| Author |
Message |
    
John
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 1:06 pm: |     |
I keep hearing that the valuation numbers were too high. But looking at homes that are on the market and comparing the asking price to the new assessed value, I find many believe when it comes time to sell, they were under assessed. Not by 1-10K but by 30-150K. Where is the logic? |
Lydial
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 1:38 pm: | |
The numbers are all over the place - several houses are selling for far above their assessments - by increased sums that can't be explained by normal market increases. I think that a lot of the assessments were correct back in December -- say 50% to 60%?. The "neighborhood reductions" brought the overassessed houses closer to reality but brought many houses to far below their market value. The assessments are still off-kilter. I know, I know, the Haushaulter audit says that the reval was properly conducted. I don't need an expert to tell me that the houses I see for sale on "the hill" are selling for way over their assessed value. I don't blame the homeowners for listing their homes for fair market value, I blame the flawed reval for missing the mark. This doesn't help anyone who plans to stay in town. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 1:49 pm: | |
So the question for those complaining they were overassessed remains: would you attempt to sell your house for less than the assessed price, and why? What is the definition of "fair market value?" What the item can be sold for in a free, unfettered transaction? And isn't that what the law says the revals were supposed to be?
The market data seems to suggest that, overall, CV was right. (The alleged "bubble" does not seem to be going away but continues as a "trend.") This data would no doubt be factored into any court hearings and, my guess only, knock the wind out of any class action suits. Also my opinion: any frivolous lawsuits (done in anger/spite/or for political gain only) will only hurt the ENTIRE town. We will ALL pay (in real money.)
Bacata |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:15 pm: | |
Bacata, I agree with you. I've been saying something along these lines for awhile. I've been going to open houses and have been watching the real estate ads. Interesting to note that EVERY house I saw had an asking price of at least 20% over assessment. My next door neighbor was asking 31% over assessment.
Even if these sellers accept an offer 10% than asking price (does this even happen in Maplewood?), the house would still sell over assessment. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:19 pm: | |
Bacata,
I have seen you and others (Townie I think)
post this question several times before. "Would you attempt to sell your house for less than the assessed price?" As if that's the way to determine fair market value!!!! I would not sell my house for less than my assessment, and I would not sell my house for $20,000 MORE than my assessment. I am not ready to sell my house period. I know many are, but your question does not set the benchmark.
Would you sell your dog for $100? $500? $2,000? How much would you sell YOUR dog for = the going rate for dogs????? Is that how you determine the fair price for a dog? No. Or anything you have a personal attachment to? NO!! Some things aren't for sale, so your question is baseless. |
Dave
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:21 pm: | |
It's harder to calculate a dog's value because they keep wandering into different lots, which are assessed at different rates. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:24 pm: | |
Not if you lop off its back legs. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:30 pm: | |
Actually, Dave, it's pretty easy.
First, is it a big dog or a small dog? Remember, you have to measure around the outside of the dog, and don't worry if the assessor puts down that the dog has five legs - that won't affect the value.
Second, what does the dog look like. Is it a "stately-looking" dog, with a high "dog class" number, or a more ordinary-looking dog? This is a subjective determination which the assessor will make.
Finally, is your dog on a busy street? You know how that can affect the value of a dog (chasing cars and all that).
Having got that out of my system, I think that the "Would you sell your house for less" test is certainly a valid thing to consider. I agree that it should not be used as an all-purpose comeback. Another way to look at it (and I have mentioned this before) is to compare your assessment to other houses. If the houses you think are less valuable than yours, have a lower assessment, and the houses you think are more valuable have a higher assessment, then maybe your assessment is about right. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:32 pm: | |
Dytunk, I think you're splitting hairs. If you were to put your house on the market today, what do you think it would go for, and how does that number compare to the assessed value? |
Mlj
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:36 pm: | |
I too have been puzzled as to why some homes currently for sale are asking quite a bit more than their new assessment, especially considering the higher taxes coming soon. I questioned a realtor at a recent open house about this, and she said people still desire midtown direct, and current inventory of available homes is low. I am still wondering. It will be interesting to see what selling prices result. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:52 pm: | |
Dytunck: just because you're not interested in selling (neither am I) doesn't lower your home's fair market value (or mine.) The question is what would your home reasonably sell for if you did put it on the open market? THAT is what the LAW says the assessment must be based on. And that is what your taxes are based on. So the question is not "baseless." It does not matter if you plan to stay in your home 100 years. The law and the laws of economics do not recognize sentimental value. I do but it does not matter in dollars and cents for tax purposes.
And if Mtierney does not want to move from her home of many years, that is her choice. But she will have to live with the consequences of that choice. Meaning taxes that she finds onerous, particularly in light of her recently retired state. If she chooses to impoverish herself for the sake of sentimentality, that is her choice, too. A sad one, and misguided in my opinion, but still hers to make. The only problem is if she (or anyone) thinks someone ELSE should pay for her (or their) choices. That is what inequitable distribution does. It forces person A to pay for person B's choices.
Again, just because one does not like one's new taxes does not mean they are wrong. It may mean that some people are outraged or panicked. But it does not mean the revals and subsequent taxes are wrong.
Bacata |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 2:55 pm: | |
Well said, Bacata! |
John
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:02 pm: | |
There are a few parts to the question I asked when the original uproar over the reval came out. I can't remember what my exact wording was or where I posted it. But it went something like this -
"If you believe your assessment was too high would you be willing to sell your house for the assessed value or slightly under and, if your taxes are going down would you be willing to sell your house at or slightly over the assessed value." My point not being that there is no attachment to a home but that there is a fair market value. If you were to put your house on the market, there would have to be a price you felt was fair and would expect to get for it. People on both sides of the argument felt that they were or will be paying more than their fair share of taxes. People were saying there is no way my house would sell for this price, ALL OVER TOWN. Yet when it comes time to sell the asking prices are much higher. An educated buyer would be crazy to pay higher than the assessment if they are in fact too high. This leads me to believe there are a lot of houses that are in fact under assessed (ALL OVER TOWN). This is not to say that there are not some that are over assessed. Nor does it mean I think its fair to tax a homeowner solely on Fair Market value |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:06 pm: | |
B-
You missed my point. I know how fair market value is determined, but that's not what your question posed, and I was commenting on your posed question, not the method of determining FMV.
Your question (I'll refrain from pasting again) is hypothetical, i.e. would you...? So my answer is no, I wouldn't want to sell for less than my assessment, I would want to sell it for as much as I could above the assessment. But since I'm not, (and neither are you) selling your house, your hypothetical (and Townie's and NJJoseph's and others') is just not a real good way to determine a fair assessment. And certainly not FMV.
Nohero is closer to the mark. That question has become a snappy comeback I just wanted to respond to. The answer to your hypothetical is no. So what does that prove?
Splitting hairs, probably, NJ. I guess I'll go back to dragging my dog around the block.
Bye
D |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:10 pm: | |
Dytunck, what is FMV, really? And what is the best way to determine it? |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:13 pm: | |
NJ,
Go sell your house at arm's length and I'll tell you what it's worth. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:17 pm: | |
Isn't that what Bacata, Townie and I are suggesting in our hypothetical situation? And how would you determine FMV without actually selling your house? |
Mem
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:17 pm: | |
Dytunct,
I'm hungry. How much over assessment value are you selling your dog for? |
John
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:18 pm: | |
I also think that was a good description Bacata.
I'd like to point out a flaw with the current system though. If I were to let my house deteriorate because I don't want to pay the taxes (which I'm free to do) then I also affect the value of my neighbor's home because no one want to live next to an eye-sore. This can also be applied to general areas and even to dependence on outside services. But that's an even longer discussion. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 3:19 pm: | |
The assessments were done last year, with some adjustments made at the end of January. It's now mid-March and the real estate market marches onward and ever upward. In a few months, the assessments all over town should seem to be under the ("old")current market value. That is to be expected! I hope this makes sense. We can't compare our new assessments with current asking prices. |
|