share.triangle.com - Wake & Durham revaluation blues - Comments

one more thing...

Alan L. Falk — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:21:58 -0400

in a recession, or any period when home prices drop in value, wouldn't it be "fair" to LOWER home assessments, just as they're raised when the selling prices or appraised values go UP????

maybe homes should be appraised every year or two and values and taxes be adjusted accordingly...

another weird thought that i'm sure local and state governments would abhor.

+af
northwest raleigh

the silliness of the appraisal/reappraisal "process"

Alan L. Falk — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:18:52 -0400

so now you know some of the upsides and downsides of the reappraisal and tax-setting "process."

when i lived in california and my mom was still alive and living in new jersey, our property taxes were nearly the same! her house was appraised at about $45,000 and mine was appraised at about $450,000.

my taxes were about 1% of appraised value, plus a small launtry list of "non-tax" fees [ie, taxes.] and her taxes were about 10% of appraised value.

starting to see some of the silliness yet?

in NJ, property values were reset every so many years. in california, they were adjusted up by about 1% a year [maximum] and were also reset to the actual selling price when a home was sold.

homesteaders who'd bought homes 20-40 years ago were protected from local "real-market" prices so long as they didn't sell their homes. newcomers knew exactly what their property taxes would be from "day-1" and every year after that, so budget-shocks became a thing of the past.

the only downside was that funding for schools and other community services were then locked to the "1%-a-year ramp rate" and many believed that this cut many funds and hurt many people.

so, what's "fair"? nothing. it's always a tradeoff between house value and tax rates and how much money is "needed" by the government to pay for services.

reevaluation blues

john — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:00:10 -0400

In 1964 I bought our house inside the beltline in Raleigh valued at $17,000 and struggled to get it paid for. In the valuation of 2000 the house was worth $118,545 and the .31 acres of land was worth $75,000. In the latest evaluation the house supposedly is worth $182,231 and the land is worth $206,550.

The tax in 2007 was $2154 and the tax this year is $3510 or a 63% increse over last year.

Everything and I do mean everything is going up faster than cost of living adjustments. We were in hopes of hanging on until we die. We are in our mid 70`s on fixed incomes and when our savings to pay taxes run out what then>

Code Route 2

CodeRoutez — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:44:57 -0500

Based on our findings, any scheduled construction activity must be conducted in compliance with all applicable regulations

Land assessments?

Visitor — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:48:59 -0500

Everyone should take a look at their property assessments on the Wake County real estate listing rather than their tax tax bill to really see some strange distortions. Land within the same city block is assessed anywhere from $400,000 to $1M per acre - those numbers have been left off the tax assessment sent to homeowners. (The Wake County tax assessors can be proud of themselves, the $1M per acre assessment is higher than ocean front property in Taxachusetts.)In another example, a house lot in a development is assessed at 1/3 the price per acre of raw land zoned as agriculture that is within spitting distance. With no buildings to confuse the issue, this shows there are obvious problems with the assessment process.

tax valuation

Visitor — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:40:48 -0500

If the 12/21/N&O is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it I have two comments. One-this is not the way appraisors do it; at least as far as different values for 1st and 2nd floors. Two- This "worksheet" should have been mailed with the re-evaluation notice. It would help understand the new value, and could possibly eliminate questions and appeals. How does one go about getting a copy?

Property evaluation

Visitor — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:33:10 -0500

I can't understand why the house next door to mine which is 400 sq ft larger can be valued at almost $20,000 less than mine. Also, I don't see any depreciation for the homes in our neighborhood where all the houses are close to 20 years old. Also my value increased just last year after putting windows in an unheated screened porch, by $9000. The windows didn't cost that much!

ReAppraisal

AlexMac — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:08:20 -0500

My home appraisal went up to $111 per sq ft of house. The builder is now trying to sell homes in our development for $85 per sq ft. and no one is buying. Are the tax people out of touch with reality? My house is like buying a new car, as soon as closed and moved in I lost 10% of the value.

Does anyone know of any law firms which will be offering services for appeals that are denied.

faulty records

Visitor — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:45:21 -0500

I got my new tax evaluation. It states I have 2.5 baths and an extra 500 heated space than is actually in my house. I want to know where the other 1/2 bath is I'm being taxed for? and what happened to the 500 sq ft?

There is absolutely no way I would be able to sell my house for what they say it is now worth. No house in my neighborhood has sold for anywhere close to that value in the past year.

I understand the county has to use some kind of formula for determining values but they really need to look at what they do in an area. All of the houses in my neighborhood are overvalued by at least $10,000. They could not have picked a worse time for doing the revaluations - housing market is in a slump, wages are stagnant while cost of living keeps increasing almost daily. Oh, and happy holidays too.

I'm off to file paperwork to get their errors corrected. Wonder if I can bill them for doing their work for them...

why isn't anyone talking about....

plusaf — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:36:45 -0500

some decade or two ago, my mom paid about the same property tax on her house as i did on mine. hers was appraised in new jersey at an impossibly low level but the tax rate was a high percentage of that number. my home was in california and was worth much more than hers, due to the differences in the local markets at the time, but my tax rate was a lower percentage of the appraised value than hers. so, picking some numbers out of the air for example, she paid $1000 a year taxes on her $35,000 house and i paid $1000 a year on my $100,000 house.

so, what's FAIR???? c'mon... i do agree with the author above that a Prop 13-type of plan works pretty well. when a house is sold, its assessed value is stepped up to the selling price and on average, the taxes are 1% of that value. [of course, the leeches come in and attach fees which are separate from the TAXES, so maybe the overall rate is 1.5%. whatever. for "revenue neutrality" [snicker], that number is the result of the calculations [revenue desired divided by appraised value] that make the numbers come out right. so don't complain about the appraisal value OR the tax rate, when all they're doing is picking one number and calculating the other to make the numbers jibe!

the downside of the Prop13 world is that the cap on yearly increases of the taxes themselves results in a huge distortion when local prices appreciate tremendously due to local market conditions [you can't fight supply and demand] but the taxes don't go up. when someone sells their house, the new owner will know exactly what to expect in terms of taxes.... purchase price times whatever per cent.... but their next-door neighbor might be paying a small fraction of that amount because they've lived there for decades! when i sold my home in CA to move here, i was paying maybe $2500-3000 a year in property taxes, after owning a $94,000 home [purchase price] for 24 years.....

the new owner is now paying about $8500 a year or more because she bought my house for over $800,000.

many other folks who'd moved into the area over the past 5-10 years resented the living HECK out of us "old timers" who had locked in low tax rates.

my ex-next-door-neighbors retired about ten years ago. they'd bought the house when it was built, for maybe $22,000. they paid much less in property tax than i did, living next door. today, according to zillow.com, they could probably spruce up their home and put it on the market for just over $1,000,000 and have a very comfortable retirement in a new home almost anywhere in the country... except, probably, california [though there are some tax breaks they could enjoy....].

one other piece of bad news is that, since property taxes only jumped when the house sells, lots of people NOT moving puts a clamp on total revenue. this means that after inflation, schools and everything else that depends on property taxes gets, essentially, less and less real money every year. many people point to lousy performance in many CA schools as a result of this.

but everyone hates taxes and everyone hates to pay for what they get.

i suggest a bottoms-up tax policy.
start with what all of the expenses are that will be paid by property taxes.
assess properties at their fair market value.
add 'em all up and divide to find out what each property bears as its part of the total.
if desired, bend the results based on income, retirement status, hair color or whatever you can convince the local government to do.

isn't that the American Way? :)

plusaf
Northwest Raleigh
27613

My Opinion on Revaluation

Robert Winchester, Jr. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:50:47 -0500

I am a conservative that is tired of being "taxed" and "fee'ed" to death. Look at your water bill alone - Stormwater Fees (can I get a refund? - we haven't had a storm in a long time), Recycle Fees (Another refund? I don't believe in paying to store our "recyclables" in large warehouses because there is not enough demand for them), Solid Waste Fees, Admin Fees, etc. These are just a few.

That said, I must comment that the County did a very good job using the technology available to re-evaluate the real estate. No, it's not perfect - that is why there was a very simple appeal process delivered to every property owner with their new valuation. But, at least 80% of the people that I have asked agree that they value put on their property was fair market value. Pretty impressive from where I sit. My value went up almost 70% - but the new value assessed is fair market value.

Don't get mad at the value of your property; get mad at the people that keep voting yes to every bond that comes along. The people that seem to be complaining the most about the new values are the very people that put every "Vote Yes" sign in their yard that comes along. "Yes" on school bonds, "Yes" on park bonds, "Yes" on open space bonds (whatever open space really is!). These bonds are not free (contrary to some beliefs). They are a way for the municipalities to borrow money - and it has to be paid back - normally from increased taxes or other form of revenue. Now, if the commissioners just set the tax rate fairly in June! At some point, all the new households in Wake County should start chiseling away at our bond debt.

Revaluation Flaw

Visitor — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:26:57 -0500

Here is an example of how those responsible for the "revaluations" follow their Manual's methodology for their calculations and lose sight of their common sense:

A home in our neighborhood (several for that matter) had been on the market almost a year or more and listed slightly above valuations assessed prior the the current "revaluation" The original listing prices were reduced in some cases 3 times. in some cases putting their price below orginal assessed value. In spite of being on the market, below appraised values, none were sold. NOW, their current prices are even more SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW their "reappraisal" assessed values. Should these homeowners now raise their ! It would defy logic ... market conditions do not warrant it. Their experience of already taking several price reductions defys it. What Real Estate Agent would recommend doing so and defy the current market and their experience.

It may be a good deal for a buyer who can afford their current price. That person may fare well. But the current owner is a loser. He or she is mandated to pay a higher tax on a higher assessment under conditons that common sense do not warrant. That casts doubts on the integrity of the "Manual" approach. The "Manual" is what the Revenue Department refers to in justifying the revaluation. When was it written, under what kind of economic conditions, with what interest retes in existence at the time!! Were there 1.8 million foreclosures nationally then!! Were there sub prime mortgages, reverse mortgages, interest only mortgages, etc.!! Times have changed, but not the exercise of common sense which should always prevail in law.

Why should the obligation to PROVE the revaluation amount is unjustified be the burden of the homowner? The "system" is suspect and should answer to this example and their lack of common sense.

Finally, no one in the Triangle recently bought the argument that suggested a "sales tax" on any home resale. Everyone except the Revenue Department wa opposed to that. So, where did it leave the Revenue Department? They brought out their "Manuals" and are using an anitquated "arithmetic model" to gain far more revenues than their previously sought approach. People lose faith in Government when it issues "editct" that defy common sense. Find a better way.

Revaluation

Visitor — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:12:51 -0500

I am sorry but I cant beleive someone would complain that their home price increases from 28K to 1M and cant pay the taxes. we should be glad we live in an area where prices are increasing (and tax values) Try living in parts of the country where your home is not worth what you paid for it.
Give me a break. If you have 100's of thousands in equity I am sure you can figure out a way to pay the taxes.

Would voters consider proposition 13?

Marty — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:51:03 -0500

I am from California and purchased a home under prop 13 during the years of escalating home values. In 1978 California was going through the same issue with property taxes now facing Wake County. This proposition put the assessment rate at 1% of the cash value of your home at the time of purchase, with a maximum increase of 2% a year. A home could be reassessed every four years, when improvements were made increasing the property value, or when the home was sold. In each of the above cases the home would be assessed at the current value times 1% again. This was designed to prevent the elderly from being taxed out of their homes. For those of us nearing retirement age prop 13 makes a lot of sense. I would vote for it. Just a thought.

Greed and overspending...

Visitor — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:30:53 -0500

This evaluation and re-evaluation issue is just more of the same - sucking more money - however they can - from citizens. I've been paying way over vehicle true value every year I've driven in NC. Even when I documented and appealed in Wake County - it was immediately "Denied". I'm also paying arbitrary increases on my property in Chatham County that certainly have nothing to do with a value increase I haven't seen.

It's fraud and robbery on a grand scale - over and over and over...easier for Governments to do than control THEIR spending.

Wake & Durham revaluation blues

mike williams — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:46:32 -0500

What is your tax bill like? Did the revaluation increase your taxes by a large sum? Is the new value accurate and fair?