Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LandCafe] Re: Why is no one talking abour Greece?

Expand Messages
  • John David Kromkowski
    ... I cannot remember who said it but: in God we trust all others bring data. If assessments are bad, first one must show that they are bad and second one
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 8 11:37 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:31 PM, roy_langston1 <roy_langston1@...> wrote:


      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty"
      <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

      > If a Georgist comes by and tell a legislator that a
      > good amount of improvements are really worth nothing
      > because they've completely or nearly completely
      > depreciated and that the 200K that a home could fetch
      > is really almost all land value instead of the 50K
      > that the assessment office has assigned, well then
      > getting a bill pass into law will be really hard.

      Why? The universal individual exemption ensures that
      almost all resident owners will be paying less tax.
      IMO we should not rely on inaccurate assessments to
      make our case, but rather place our reliance on
      fidelity to the truth, and make our case for justice
      and restoration of the individual right to liberty.


      I cannot remember who said it but: "in God we trust all others bring data."

      If assessments are bad, first one must show that they are bad and second one must provide an alternative model which may like the current assessments be tested for its accuracy.

      As Voltaire noted: "Perfection is the enemy of the good." 

      Surely there is some place where the assessments are sufficient to make the case.  Where is that, where is the data, where are the maps, what is the year one effect?

      And by what method do you make the shift of taxing land instead of labor and capital?  Every thing shifted on day one?  Likely, a recipe for quick repeal.  So if one is to gradually do the shift, what do you shift first:  off of improvement taxes, off of sales taxes, off of income taxes?  All a bit at the same time?

      It is long since past the time of general theoretical talking.  Details are required.
    • roy_langston1
      ... Compare transaction prices to assessments. ... BC s Assessment s numbers used to be very good, but in the last few years they have diverged more and more
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 8 1:52 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

        > If assessments are bad, first one must show that
        > they are bad and second one must provide an
        > alternative model which may like the current
        > assessments be tested for its accuracy.

        Compare transaction prices to assessments.

        > Surely there is some place where the assessments are
        > sufficient to make the case. Where is that, where
        > is the data, where are the maps, what is the year
        > one effect?

        BC's Assessment's numbers used to be very good, but
        in the last few years they have diverged more and
        more from transaction prices, almost always on the
        low side.

        > And by what method do you make the shift of taxing
        > land instead of labor and capital? Every thing
        > shifted on day one? Likely, a recipe for quick
        > repeal.

        True. It has to be done incrementally, with people
        seeing how they benefit more and more with each
        increment.

        > So if one is to gradually do the shift, what do
        > you shift first: off of improvement taxes, off of
        > sales taxes, off of income taxes? All a bit at
        > the same time?

        IMO detaxing improvements comes first. That gives
        the accurate land assessments needed for subsequent
        steps. Also, there is a clear, simple explanation
        for why the shift is being proposed: property taxes
        are in fact two opposite taxes -- the tax on
        improvement value, which measures what the owner is
        contributing to the wealth of the community, and the
        tax on land value, which measures what the community
        is contributing to the wealth of the landowner. Once
        people get used to this idea, they may start to say,
        "Hey, wait a minute, why are we still giving all that
        wealth to landowners, again?"

        > It is long since past the time of general
        > theoretical talking. Details are required.

        Here's a start:

        http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/langston-roy_toward-rent-recovery.html

        -- Roy Langston
      • John David Kromkowski
        ... But the transaction in urban residential is like 90% of the time, is a land plus improvement transaction. So there are not enough data points without a
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 8 2:15 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:52 PM, roy_langston1 <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
           

          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

          > If assessments are bad, first one must show that
          > they are bad and second one must provide an
          > alternative model which may like the current
          > assessments be tested for its accuracy.

          Compare transaction prices to assessments.


          But the transaction in urban residential is like 90% of the time, is a land plus improvement transaction.
          So there are not enough data points without a model for filing in gaps, that model must take into account known improvement value.

           
          > Surely there is some place where the assessments are
          > sufficient to make the case. Where is that, where
          > is the data, where are the maps, what is the year
          > one effect?

          BC's Assessment's numbers used to be very good, but
          in the last few years they have diverged more and
          more from transaction prices, almost always on the
          low side.

          Like all assessment they will be on lower side because no assessor likes to get appealed.

          But I've just today talked to two Maryland appraisers (not assessors).  They both agreed that for residential property not situated on waterfront, that land is usually around 20-35% of the total value.
           
          > It is long since past the time of general
          > theoretical talking. Details are required.

          Here's a start:

          http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/langston-roy_toward-rent-recovery.html


          What you have written are not really details, at all.

          "Establish site rents through free and transparent market bidding for exclusive use."  That would involve first taking the property from current owners and in the US providing compensation. Zero chance in hell that you could ever do something like that - you propose Washington, DC. Do you know how many lawyers are in DC?
          You have to start with the assessments as they exist.  Do you understand that DC has a class system of property taxation?

          "Local governments should buy up low-density land (especially land within easy walking distance -- 500m, say -- of public transit stations) at the current market price"

          WITH WHAT MONEY WOULD LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BUY UP this land?

          What exactly do you do for a living?



        • roy_langston1
          ... Not really. There is first the ratio between assessed value and transaction price. Averaged over all transactions, it identifies any systematic bias in
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 8 11:12 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

            > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:52 PM, roy_langston1 <roy_langston1@...>wrote:
            >
            > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David
            > Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@>
            > > wrote:
            > >
            > > > If assessments are bad, first one must show that
            > > > they are bad and second one must provide an
            > > > alternative model which may like the current
            > > > assessments be tested for its accuracy.
            > >
            > > Compare transaction prices to assessments.
            >
            > But the transaction in urban residential is like 90%
            > of the time, is a land plus improvement transaction.
            > So there are not enough data points without a model
            > for filing in gaps, that model must take into account
            > known improvement value.

            Not really. There is first the ratio between assessed
            value and transaction price. Averaged over all
            transactions, it identifies any systematic bias in
            assessments. Then there is the ratio between assessed
            value and transaction price for vacant lots, lots where
            demolition permits have been issued, and lots where
            demolition occurs shortly after the transaction and in
            the absence of significant damage to the improvements
            (such as a fire) or a zoning change. This identifies
            the systematic bias to undervaluing land. Combining
            the two ratios results in a third ratio, the assessed
            land value correction factor, by which assessed land
            value is multiplied to get actual market value.

            > > BC's Assessment's numbers used to be very good, but
            > > in the last few years they have diverged more and
            > > more from transaction prices, almost always on the
            > > low side.
            >
            > Like all assessment they will be on lower side because
            > no assessor likes to get appealed.

            It's more complicated than that, but never mind.

            > But I've just today talked to two Maryland appraisers
            > (not assessors). They both agreed that for residential
            > property not situated on waterfront, that
            > land is usually around 20-35% of the total value.

            http://www.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?pg=1&source=web&cmid=1104050#/pg-11

            Median listing price of SFD home in Lanham MD:

            $170K

            http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Lanham_MD/type-land?source=web

            Median listing price of SFD lot in Lanham MD:

            $70K

            Land value ratio, 70/170 or about 41%. And that's
            for a small town with a population of about 18K.
            The land value ratio in bigger centers where most
            of the US population lives is much higher. Your
            appraiser friends are just objectively wrong.

            > > > It is long since past the time of general
            > > > theoretical talking. Details are required.
            > >
            > > Here's a start:
            > >
            > > http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/langston-roy_toward-rent-recovery.html
            > >
            > What you have written are not really details, at all.

            I said it was a start. I wanted to provide a plan
            of general applicability that people in any given
            location could use to generate the details appropriate
            to their location.

            > "Establish site rents through free and transparent
            > market bidding for exclusive use." That would
            > involve first taking the property from current
            > owners and in the US providing compensation.

            No, it would not. You just were not reading very
            attentively. The sentence you have quoted is from
            the section devoted to jurisdictions where private
            landowning is not established or is under current
            challenge by government.

            > Zero chance in hell that you could ever do
            > something like that - you propose Washington, DC.

            Look in the next section for the recommended approach
            where private landowning is well established.

            > Do you know how many lawyers are in DC?

            I'm beginning to get an idea...

            > You have to start with the assessments as they exist.
            > Do you understand that DC has a class system of
            > property taxation?

            Let me know if you ever figure out which section of my
            article is relevant to Washington, DC.

            > "Local governments should buy up low-density land
            > (especially land within easy walking distance --
            > 500m, say -- of public transit stations) at the
            > current market price"
            >
            > WITH WHAT MONEY WOULD LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BUY UP this
            > land?

            That depends on local conditions. They have revenue
            from somewhere. Use a bit of it to buy up a low-density
            parcel near a rapid transit station, densify the zoning,
            then sell it back into the market, retaining the publicly
            created capital gain. Now they have lots of money to do
            the same thing again.

            > What exactly do you do for a living?

            I write and edit corporate communications.

            Don't bother telling us what you do for a living.
            That's easy enough to see.

            -- Roy Langston
          • John David Kromkowski
            ... Lanham, MD is a suburb of Washington, DC. I don t see where your links give you the median price. There are only 10 lots for sale. These are the asking
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 9 12:08 PM
            • 0 Attachment

              > But I've just today talked to two Maryland appraisers

              > (not assessors). They both agreed that for residential
              > property not situated on waterfront, that
              > land is usually around 20-35% of the total value.

              http://www.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?pg=1&source=web&cmid=1104050#/pg-11

              Median listing price of SFD home in Lanham MD:

              $170K

              http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Lanham_MD/type-land?source=web

              Median listing price of SFD lot in Lanham MD:

              $70K

              Land value ratio, 70/170 or about 41%. And that's
              for a small town with a population of about 18K.
              The land value ratio in bigger centers where most
              of the US population lives is much higher. Your
              appraiser friends are just objectively wrong.


              Lanham, MD is a suburb of Washington, DC.
              I don't see where your links give you the median price.  There are only 10 lots for sale.  

              These are the asking prices.

              650K  3.82 acres  which would be about 15 quarter acre lots so about 43K
              90     7101   .16
              69.9  .26
              65     7500    .17
              45     8606   .20
              42.5  5600    .13
              39    .26
              35    .33
              35    .49
              29    .26

              These are the asking prices.  I'd suspect that the sale prices are going to be less.  At least one of them is a foreclosure.  I don't see how you come up with 70K for the median and price.
              It could be accurate, I just don't know.  It's kind of sloppy to include the 3.8 acre site to determine median.


              You can get to the assessments from this cite. Lanham is in Prince George's County

              You can also look at property sales.  In the last year, there haven't been any unimproved lots sold  for maps 44 or 45 which cover most of Lanham.  I just don't have the time right now to figure out and run all of Lanham.

               
            • roy_langston1
              ... I just took the middle value, but I can see this is a different set of properties from the one I was looking at before. I don t know how I got them mixed
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 9 5:55 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

                > > > But I've just today talked to two Maryland appraisers
                > > > (not assessors). They both agreed that for residential
                > > > property not situated on waterfront, that
                > > > land is usually around 20-35% of the total value.
                > >
                > > http://www.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?pg=1&source=web&cmid=1104050#/pg-11
                > >
                > > Median listing price of SFD home in Lanham MD:
                > >
                > > $170K
                > >
                > > http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Lanham_MD/type-land?source=web
                > >
                > > Median listing price of SFD lot in Lanham MD:
                > >
                > > $70K
                > >
                > > Land value ratio, 70/170 or about 41%. And that's
                > > for a small town with a population of about 18K.
                > > The land value ratio in bigger centers where most
                > > of the US population lives is much higher. Your
                > > appraiser friends are just objectively wrong.
                >
                > Lanham, MD is a suburb of Washington, DC.
                > I don't see where your links give you the median
                > price. There are only 10 lots for sale.

                I just took the middle value, but I can see this is
                a different set of properties from the one I was
                looking at before. I don't know how I got them mixed
                up. Sorry, the median price here is $42.5K, which is
                about 25%, and within the range your appraisers said.
                My bad.

                > These are the asking prices. I'd suspect that the
                > sale prices are going to be less.

                So are the sale prices of the houses.

                > At least one of them is a foreclosure. I don't see
                > how you come up with 70K for the median and price.

                You're right, I have to eat some crow on that one.

                > It could be accurate, I just don't know. It's kind
                > of sloppy to include the 3.8 acre site to determine
                > median.

                I wasn't, the properties I was looking at before were
                different. 3.8 acres is obviously not a SFD lot.

                I will check some other areas and see what comes up.

                -- Roy Langston
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.