Avi

[seand]

Interesting again. So...how many agreements were signed? After how many months did they catch the default? "Three strikes and you are out" only works if they know you are actually playing the game and are up at bat.

He had defaulted 3 times previously and its now currently strictly enforced that after 3 agreements that went into default from missed payments, you can't get enter a new payment agreement, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. i'm not privy to the details of the previous defaults, nor should I be. So small but definite progress. The guy in my instances is one of my least favorite commercial landlords in my area, a former state rep who likes to picture himself as an important political player. He tried to pull every string he could to stop the process, according to a guy who worked for him. It didn't matter, the building went to sherrif's sale and now new owner is busy rehabbing the building. The process was a success in other words.

Which is why AVI shouldn't be rolled out until a meaningful appeals and collection process is in place.

This is either a glaring logical fallacy or disengenuous. I suspect the latter.

The problem with the appeals process till now has been that the criteria for the assessments in the first place was obscure and arbitrary. And the way you fix that problem is to make assesments based on transparent criteria, like 3 comparable actual sales prices in the same area. In a word AVI.

Saying you need to "fix" assesments before you do AVI is like saying a developer has to build an entire life-sized scale model before they will be allowed zoning approval to start construction. Its a logical contradiction. You need assessments based on transparent criteria first before you can appeal based on the same criteria, obviously.

So every time you say "they have to fix appeals before they do AVI" you are commiting such an obvious fallacy, its pretty clear you are throwing anything that sounds remotely good to keep the current process in place forever. In other words, you like the current unfair process and will say anything to justify its continued unfairness.

AVI is being rolled out without any plan to fix either the appeals process (remember, BRT)

AVI is how you fix the appeals process. i know several folks who have succesfully challenged old BRT spot assessments, circa 2001/2002. They had no issue with actual appeals hearings, except they were hassle to go down there. Not significantly worse than contesting a traffic ticket. The problem is not with the process of how the BRT runs the hearings. The problem is the criteria for assessment, or in a word AVI.

Repeating a inherently faulty statement does not make it true.

AVI is about raising money

And this is an outright lie, no matter how often you repeat it. AVI is just a fairer, more transparent way to figure out the assessments. The millage rate the city charges on those assessments is something else entirely. AVI does not raise money at all by itself, it just makes the current way the way the city already raises money fairer. And the way it has been done till now is illegal according to the state so we have no choice.

Now the way mayor has tried to roll in a sneaky hike is an attempt to raise funds for the schools is something else but the problem is not with assessments based on actual sales. The problem with that is that its instituting a defacto millage hike and pretending its not one.

[Big Irish]

A story on WHYY today reports that State Rep Michael O'Brien said in a state meeting with administration directors yesterday that a 2006 law mandates that AVI must be revenue neutral for the first year. Is he right? I guess we'll see.

[raider.adam]

A story on WHYY today reports that State Rep Michael O'Brien said in a state meeting with administration directors yesterday that a 2006 law mandates that AVI must be revenue neutral for the first year. Is he right? I guess we'll see.

I was pretty sure Philadelphia was exempted from that. It would be helpful if they cited which law.

[JRN]

That isn't exactly correct. AVI is just the assessment. It doesn't set your tax bill. The temporary taxes and 94 million is from the tax rate which nutter wants council to include (which they likely will). Nothing stops Council from setting the new rate to be back to the total revenue pre-temp tax. AVI is just the assessment.

Your are right. Thank you for correctly pointing out the technicality that AVI is "just a tax assessment." That being said, the Mayor nor Council have yet proposed either formally, or informally, a rate which does not codify either the temporary hikes of prior years or the proposed 9% $94M hike. If the final rate becomes 0.9 - 1.1%, then one can consider the outcome of AVI combined with the new rate to be revenue neutral.

It is true, but the City has no option. The current system is illegal.

I never debated the legality of the current system. It is a well known fact that the current system is and has been for many years, illegal. However, addressing the legality of a broken system while ignoring how the new legal system magnifies an onerous total taxation scheme, is myopic at best.

Except multiple issues are being mixed. The tax rate applied to AVI can be done where the City takes in no extra revenue, in total, but it would still hit the people like you disproportionately. Collecting the back taxes for revenue is an independent issue.

I never claimed not to be accepting of being hit disproportionately. In fact, I was quite willing to accept a 300-400-500% increase in taxes (but not 800-900-1000%). As you stated, the tax rate can be set where the City does not take additional revenue, ergo, the City should set tax rates to accomplish this. My point was that; just as a business needs to collect its accounts receivable assets before raising prices on paying customers, the city should collect unpaid taxes before penalizing its tax-paying citizens. To the extent that both are related to the overall revenue of the city, I am not certain that they are independent issues.

Nope. Most economists say property tax is a better tax.

Again though, a revenue neutral tax rate on the AVI will still hit you hard (assuming the numbers you are supplying are accurate).

Again, I appreciate your response, but I think you're missing the point. I'd gladly write my fair check and be hit hard! However, it would be insane to lie down and accept my disproportional hit, and the multiple tax increases, and accept that fact that the City is choosing this easier path because they know we'll pay versus collecting from other deadbeats.

As far as your comment on economists, I'll just say that this topic is too nuanced to discuss on a message board. If markets were perfect and property taxes were 100% fair, then yes property taxes would be preferred, however as the AVI AND the new tax rates demonstrate, they are far from it.

[ArcticSplash]

See, in a sane world, AVI would be allowed to continue as planned, and in September an assessment letter would be mailed out informing you of what the City believes the new assessment on your house is to be.

However, because of the timing of the City budget, the City will continue to use the old assessment and AVI doesn't take effect until the NEXT cycle of the City budget where the AVI calculation is used. That gives everyone ample time to prepare for the carnage to their personal budgets (or the freedom of a lower tax bill).


But that's in a sane world. This is Philadelphia, where if we can figure out a way to royally f_ck something up, that way will be discovered and implemented without delay.

[raider.adam]

Your are right. Thank you for correctly pointing out the technicality that AVI is "just a tax assessment." That being said, the Mayor nor Council have yet proposed either formally, or informally, a rate which does not codify either the temporary hikes of prior years or the proposed 9% $94M hike. If the final rate becomes 0.9 - 1.1%, then one can consider the outcome of AVI combined with the new rate to be revenue neutral.

Revenue neutral would probably be closer to 1.2%, but you are correct that Council, when they talk about revenue neutral, are talking about including the temp tax, but not the 94 million.

I never debated the legality of the current system. It is a well known fact that the current system is and has been for many years, illegal. However, addressing the legality of a broken system while ignoring how the new legal system magnifies an onerous total taxation scheme, is myopic at best.

I'm not sure what you mean by AVI magnifying "an onerous total taxation scheme".

I never claimed not to be accepting of being hit disproportionately. In fact, I was quite willing to accept a 300-400-500% increase in taxes (but not 800-900-1000%). As you stated, the tax rate can be set where the City does not take additional revenue, ergo, the City should set tax rates to accomplish this. My point was that; just as a business needs to collect its accounts receivable assets before raising prices on paying customers, the city should collect unpaid taxes before penalizing its tax-paying citizens. To the extent that both are related to the overall revenue of the city, I am not certain that they are independent issues.

I totally agree and am against City Hall taking more revenue from this process (and if they do, at least be done as a separate vote), but that doesn't mean I don't support AVI. The system used to determine the value to assign the tax rate against has to be fixed and normalized.

Again, I appreciate your response, but I think you're missing the point. I'd gladly write my fair check and be hit hard! However, it would be insane to lie down and accept my disproportional hit, and the multiple tax increases, and accept that fact that the City is choosing this easier path because they know we'll pay versus collecting from other deadbeats.

I'm not saying you are objecting to paying, but I don't know what you mean by it being disproportional. Again, I agree with you on not liking the tax rate that will bring in more total revenue, but the "collecting from deadbeats" is not linked or relevant to actually switching to the AVI system. It is relevant to the tax rate discussion.

This is what nutter is trying to do. He is trying to tie the rate and AVI together to confuse people. He's trying to coerce a rate from council based on them trusting his projected numbers and tell the populace that it has to be done this way. He's confusing the multiple issues.

As far as your comment on economists, I'll just say that this topic is too nuanced to discuss on a message board. If markets were perfect and property taxes were 100% fair, then yes property taxes would be preferred, however as the AVI AND the new tax rates demonstrate, they are far from it.

I don't agree with those statements. Property taxes are a more stable and economically efficient form of taxation. You're acting like there aren't people that cheat on sales taxes, wage taxes and business taxes. The problem isn't the property tax itself, but the dysfunction of City Hall to actually collect.

[raider.adam]

See, in a sane world, AVI would be allowed to continue as planned, and in September an assessment letter would be mailed out informing you of what the City believes the new assessment on your house is to be.

That actually is what is taking place. The problem is that Council has to set the tax rate for AVI now and can't change it in the middle of fiscal year, so they have to do it based solely on Nutter's projections of the new system.

However, because of the timing of the City budget, the City will continue to use the old assessment and AVI doesn't take effect until the NEXT cycle of the City budget where the AVI calculation is used. That gives everyone ample time to prepare for the carnage to their personal budgets (or the freedom of a lower tax bill).

I wouldn't say that either. It is up in the air right now if it gets delayed or they go in blind.

But that's in a sane world. This is Philadelphia, where if we can figure out a way to royally f_ck something up, that way will be discovered and implemented without delay.

Nutter missed his assessment deadlines, but he already budgeted rolling the temp taxes into the new AVI system, so he is a bit screwed.

[ArcticSplash]

I responded to Bill Green's post on YPP just now.

Basically, AVI in its present implementation is just absolute political suicide for City Council. The OPA assessments should continue as planned and it can't speed them up to make it to Council recess. The best tactic is to just kick the switchover to the AVI calculation to next year after everyone is aware of what their new property values are going to be under the new calculation.

People like me who recently purchased within the last 5 years won't really care what the OPA results are; we already have a good idea what's coming (it will probably be the last purchase price). But for people sitting in houses that last had a transfer back in the 1970s, knowing what that number is will wake up the population to what the millage rate will be when the City starts debating what to actually set it at, and AVI is just simple multiplication.


The way this is going about right now is just like you said Adam: confuse everyone and hope they don't notice.

Council could just tell the SDP that the money isn't coming this year and to just deal with it. What's the big deal other than another round of mass layoffs? The SDP is already going to do more rounds of layoffs even WITH the $94MM. Harrisburg
controls the SDP, not the City, so if the SDP is to default against creditors for school bonds, Harrisburg can backstop them.



And you know what, I kind of half-heartedly agree with Stan Shapiro. Put the $94MM on ice until the SDP cleans up its plan for charter-ization. As in: explain what the hell it's actually doing truthfully with its projected outlay, and what I mean by that... I'm talking specifically about its broken process of contracting. I watched Channel 64 when the SRC testified, trying (abysmally) to artfully dodge questioning from Council. Screw it. If I was on Council I wouldn't feel one bit inclined to give another penny over to the school district unless it was put back in total control of the City of Philadelphia.

[raider.adam]

And you know what, I kind of half-heartedly agree with Stan Shapiro. Put the $94MM on ice until the SDP cleans up its plan for charter-ization. As in: explain what the hell it's actually doing truthfully with its projected outlay, and what I mean by that... I'm talking specifically about its broken process of contracting. I watched Channel 64 when the SRC testified, trying (abysmally) to artfully dodge questioning from Council. Screw it. If I was on Council I wouldn't feel one bit inclined to give another penny over to the school district unless it was put back in total control of the City of Philadelphia.

Well, it sounds like I need to clarify Shapiro's position. He still wants the City to collect the extra $94 million (and he loves the idea of getting it from U&O). The difference is, he doesn't want the City to hand the money over until the SRC meets certain criteria.

So, his position doesn't alleviate the problem of taxing an additional $94 million. He just wants terms for when City Hall hands it over.

[Big Irish]

I was pretty sure Philadelphia was exempted from that. It would be helpful if they cited which law.

According to a Philly.com story today he's citing the "Taxpayer Relief Act of 2006" and it's later 2011 modification.

[seand]

There are many, many things wrong with the current situation. Chief is its a whole lot of blind faith to ask politically to put up with a major reshuffling of how the pie is sliced on a major revenue source without specific assessments on the table. Second is sneaking in a 9% tax hike in the confusion. Eliminating the 9% revenue hike (or moving to get it somewhere else) is not going to change the controversy of a different assessment, but its hardly the biggest part of the change on most people's individual bills. Its only 9%, either way.

With the school reorganization, again the biggest controversy is sort of the innevitable part. School consolidation on huge scale is unavoidable because of the level of debt from both Valas and Ackerman, because of the changes in the way Harrisburg is funding the schools under Corbett, because Ackerman didn't treat the stimulus money as something that was going to run our in two years when clearly it was. Whether the proposed decentralization plans happens or is actually charterization on speed as some critics would have it has very little impact on the thing that is freaking out most parents and teachers in the system. Better oversight of existing charters is an issue that often seems to do more with people's gut feelings about charters, less on sane standards for fiscal accountability. Charter supporters and charter opponents often react as a matter of ideological faith, almost like abortion positions. Real fiscal oversight of existing charters is something that politically, the state legislature should be addressing instead of micromanaging the mayor and city council - but aren't.

[EJW]

Revenue neutral would probably be closer to 1.2%, but you are correct that Council, when they talk about revenue neutral, are talking about including the temp tax, but not the 94 million.

Just curious, how can we know what millage rate will result in revenue neutrality without the aggregate assessment data?

[GraduateFamily]

He had defaulted 3 times previously and its now currently strictly enforced that after 3 agreements that went into default from missed payments, you can't get enter a new payment agreement, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. i'm not privy to the details of the previous defaults, nor should I be. So small but definite progress. The guy in my instances is one of my least favorite commercial landlords in my area, a former state rep who likes to picture himself as an important political player. He tried to pull every string he could to stop the process, according to a guy who worked for him. It didn't matter, the building went to sherrif's sale and now new owner is busy rehabbing the building. The process was a success in other words."

And how many years did this whole process take? Knowing the process, I suspect a minimum of three, which would be quick. You may define that as a "success"; I do not.

This is either a glaring logical fallacy or disengenuous. I suspect the latter.

The problem with the appeals process till now has been that the criteria for the assessments in the first place was obscure and arbitrary. And the way you fix that problem is to make assesments based on transparent criteria, like 3 comparable actual sales prices in the same area. In a word AVI.

Saying you need to "fix" assesments before you do AVI is like saying a developer has to build an entire life-sized scale model before they will be allowed zoning approval to start construction. Its a logical contradiction. You need assessments based on transparent criteria first before you can appeal based on the same criteria, obviously.

So every time you say "they have to fix appeals before they do AVI" you are commiting such an obvious fallacy, its pretty clear you are throwing anything that sounds remotely good to keep the current process in place forever. In other words, you like the current unfair process and will say anything to justify its continued unfairness.

You are not quoting me correctly, Sean, to support your argument. I never say "before." I say "until." The difference is that all three things are linked and unrolling one before the other undermines the entire process.

AVI is how you fix the appeals process. i know several folks who have succesfully challenged old BRT spot assessments, circa 2001/2002. They had no issue with actual appeals hearings, except they were hassle to go down there. Not significantly worse than contesting a traffic ticket. The problem is not with the process of how the BRT runs the hearings. The problem is the criteria for assessment, or in a word AVI.

AVI is one element of fixing a flawed process. Another element is not having politicians (judges) appoint politicians (other judges) and politically involved people to oversee appeals, which result in decisions based on politics or other subjective factors and maybe, once in a while, they will consider comps to make it look good.

I think part of our problem, here, is that we disagree on what the "process" actually is...for you, the entire "process" is about assessment only. For me, the "process" comprises assessment, appeals and enforcement and this thread opened the door to the discussion.

Repeating a inherently faulty statement does not make it true.


And this is an outright lie, no matter how often you repeat it. AVI is just a fairer, more transparent way to figure out the assessments. The millage rate the city charges on those assessments is something else entirely. AVI does not raise money at all by itself, it just makes the current way the way the city already raises money fairer. And the way it has been done till now is illegal according to the state so we have no choice.

Of course AVI in and of itself does not raise money and yes, the City was legally compelled to undertake AVI. I do not dispute those facts at all...however, the reason why fixing the appeals and collection process were not, have not and will not be undertaken with the same fervor is because AVI has BECOME a vehicle to raise money, raising assessments and putting the entire focus and energy of the City's Law Department on those of us who actually do pay our taxes because foreclosure is a largely empty threat when it takes years to get to that stage. You clearly know little about how the foreclosure process actually works in practice, as opposed to in books, Sean.

When the City stumbles (and I say "stumble" because finding tax deadbeats is a manual, not automated process in the Revenue Department), you can sign a payment arrangement, something you can drag out for six to nine months since you can enter into an arrangement at any time before the actual Sheriff's Sale, and nine months is how long it takes to foreclose. Once you break the agreement, the Law Department may not realize you've actually broken it for another three to six months. Let's charitably say three. However, the foreclosure process then has to start over again, with process serving etc. So, you have another nine months. Then, under the "three strikes" process, you can enter into another agreement. And then nine months and another agreement...when the property finally gets to Sheriff's Sale, you only have to put 10% down before putting down the balance in 30 days so you don't have to pay taxes but retain site control. Finally, the Sheriff's Office allows people to string out putting down the balance for years due to incompetence (they forget when the balance is due) or perhaps other reasons...and only when the balance is paid and title transferred does the property go back on the tax rolls.

What I'm trying to say is that it is quite easy to not pay your taxes and string out having your property go to Sheriff's Sale for years, and years, and years. Sean you are a babe in the woods, buddy.

Now the way mayor has tried to roll in a sneaky hike is an attempt to raise funds for the schools is something else but the problem is not with assessments based on actual sales. The problem with that is that its instituting a defacto millage hike and pretending its not one.

Finally, something we agree on!

I do enjoy the argument, Sean...but I think I'm going to have to give you the last word. Too much to do...I have to make sure to make enough to pay my real estate tax increase or hire movers. Despite knowing how to evade and postpone, I think it is our duty to pay taxes but like I said at the beginning, I'm not sure I'm willing to pay thousands more for services that currently aren't worth what I pay now.

[raider.adam]

Just curious, how can we know what millage rate will result in revenue neutrality without the aggregate assessment data?

We don't. It is merely an estimate based on what the estimate of total market value of property. No one knows for sure until the new assessments are officially done.

AVI is one element of fixing a flawed process. Another element is not having politicians (judges) appoint politicians (other judges) and politically involved people to oversee appeals, which result in decisions based on politics or other subjective factors and maybe, once in a while, they will consider comps to make it look good.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think should handle appeals and how would you get those people in a non-political process?

[phillycat]

The diff is that the taxes have already been raised in Fairmount. You might find $400 or $500 tax bills in Brewerytown or Francisville but not in Fairmount proper. On my street 2 story rows are paying between $2500 and $5500, depending on year built/rehabbed.




Just because a recently rehabbed house sells for say, $300k, doesn't mean your long term neighbor's house is worth $300k. The newly rehabbed house has all new services, all new appliances, modern finishes, etc. and, not incidentally, most likely comes with a 10 yr abatement. Your long term neighbors house most likely does not have any of those things. A flipper/rehabber probably bought the newly rehabbed house for say, $150k, (from some other long term neighbor) and then spent money rehabbing it to sell it for a profit. Your long term neighbors could (and should) make the argument to the tax man that their house is worth the pre-flip $150k because of these differences. If the taxman uses newly rehabbed houses as the comps, it's a very easy & compelling argument to make. The previous selling price, as well as the stack of permits that were pulled, and the abatement that was issued, prove the house was basically gutted and flipped.



Nothing, as long as everyone can agree what that worth is. I have a feeling the taxman is going to try and tell your long term neighbors their house is worth what a newly rehabbed house on their block just sold for, when in reality it is not.

I kind of disagree. Yes, there should be some difference between a rehabbed house and an unrehabbed house, but an unrehabbed house is not worth half of what a rehabbed house is - more like 2/3, and they could easily get that value out of the house by refinancing it. Not every renovated house was "flipped" -- many were renovated by the new owners, who paid a higher price for the house than if they had bought 'back in the day' but also put their own money in -- do they also deserve some kind of discount? And who is 'longterm' - ten years? five years? forty years? Who gets to decide?

[macdaire]

This is one of my concerns. Will they be doing assessments based on comps? My house has not been re habbed but is on a treet where houses have been sold for close to $500,000 in the boom. Although I should be payong more taxes I do not feel I should be paying what the newly rehabbed houses are paying.

[seand]

AVI is one element of fixing a flawed process. Another element is not having politicians (judges) appoint politicians (other judges) and politically involved people to oversee appeals, which result in decisions based on politics or other subjective factors and maybe, once in a while, they will consider comps to make it look good.

So you think that having elected judges decide your fate if you are charged with a crime or even the death penalty is perfectly A-OK but having elected judges decide between the OPA's three comps and the homeowner's three comps is a travesty of justice because elected judges nominate the appeals board. Got it.

Doesn't it feel a bit odd to say an elected judge should have the authority to send someone to life in the state pen, but they can't be relied upon to compare two competing sets of comparable values?

I think part of our problem, here, is that we disagree on what the "process" actually is...for you, the entire "process" is about assessment only.

Wrong I'm saying it disengenuous to suggest that the biggest problem with appeals is anything other than the fact that they are not based on transparent criteria. The same thing that fixes assessments, that they are based on actual sales data of comparable properties is what also fixes appeals.

Collection is another huge problem the city HAS to do a dramatically better job on, but it sounds like you are willing to make unachievable revenue goals (you can't sell a property for more back taxes than its worth) the precondition to moving to a system where assessments and appeals are based on transparent criteria. Thats just dumb.

Of course AVI in and of itself does not raise money and yes, the City was legally compelled to undertake AVI. I do not dispute those facts at all...however, the reason why fixing the appeals and collection process were not, have not and will not be undertaken with the same fervor is because AVI has BECOME a vehicle to raise money, raising assessments and putting the entire focus and energy of the City's Law Department on those of us who actually do pay our taxes because foreclosure is a largely empty threat when it takes years to get to that stage. You clearly know little about how the foreclosure process actually works in practice, as opposed to in books, Sean.

Faltly not true. Actually the first house I bought in Philadelphia was a Sherrif's Sale auction, believe it or not. I also at one point got myself on a payment plan and got caught up on taxes in a matter of months, so as a consumer, I've been at both ends of the process. Tax lien sales do happen every month. Not enough, I heartily agree, but they do happen. You consistantly overstate that no tax forclosures happen. They do. Just not enough.

Fundamentally, we have to move to a system based on tansparent actual sales data. Those assessments should have been done before they were put into the budget. Council needs to consolidate on a plan for a homestead exemption and/or deferments. We need to get much better on collection. But making assessments fair and transparent is good idea on its own merits, though probably a much better idea next year (after they are done) than this year.

[Big Irish]

I kind of disagree. Yes, there should be some difference between a rehabbed house and an unrehabbed house, but an unrehabbed house is not worth half of what a rehabbed house is - more like 2/3, and they could easily get that value out of the house by refinancing it. Not every renovated house was "flipped" --

The unrehabbed house (in my example) is worth what the rehabbed house sold for pre-flip. I used that scenario because in most of these hot, gentrifying neighborhoods that's pretty much how it works. Very few people are buying a house, gutting it, and rehabbing it themselves, or acting as their own GC.

And the numbers I used were not meant to be accurate, they were just round numbers used as an example. That being said, in some of those neighborhoods the houses were being sold to flippers for less than half the post-flip price. On my block a house was sold for approx $125k, gutted, rehabbed, and flipped for $485k with a 10 yr abatement during the boom.

many were renovated by the new owners, who paid a higher price for the house than if they had bought 'back in the day' but also put their own money in -- do they also deserve some kind of discount?

If they bought recently I would expect they would be taxed on the sale price. It would be hard to argue the house wasn't worth approx what they paid for it. If they made substantial renovations, and those renovations added substantial value to the home, and they're only being taxed on the sale price, one could argue they are getting a discount.

And who is 'longterm' - ten years? five years? forty years? Who gets to decide?

Unfortunately, City Council decides.

[seand]

The assessments will based on 3 comps and on permitted repairs which in theory is a boon for DIY rehabbers. When you appeal, you will bring your own three comps and attempt to explain why they are more applicable to your house. I'm not sure how City Council fits into that process.

Squilla and Kenney have bill that says if you bouught more than 10 years ago your valuation can not raise more than 3 times what you paid for it but I don't see how that is not a a violation of the uniformity clause in the state constitution.

[Big Irish]

The assessments will based on 3 comps and on permitted repairs which in theory is a boon for DIY rehabbers. When you appeal, you will bring your own three comps and attempt to explain why they are more applicable to your house. I'm not sure how City Council fits into that process.

I know how the appeals process works. I've been successful the last 3x the city tried to raise my assessment. However not everyone is aware of the appeals process, what to base their appeals on (it's more than just comps), and what their rights are in this process.

Squilla and Kenney have bill that says if you bouught more than 10 years ago your valuation can not raise more than 3 times what you paid for it but I don't see how that is not a a violation of the uniformity clause in the state constitution.

You just answered your own question regarding how City Council fits into this with regard to Phillycat's question.