Maybe she can put it in boxes and sell it on eBay:
It was no surprise to Cathlin Bowman that the 2008 real estate assessment she received from Fairfax County this week showed a modest dip in the value of her three-bedroom McLean home, to $564,930 from $567,590 in 2007.From the Washington Post
A barren housing market and a deteriorating economy have pushed residential property values down about 3 percent countywide.
What stunned her was the gaping disparity between the value of the 1951 brick-and-shingle house on Barbee Street and the land under it. The 11,500-square-foot lot, assessed at $301,000 last year, is now worth $501,000 -- an increase of 66 percent.
Her house, assessed at $266,590 in 2007, is now valued at $63,930 -- a decrease of 76 percent".
12 comments:
Arlington has used this approach for some time. Unless your house is a McMansion or a large older home on a small lot, chances are good that the house is worth less than half of the land price -- even if you've put $200K into improving it after buying the house. The house is valued at much less than what a builder would charge to build the same size home on your lot - even with a great discount for depreciation. I wonder how this valuation based on tear-down or vacant lots will play out in the future, as there is less of a market for tear down properties because many of the McMansions they have built recently have been sitting on the market for months. On the other hand, in Arlington and probably in Fairfax, this land is getting more and more scarce.
In Alexandria, where assessments dipped overall, the land values rose on average about 10 percent in the city, with about three-quarters of neighborhoods affected. The values rose because "the location is so desirable," said Cindy Smith-Page, director of real estate assessments for Alexandria.
"So many properties have been gutted or demolished to build houses that are newer and larger," she said.
I looove seeing this. Sadly, my total assessment went up this year, and it looks like Alexandria used this "land value up because of teardown potential" argument to justify why my land is worth 10% more this year. The problem is, I live in Old Town meaning teardowns are prohibited!!!!
Harriet, thank you so much for posting this. I will need to amend my assessment challenge which I already filed, but you have just provided me with a statement from the director of tax assessments that is a completely fictional account for why my land value went up!
One of the most baffling things to me about living in Arlington is how they can value my house at less than a quarter million, but my tiny plot of land is half a million. Meanwhile, the two bedroom condos across the street are assessed at $750K. It seems like condo assessments should be collapsing...
"It seems like condo assessments should be collapsing..."
Thats actually a very good point considering that Condo owners dont own any of the land below them (except in common with everyone else). Just further shows how skewed the assessors justifications of "value" really are.
318 Mansion Dr, 25,923 sqft = $819K, $31/sqft compare to 2930 SYCAMORE ST, 1,665 sqft = $193K, $115/sqft
How is that fair?
318 Mansion Dr, 25,923 sqft = $819K, $31/sqft compare to 2930 SYCAMORE ST, 1,665 sqft = $193K, $115/sqft
How is that fair?
KH - it is essentially all tied to the diminishing marginal returns associared with bigger and bigger parcels of land (each addl square foot is worth less than the one before it). Same principle behind why a mansion with 100 acres will not get the same per acre price as a mansion with 50 acres.
As I understand it, the actuaries establish thresholds where the will change the PSF charge based on the lot size. Thus my 2100 sq ft lot is also charged the same PSF price as a similarly situated 4000 sq ft lot or a 1,000 sq ft lot. However once the lot gets over that threshold, they automatically drop the PSF price.
Gruntled said: "One of the most baffling things to me about living in Arlington is how they can value my house at less than a quarter million, but my tiny plot of land is half a million. Meanwhile, the two bedroom condos across the street are assessed at $750K. It seems like condo assessments should be collapsing..."
As crt said, this is a good point. I have wondered the same thing myself when viewing the Arlington assessments over the past few years. My guess is that the County would tell you that they don't use the vacant land valuation in their assessment of condos but instead compare sales of condos alone. But it does lead to very strange results.
On a related point, when I appealed my assessment years ago on other grounds, the County rep. told me that they do not factor in the extent to which a property has been updated, since it "all evens out." (The truth is that they do this because it is easier and cheaper for them to lump everything together.) Yes, it may even out across many properties, but it doesn't "even out" if you have bought ONE property in bad condition, unless you hold it many years AND invest a lot of money in it that they DON'T count, but they do change valuations if you have to get permits or increase the size of the house. You should pay a rate based on the market value of YOUR property, not on their averages. I also found when I took the case to the board of equalization, who presumably handle dozens of these cases, that only one member seemed to grasp the most basic concept that properties ought to be assessed equitably. For example, if your house sold for $300K and your house is assessed by the county at $300K, but your neighbor's is also assessed by them to be worth $300K, but sold for $500K the next day, because of its improvements and better condition, then you ought to pay less in tax than your neighbor does. Instead, they say "your house is valued at the market rate. so that's correct." Very exasperating (and time-wasting).
Thank you, CRT and ACE.
I understand your explanations but I don't quite buy it. (I'm not pushing back, I'm trying to understand what's going on.)
My view - The city is taking the "easy way out" and there's a little, "let's stick it to the small owner." They're also confusing the issue to keep their tax stream going.
MANSION DR is way under-assessed but they are wealthy, connected, and have the motive to mount a substantive challenge to their assessments.
Retired old Mr Jones on SYCAMORE ST, looking at a $300 increase simply pays. He doesn't have the political connections, access to legal, the sophistication, so he just rolls over. There are 600 similar stories near Old Mr. Jones.
That is not fair.
Someone mentioned "view value" in New England. What about "Wow value" for MANSION DR in BEVERLY HILLS? (I'm screwing myself. Technically, my place is part of BEVERLY HILLS, but lets be straight in Harriet's Blog.)
Instead of a premium assessment, MANSION DR pays about the lowest per square foot rate in the area.
Re: CRT's point, suppose there were an unbuilt half acre on MANSION DR (there was about 15 years ago, I don't recall the details but it was on the South Side).
If that 1/2 acre were added to an existing 1/2 acre, and single house is built on the consolidated lot, does the value of the second parcel vanish?
ACE's example suggests an incremental value increase should be added in. This would not be as much as the entire half acre parcel. This is from his 50 acre-50 acre point. (which in his context is a good one. I'm applying the general idea to another case.)
As a talking point, call it a half million for a half acre on MANSION DR plus a half million for an adjacent half acre. That equals 3/4 million or ACE's diminishing marginal returns.
I believe creating a 1 acre "estate" lot would step up the value to two million dollars per acre, plus whatever the crib they slam on it is worth.
Perhaps a fair algorithm is,
1) Each address and parcel has a fixed value. $100K. That gets you a mail box, utility hookup.
2) Then there is a per square foot charge for the land. Call it $25/sqft for all, no matter what size.
A 2,000 sqft TH lot is $100K + $50K. My 1/8 acre is $100K + $125K. 20,000 sqft is $100K + $500K. Works. Easy to calculate.
3) Next there's a size surcharge for QOL. When I had a 2,000 square foot TH, there would not have been a size surcharge. They might tax my lot another $10/sqft or might not. A real front and back yard has value compared to a TH postage stamp. Ref: Tabitha's search for a yard for her family.
This could even be progressive tax, over 15,000, pays another $20/sqft for every sqft in the parcel.
4) Finally, add another surtax for ultra-premium streets such as MANSION DR and beneficial locations such as within a quarter mile of the Metro.
The last two finaglings would not affect small time owners. TH, small SFH, not a hop-skip-and-a-jump to the Metro.
Everyone pays. The little parcel owners pay less. The big houses on Russell Road nearer to the KING STREET metro pay more.
That's my opinion.
Arlington HAS to bump up their valuations, by whatever tortuous logic. Since they voted to become a 'sanctuary city', they must reserve for a spike in uncompensated services. At some point, shadow buyers will descend to grab up the refurbished McMansions and partition them into rooming houses. Twenty partitioned rooms at $400/month makes for good cash flow. Good luck.
PS - I am a content renter until such time as prices revert to 3x income. Have no designs on Arlington.
Ah, yes, Lyon Village, Ashton Heights and Lyon Park are about to become Sterling Park, filled with illegals 5 minutes walk from the metro, 2 miles from the Pentagon and 3 miles from the White House. That's a forseeable future...
The assessments for all seven of my properties in Arlington either dipped or stayed the same, after they all dipped last year. They'll finally increase the tax rate. A lot of the new construction has preserved the tax base, now if we can get the board to be a little more thrifty......
Agree they will increase the tax rate; also agree that the massive new construction still going on in the R-B corridor (i.e the Peck site in Ballston, Clarendon Center in Clarendon, the two new buildings where the Orleans House was in Rosslyn and, most of all, the massive new construction at the bus yards in Ballston) should subsidize the residential rates for a while. I agree about the Arlington board but Fisette in particular does a great job protecting the orange line SFH neighborhoods (appropriate, as he lives in Ashton Heights).
Post a Comment