For property tax parity

Newcomers are right to challenge spot assessment

Two Squirrel Hill residents have filed suit in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, alleging they were singled out for a real estate tax hike because they were recent homebuyers. They’re right. So-called spot assessments are blatantly unfair, and they throw cold water on what should be the happy occasion of settling into a new place.

If they want to question assessments, local governments should push for a countywide reassessment, ensuring that all residential and commercial properties get scrutiny. Because they are unpopular, unwieldyand expensive, reassessments are undertaken infrequently. So some municipalities and school districts have resorted to what is derisively called the “newcomer’s tax,” appealing the assessments on some homes that sell for prices that seem out of whack with their assessed values.

In their suit, Joseph Nissim Martel and Ester Martel allege that the practice, which raised their assessment to $690,000 from $464,700, violates the state constitution’s prohibition against unequal application of tax laws. They also claim the county administrative code expressly prohibits the kind of targeting they experienced from the Pittsburgh Public Schools. They want their assessment returned to the previous level, and the suit, filed by the Friedman and Friedman law firm, also asks the court to order the same relief for other homebuyers similarly affected between 2014 and last year. That would mean tax refunds for the Martels and whoknows-how-many others.

Apart from the legal issues they raise, the Martels have the moral high ground here. They and others bought houses understanding that they came with tax bills of a certain size. It’s unfair for a municipality or school district to move the goal posts on them, especially when a big tax jump can make an affordable home unaffordable overnight. The city schools aren’t the only ones to have done this; the practice also has been controversial in Mt. Lebanon in recent years.

What a poor way for local government to welcome new residents, and how sour on their new community targeted newcomers must feel. Some surely wish they’d purchased elsewhere. It’s especially unfortunate that the city school district, which should be doing everything possible to boost its image and enrollment, chooses to make a bad first impression by hauling some new residents before the tax appeals board.

It’s true that municipalities and school districts merely appeal the assessments. The appeals board makes a decision — based on information provided by local governments and the homebuyers. However, newcomers want to settle into their homes and check out the parks and restaurants, not bone up on real estate assessment law so they can defend themselves in hearings inconveniently held at the County Office Building, Downtown.

If the Martels’ lawsuit fails, assaults on the newcomer’s tax are bound to continue. The Legislature is considering a bill to halt the practice. Also, in a 2015 essay in the Post-Gazette, real-estate assessment expert Mike Suley proposed that the county adopt an ordinance protecting newcomers by challenging any assessmentincreases tied to home sales.

As a matter of principle, the county and city do not initiate assessment appeals, though they share in the extra income when the school district wins an appeal. The county should take the additional step that Mr. Suley proposed. It’s the right thing to do and would send homebuyers the right message.

And if buyers don’t like the appeals board’s decision, as Mr. Suley said in his essay, they can file their own appeal.