Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
I should apologize for taking this thread so off topic, but meh.
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetail...ey=-1493249267
I'm thinking this house for sale for $4.5MM and assesed at only $3.25MM is not owned by a sweet old couple who moved in in 1955.
How many years have their tax bill been low by $8000? Are all the houses that under assessed?
I think lot size would be just as obscure. I think it should be the owners last name. The closer the last names first letter is to Z the more they pay, it goes down as the name approaches A. |
That's pretty bogus, actually. I wonder if someone else can appeal their assessment on a "friend of the court/city" basis. I'd love to see someone show up at an assessment tribunal and try to tell the panel their house is only worth 3.25, but they're trying to sell it for 4.5. Or if it sells, the new owners trying to say it's only worth 3.25, but I paid 4.25 for it because..."I'm a moron?"
Lot size would be better if you were trying to fight sprawl, which was ice-weasels contention. The city will never do that for income fairness reasons, (Should a 50 foot lot in Forest Lawn pay more than a 3 MM$ condo in Eau Claire, probably not), but it would fight sprawl by increasing demand for smaller lot sizes.
I'd also be ok with lower alphabet last names paying less...
