Re: Calculating the value of residential properties, separate from land parcels
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Dodson" <ejdodson@...> wrote:
>Hmmmm. I can think of other sorts of cases. My wife's family has an old farm house in southern Arkansas, in the middle of nowhere that's nearly useless down there, but would make a nice house on Cape Cod if the moving costs weren't made prohibitive by the fact that it'd have to be sawn in half. Generally, I'd think the decision to move a house would generally be a matter of comparing the cost of moving it with the cost of constructing something similar in the other place.
> Wyn Achenbaum wrote:
> Some of those demolitions have little to do with the house itself and more
> to do with changes in the quality of the location. It may have transitioned
> from middle-class to upper middle class, or residential to commercial. In
> some places, older still-functional homes get moved to new locations; in
> others, they are simply taken apart or demolished. Often they are
> replaced by another, usually larger, home. Wyn
> Ed Dodson here:
> The basic calculation of the value of a residential property that does not
> have some unique historical or architectural value (i.e., value -- as Harry
> Pollard would say -- because it is a collectible) is replacement cost less
> depreciation. However, property markets have all sorts of anomalies that
> cause properties to be sold at above-market value or below-market value.
> When someone purchasing a property along the ocean pays, say, $1 million,
> then demolishes the building, one can say the land value is $1 million plus
> the cost of demolition. This is the kind of change that Wyn is referring to,
> as rising land values in a community make existing buildings functionally
> obsolescent or simply not grand enough for a buyer able to afford the land.
> In my experience, older homes are moved from one location to another when
> the existing location is very high value and the new location considerably
> less. Thus, the expense of moving the building is easily covered by sale of
> the land parcel.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
> Henry George was adamant that full Land Value Tax,I don't recall him saying that, and it certainly isn't
> the Single Tax, would mean all would gain, no losers.
true. Many people will lose, especially in the
transition period. That is why we must design the
transition to be as painless as possible for the great
majority of landowners: those who own only the land
under their dwellings. And that is why restoring the
equal individual right to liberty through a universal
individual exemption (or, second best, a CD) is crucial
to our success. This is something Henry George either
did not understand or did not give enough weight to, or
the exemption would have been a central feature of his
Single Tax advocacy.
> All boats rise on the same rising tide.Er, those who can't be bothered swimming or walking are
drowned by a rising tide.
> * Will the corporations still be loyal to the US?Is a tapeworm loyal to its host?
> * Will they do everything to get the LVTYes. And that will include assassination. Let's not
> implementing government out?
kid ourselves on that score. This is serious business,
and the vital interests of some very powerful and
deeply evil people are at stake.
-- Roy Langston