, is the house divided. It's called the house that "Jack" built. Well, not really Jack, ...but by Bob, Mike & Tom. And its not really a house, rather the proposed stadiums. It's divided, as the majority of the public do not want to fund it. The stadiums will be publicly owned, and almost exclusively funded by the public. If the stadiums will be publicly owned, revenues for the Naming Rights should benefit the public, lowering our over-all tax burden. But Bob, Mike & Tom won't let that happen, as it's called giving away the house. Pro sports salaries are out of control. Providing the teams with higher revenue generating facilities will only perpetuate their own fiscal mess. Yes, they must get their own house in order. The second house, is our family home. On the second business day of 1997, I appealed our property assessment. A year and a half later, I still haven't received a decision from the assessment board. While I patiently wait, our school millage, which is already highest in the county, was just raised 6 more mills, putting us in the poor house. The last house, is that of Commissioner Bob Cranmer. On January 21, 1998, I raised issue to the Commissioner's property assessment. At the time, it was on the market for $249,000 and was given a fair market value of $100,000 dollars. With one phone call, and five days later, the Commissioner had his home re-assessed. Commissioner, is that all I have to do to get a decision on our 1997 property assessment? The Commissioner was quoted as saying, "It was dramatically underassessed" ........How long have you felt that way? You sought the resassessment in part, "Just to deal with the issue before it becomes an issue. Sooner or later I'm going to be held to scrutiny". Well Commissioner, I thought I brought it to scrutiny in January. Yes, an assessor came out and doubled your property assessment and you said, "I asked for it. I got it". .........Exactly, what is it that you got? A few weeks later, the Board over-turned your new assessment, ruling that it was "spot assessing". The board said that you would have to appeal it in order to have it changed. Would you like to tell the public
why you didn't appeal your assessment in order to pay your fair share? I have run out of house cliche's but will finally say that a louse rhymes with a house. -Gary J. English |
Yes, Commissioner Cranmer did not appeal his property assessment in 1998, even though he was quoted in the *Pittsburgh Post-Gazette stating:
The hypocrisy of
it all, |
Return To Voice PAC
*Note: For a more detailed accounting of quotes in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, archives of the stories "headlined" can be purchased by calling the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette at (412) 263-1100.