Site search
sponsored by
News
Last week's Nevada Supreme Court ruling, which upholds the three-day Open Meeting Law notice for property owners appealing their property tax valuations, is unrealistic and unfortunate.
Approximately half of the 1,400 Incline Village residents protesting their tax assessments are second homeowners. There is no feasible way many of them can make it to the area for tax hearings with such short notice.
In a 4-2 decision Nov. 4, the court overturned an appeal by the Village League to Save Incline Assets, a local group protesting Incline's property tax assessments, and ruled personal notifications with an earlier time frame for tax hearings were not required.
The court also ruled Washoe County's general public notice did comply with due process requirements.
In response, county Assessor Bob McGowan said in a press release "the county goes over and above the general notification requirements, making phone calls and sending letters to property owners notifying them of their upcoming hearing date."
Why is it then, that countless homeowners complain of being unable to attend their tax hearings?
The county may have complied with due process requirements, but a requirement of three days notice to a person expected in court is unrealistic, according to one man who has owned a condominium in Incline for 15 years. Since he and his wife work in the Bay Area, there was no way they could make it to the basin with such short notice.
Even a local who has lived in Incline full-time for 13 years claimed he was given inadequate notice. About to board a plane for a trip, he called the county only to learn his hearing was in two days.
Bob McGowan may make phone calls and send letters, but his efforts prove to be inconsistent, incomplete and inadequate.
Giving a three-day notice for tax-dispute meetings to a community comprised of a large number of second homeowners is unrealistic.
The Village League is applying for a rehearing. Hopefully a Supreme Court with new Justices Jim Hardesty and Ron Parraguire will agree with the previous dissenting opinion that the court decided in favor of administrative convenience rather than due process to citizens.
Justice will be served by a fresh look at this case.
Approximately half of the 1,400 Incline Village residents protesting their tax assessments are second homeowners. There is no feasible way many of them can make it to the area for tax hearings with such short notice.
In a 4-2 decision Nov. 4, the court overturned an appeal by the Village League to Save Incline Assets, a local group protesting Incline's property tax assessments, and ruled personal notifications with an earlier time frame for tax hearings were not required.
The court also ruled Washoe County's general public notice did comply with due process requirements.
In response, county Assessor Bob McGowan said in a press release "the county goes over and above the general notification requirements, making phone calls and sending letters to property owners notifying them of their upcoming hearing date."
Why is it then, that countless homeowners complain of being unable to attend their tax hearings?
The county may have complied with due process requirements, but a requirement of three days notice to a person expected in court is unrealistic, according to one man who has owned a condominium in Incline for 15 years. Since he and his wife work in the Bay Area, there was no way they could make it to the basin with such short notice.
Even a local who has lived in Incline full-time for 13 years claimed he was given inadequate notice. About to board a plane for a trip, he called the county only to learn his hearing was in two days.
Bob McGowan may make phone calls and send letters, but his efforts prove to be inconsistent, incomplete and inadequate.
Giving a three-day notice for tax-dispute meetings to a community comprised of a large number of second homeowners is unrealistic.
The Village League is applying for a rehearing. Hopefully a Supreme Court with new Justices Jim Hardesty and Ron Parraguire will agree with the previous dissenting opinion that the court decided in favor of administrative convenience rather than due process to citizens.
Justice will be served by a fresh look at this case.
