Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Don't property taxes already capture the sq footage? A larger lot will be more valuable, all things being equivalent, because it's larger. The more desirable, the higher the sale value, and appraisal value. I assume when they do appraisals and compare equivalent lots to calculate a value, sq footage plays a part. For instance, if a house sells for $450 000 on a 5000sq ft lot, and an identical house next store gets appraised based on that, but is on a 7000sq ft lot, that one would be appraised higher.
|
This is true but it isn’t based on the cost the city incurs as a result of property size. It’s based on the perceived value to a perspective buyer. It also doesn’t account for the class of home either. If you look at a 450k inner city condo vs a 450k suburban home they pay the same property tax. A person who chooses the 450k condo has less impact on the city but that isn’t reflected in tax rate.
What I want the system to do is reflect cost to the city in a component of city taxes but not just be punitive on people who can’t afford to live closer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
This is already the case. But location matters too. And it should.
|
Why does location matter? Isn’t that just a function of the ability to afford and zoning restrictions. I’m not seeing a cost to the city based on where the impact occurs. The total acreage of the city remains unchanged.