After all, wasn't the reassessment suppose to be a fair market value for all and even the playing field?
And you believed the politicians?
I think in other parts of the state it might have done just that. But when the rural local government requires less money per home than major cities you might need a microscope to see that correction down on the farm.
Keeping in mind that the tax formula contains the assessed value and a rate to achieve a certain level of spending to pay for and that much of the state is farm land which mostly is deemed of less value than city lots the numbers seem skewed against city dwellers, where you might think it should actually cost less per property to service due to volume.
Maybe I'm mistaken in my assumptions here, I admit that. But I still believe that the reason our taxes are high is because of fraud, waste, and incompetence in the taxing districts. Even if you truly feel some districts are doing the best they can there's plenty of others that we all can agree are not so thrifty.
I doubt it will change until taxpayers start challenging each & every taxing unit. Plain & simple. We will continue to be told this amount is what you must pay and this is what will happen for you to pay your share of the cost of government, meaning all the new taxes discussed already even before the laws allowing them have been passed.
But as we see from elections around here most people are either quite happy receiving their share of the public dole or else are too busy trying to earn a living to care about getting involved in spending relief.