Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
their property was assessed higher than property belonging to the Easthams and Massies. The Board of Equalization wrote' to the Easthams and Massies saying they proposed to increase the. assessments and gave the Easthams and Massies an opportunity to appear before the board and present evidence showing why their assessments should not be raised.
Following those hearings the Equalization Board voted to increase the assessments as they had originally proposed except in the case of the “other” land on Ben Venue.
The petition filed on behalf of the Easthams asks the Circuit Court judge to “reverse or modify” the actions of the Board of Equalization. It claims that the assessments set by the Board of Assessors “reflected the uniformity and equality required by the Constitution of Virginia,” and that the assessments set by the Board of Equalization “failed to equalize petitioners assessments with other, similar properties...were contrary to the weight of the evidence before the board...were arbitrary and capricious...are discriminatory and are tantamount to a constructive taking of petitioner’s property without due process of law and a denial of equal protection of the laws...”
Last Wednesday the Board of Supervisors met in executive session to consider what action to take on the Easthams’ suit against the county and other potential suits. Following that executive session the supervisors voted to hold a special meeting next Monday night to meet with an attorney and the members of the Board of Equalization in executive session to decide what action to take on the suits. County Attorney Peter Luke will not represent the county in these case since his father served as chairman of the Board of Assessors.
The assessment on the Eastham properties will not affect the real estate tax they pay since the land is assessed for tax purposes at its land use value rather than “fair market value.”
This Monday the Board of Equalization met for the final time to hear
94.2%