Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I agree that best use taxation can be problematic though best zoned use might be reasonable. Essentially if you have a lot with a single SFH that is zoned to be subdivided is it unreasonable for you to pay more tax on that basis? I think it works better in residential than commercial...
|
If a SFH sits on an approved multi-family zoned land, it is taxed on the value of that MF-zoned land, for which city assessors have oodles of sales data on. But if it sits on a large lot, which is still zoned as a SF lot, then it doesn't for the reasons noted above. It is not just unreasonable, it is illegal to develop anything else on that land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
...
I think the only question around the golf course taxation is why doesn’t location of the golf course matter in its assessed value and why can’t the unimproved land value supersede the calculated golf course value like it can for retail.
|
Same reason. A golf course land is just that - golf course land. It is not good for anything else while it is zoned a golf course land. If a golf course is sold and then re-developed (Shawnee Slopes, Highland etc.), then they quickly get re-assessed and re-taxed at much higher rates.