Calgary Real Estate predictions?

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by 4X4

In your "short time" here, you must have the record for accusing other people of 'personal attacks'. I bet if I searched it, there'd be at least 25 posts of yours.

If you're going to come on the big bad internet and clown around the way you do, be prepared for some people to tell you you're a clown.

Do these angry bully style posts make you feel better about yourself? Putting down other people must give you great pleasure. Big man 4X4

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

Do these angry bully style posts make you feel better about yourself? Putting down other people must give you great pleasure. Big man 4X4

That's enough. You two have the following choices
1. Put each other on ignore
2. Bow out of these threads
3. Learn to talk to each other like grown men instead of whatever garbage this is.

If you continue to waste our time reporting multiple posts and getting into pissing matches in countless threads - the simplest route for us will be to ban you both.

Up to you guys.

Anymore of it and we will make it our decision. We don't have time to wade through the piles of crap you two have generated to figure out who is at fault - so instead we will punt you both.

Got it?

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by accord1999

The reason why Calgary house prices peaked before oil prices peaked is because of the rise of interest rates from 2006-2008.

I can't give a definitive answer as to why Calgary peaked before the rest of Canada. My guess is that Calgary rose more and faster than Canada so it hit the peak first.

Interesting.

I need to graph interest rates vs housing prices now...

Would be interested if anyone could provide another theory on why Calgary fell first, and by so much earlier then Canada. It might just be how fast our prices increased as you suggested.

[red sky]

My home assessment up 13% from last year.Probably done while oil was over $90/bbl.

[darklord700]

This is the first time I heard of the new home absorbed price. But if a new built SFH in Calgary is $627K, that's really high. What income level do you need to support a $627K even with 20% down?

http://calgaryherald.com/business/re..._lsa=9b2b-ddbe

"The CMHC keeps tracks of what it describes as the absorbed price – when a single-detached home is completed and occupied.

In the Calgary CMA, up until the end of November, that price was $627,621, up from $588,179 in 2013."

[Knut]

My city assessment has gone up 300k in five years. No way the value has increased anywhere near that. The assessment vs what I could actually get for it on the market is likely 150k apart.

I actually went down to the assesemt review board last year and got it reduced 40k. Back up another 100k this year. Not sure if I have the will to fight it again though.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by darklord700

This is the first time I heard of the new home absorbed price. But if a new built SFH in Calgary is $627K, that's really high. What income level do you need to support a $627K even with 20% down?

http://calgaryherald.com/business/re..._lsa=9b2b-ddbe

"The CMHC keeps tracks of what it describes as the absorbed price – when a single-detached home is completed and occupied.

In the Calgary CMA, up until the end of November, that price was $627,621, up from $588,179 in 2013."

Works out to about $2800 in principal+interest+taxes per month at 3.29% over 25 years.

[ranchlandsselling]

I think I purchased in 2013 in the winter, tax assessment this year is up 100k from what I paid. Arbitrary numbers.

[OldDutch]

Just wondering if anyone else here had flooding in 2013, has seen their property tax go right back to pre-flood levels?

It makes no sense to me given there have been few sales in my flood area. The few I have seen have been priced pretty aggressive. There was one sale that was a new infill for a really high price, but that was after their so called timeline cut off.

No idea where they are getting their numbers from. At this pace I will own a million dollar home in 5 years (or less)...on paper about 40% more than I bought it for 5 years ago. Too bad I very much doubt anyone would pay what the city says it is worth. Yet I am still paying the taxes on that paper worth. Arg.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Just wondering if anyone else here had flooding in 2013, has seen their property tax go right back to pre-flood levels?

It makes no sense to me given there have been few sales in my flood area. The few I have seen have been priced pretty aggressive. There was one sale that was a new infill for a really high price, but that was after their so called timeline cut off.

No idea where they are getting their numbers from. At this pace I will own a million dollar home in 5 years (or less)...on paper about 40% more than I bought it for 5 years ago. Too bad I very much doubt anyone would pay what the city says it is worth. Yet I am still paying the taxes on that paper worth. Arg.

edit - nm, I didn't read

[nik-]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Just wondering if anyone else here had flooding in 2013, has seen their property tax go right back to pre-flood levels?

It makes no sense to me given there have been few sales in my flood area. The few I have seen have been priced pretty aggressive. There was one sale that was a new infill for a really high price, but that was after their so called timeline cut off.

No idea where they are getting their numbers from. At this pace I will own a million dollar home in 5 years (or less)...on paper about 40% more than I bought it for 5 years ago. Too bad I very much doubt anyone would pay what the city says it is worth. Yet I am still paying the taxes on that paper worth. Arg.

The taxes on the paper worth are only relevant if you go up way more than others. There's not a set tax amount on a million dollar home vs a 500,000 home.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Hesla

My city assessment has gone up 300k in five years. No way the value has increased anywhere near that. The assessment vs what I could actually get for it on the market is likely 150k apart.

I actually went down to the assesemt review board last year and got it reduced 40k. Back up another 100k this year. Not sure if I have the will to fight it again though.

My understanding the assessment is generally "reset" every year. So their starting point for this year was their number from last year...even if you fought and got it reduced 40K.

Pretty much making fighting it a yearly grind, which I'm sure the city has considered.

[Knut]

^ spent $50 on the appeal and countless hours putting together an argument and then counter argument. Not worth the couple hundred bucks saved on taxes.

Their comparison of our house to places with much lower SQ footage is asinine. Because we live in a very desirable community the places with a smaller sq footage actually sell for like $50 more per sq footage. I do not think those are a valid comparable.

You can't actually argue against their process so you basically have to compare certain properties in the area and what they sold for. If there are big outliers in the exact properties they used last year in their argument I will consider putting in another appeal.

You also can not use a bank appraisal in your argument as they consider it "too conservative". When there is a 150k difference the truth likely lies somewhere in between.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Just wondering if anyone else here had flooding in 2013, has seen their property tax go right back to pre-flood levels?

It makes no sense to me given there have been few sales in my flood area. The few I have seen have been priced pretty aggressive. There was one sale that was a new infill for a really high price, but that was after their so called timeline cut off.

No idea where they are getting their numbers from. At this pace I will own a million dollar home in 5 years (or less)...on paper about 40% more than I bought it for 5 years ago. Too bad I very much doubt anyone would pay what the city says it is worth. Yet I am still paying the taxes on that paper worth. Arg.

I'm surprised they haven't gone up higher than pre flood. I would think they would need to account for the higher risk of living in a flood area.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I'm surprised they haven't gone up higher than pre flood. I would think they would need to account for the higher risk of living in a flood area.

I don't think does/should factor at all. That is an insurance factor, not a property tax factor. In fact, I would say living in a flood zone deters people from buying thus should lower your property worth.

However, If this is saying that we should pay more to help pay for flood mitigation projects, that is another argument. I like others who were hit mostly agree that yes we would pay more property tax if we actually got something for it. As it stands our outdated sewer system which was a major factor in the flooding has no plans for upgrade. Yet the city continues to use our property tax to subsidize suburban services such as sewer and roads. I'll stop there as I don't want to derail on a tangent but you get my point.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by nik-

The taxes on the paper worth are only relevant if you go up way more than others. There's not a set tax amount on a million dollar home vs a 500,000 home.

My point was I am paying much more money in tax on a home that I doubt is worth the inflated value the city says it is.

The million dollar home was just an example of how outrageous I think it has gotten in assessments. As much as I would like it to be reality there is no way my house should be flirting with that number, yet it is. That is a nearly $300K jump in 5 years, including a major property reducing hit in the 2013 flood.

Anyways, I think it would be nice if they were more transparent and showed you how the numbers worked. Right now it is sticker shock that leads to a owner vs. city bickering contest. Just show me the math and put it to bed. Show me this isn't some arbitrary number in your favor.

[MillerTime GFG]

Perhaps you could draw Bunk's attention to this thread, or post in his?

[kevman]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Just show me the math and put it to bed. Show me this isn't some arbitrary number in your favor.

I don't understand why the removed the revenue neutral mill rate numbers from the tax assessments this year.

Going up 10% means approximately nothing if the city on average went up 10%...

Does anyone know why they didn't disclose that information this year?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I don't think does/should factor at all. That is an insurance factor, not a property tax factor. In fact, I would say living in a flood zone deters people from buying thus should lower your property worth.

However, If this is saying that we should pay more to help pay for flood mitigation projects, that is another argument. I like others who were hit mostly agree that yes we would pay more property tax if we actually got something for it. As it stands our outdated sewer system which was a major factor in the flooding has no plans for upgrade. Yet the city continues to use our property tax to subsidize suburban services such as sewer and roads. I'll stop there as I don't want to derail on a tangent but you get my point.

Ya except suburban home insurance went up the very next year and they weren't affected by the flood, but we pay it. The city's also using property tax to fund the east village and a $300 million inner city library but i'll stop there as i don't want to derail the thread.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Ya except suburban home insurance went up the very next year and they weren't affected by the flood, but we pay it. The city's also using property tax to fund the east village and a $300 million inner city library but i'll stop there as i don't want to derail the thread.

Ya, I think we should go to the many latte/yop gobbler threads.

Keep in mind there is arguments on both sides. $300 million library or massive interchange at 22x. You may never use that library (and frankly I probably won't either), but I will never use the 22x interchange, or the $5 billion ring road, or the airport tunnel, etc.

My point as originally made is that many of us flood victims would pay MORE if it meant getting service/upgrades to the key areas we need to make sure our houses don't flood. This isn't a case that we want fancy new roads, or new sidewalks, or a new community pool on the suburban dime. We just want to city to honor their responsibility they made (albeit 100 years ago) to properly service their communities.

I'll end it right there, this is actually a thread on real estate predictions not even property taxes, let alone flood mitigation. I just want to make it clear that we flood folks by and large would pay more tax than others in Calgary if it meant we go a guaranteed return. As it stands now we (at least on the north Bow side) are getting very little except ridiculous evaluations.