NEWSLETTER COPY
June 11, 1998


To the Woodstock Board of Assessment Review ("Grievance Board")

Gentlemen and Ladies of the Board,

In response to your letter of 06/05/98, with all due respect, I reply as follows:

First, you should know that in the decade from 1986 to 1996, my diligent work in preparation for Boards of Assessment Review in 6 different towns was met with rejection of fair assessments on hundreds of properties 100% of the time. On those same properties, all taken to Supreme Court for review, I have not failed on any assessment that has been resolved to date to obtain a substantial and equitable reduction. To what purpose were the many of hours I spent and reams of documents copied and submitted to the Boards? None whatsoever, so far as I can see.

Example: there were 21 properties grieved in Woodstock for clients by me in 1996. Despite substantial preparation and documentation, including professional appraisals on some properties, the Board reduced not one assessment. Subsequently, as part of the judicial review, the Town of Woodstock spent thousands of tax dollars on professional appraisals of those same properties. On only one out of the twenty-one did the Town's appraiser not agree with me that the 1996 assessments were too high. Is this evidence that the Board that year was a "Kangaroo Court?" I would not say that -- I leave the gentle reader to draw her/his own conclusions. . . But I would venture the opinion that my substantial preparation for and presentation to the Woodstock Board of Assessment Review in 1996 was an utter waste of my time.

Cheat me once, shame on you. Cheat me twice, shame on me.

Second, may I take issue with the implication that I am not doing my job properly? My job is to achieve fair assessments for my clients. This I do exceedingly well. Do I not detect annoyance that one with the means can obtain justice when you have deprived them of it?. I have spent over $70,000. in legal and appraisal fees for tax court proceedings, and the towns' expenditures (of taxpayers' dollars) have probably far exceeded that. It was not first my choice; it has been the only way to obtain a fair hearing for my clients.

Third, I comment on your statement "The Town. . .will vigorously defend all actions brought." Since when does a volunteer member of a grievance board determine and promulgate Town policy. Also, is it sensible for the town to "defend" itself against the threat of fair assessments?

Last, I provide information herewith, as requested in your letter of June 5, 1998. Each document is referenced to the relevant property by its case number as demanded. Every one of 56 properties has documentation of value or appraisal.

Yours Truly,

Andrew Peck, Owner and Principle Broker

Return to Table of Contents