Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Property Values Through the Roof – and That Isn't Good News
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 13, 2015 at 7:11 am #818428
JeannieParticipantAgggh! My little two-bedroom, one-bathroom house might be flattered to see its “value” leap by tens of thousands of dollars, but I’m not thrilled in the least. Taxes are bound to increase in an equally outrageous manner. I can thank the ugly, boxy $950,000 “Hummer” houses that are being squeezed onto lots in my neighborhood where older homes, aka perfectly decent “teardowns,” once stood stolidly.
I guess this gripe is nothing new, but hold onto your hats, neighbors! It’s only going to get worse.
September 13, 2015 at 7:30 am #827779
metrognomeParticipantJeannie — fortunately for you, property values and property taxes aren’t directly linked; the formula to calculate property taxes is much more complicated than that and cannot be understood or explained by mere mortals. There is a race of ancient alien astronauts disguised as humans who understand how to correctly calculate property taxes (I have that on good authority from the guy with the weird hair that stars on History Channel 2.) Here, translated from their native language, which is almost as hard to understand as Welsh, are some FAQs:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/assessor/Common-Questions/Residential.aspx
http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/assessor/How-Assessments-Work/Residential.aspx
September 13, 2015 at 7:39 am #827780
JeannieParticipantThank you, metrognome! At least Wales is pretty and has given the world some wonderful actors! So property values do play a role, but not as significant as one might assume. Still – and I hate to get all Tim Eyman-y, it seems like we give the go-ahead to ever-increasing taxes, but all too often the money is not used properly because of incompetence.
Ancient alien astronauts? Hmmm…Tom Cruise loves that concept!
September 13, 2015 at 9:46 am #827781
metrognomeParticipantwell, Wales gave the world half of me; the other half came from several countries (which reminds me of a joke I probably shouldn’t repeat out here.) Wales contributed it’s share of artists to the world, including Gemma Markham:
I still prefer Eva Cassidy’s version of Fields of Gold (and ‘What A Wonderful World’ and on and on) but I enjoy listening to the words in Welsh.
As far as gubmint inefficiency, that argument can go on forever. Of course gubmint is inefficient; it’s run by humans (or ancient alien astronauts in disguise.) Private companies are also notoriously inefficient, even if they are hugely successful. These days, property tax increases are generally due to voter-approved programs. Hopefully, at some point, you will see a massive return on your investment when you sell; being able to hang on to your house long enough to get to that point is the problem.
September 13, 2015 at 10:00 pm #827782
JoBParticipanti have a 900,000 dollar monstrosity going in next to me too…
if only the upwardly mobile had continued to believe in the invisible line down 35th separating the desirable properties of West Seattle from traditional family neighborhoods :(
September 13, 2015 at 10:02 pm #827783
JeannieParticipantThanks for the video – just lovely. And Wales also gave us Dylan Thomas, Richard Burton, and Ioan Griffud (less talented than Burton, but sure purty! I saw him first in “Horatio Hornblower.)
As for selling and ROI, the problem is that if I ever sold my house, the logical next step wouldd be something in the $700,000 – $800,000 range, and I have little desire to pay that much.
Ah, well, onward. I shouldn’t complain too much; at least I have a roof over my head and I’m living in a beautiful city.
September 14, 2015 at 3:26 am #827784
susparkerMemberJeannie: Well aren’t we all lucky to have you as an arbiter of taste for what should and shouldn’t be built in our neighborhoods. Fact is that there is a huge backlog of hideous, crappy houses that ought to have been adiosed a long time ago. And $900K Modernist houses seem to be selling before builders can even finish them. So it appears to me that there are a lot of people who couldn’t care less about your provincial bull**it attitude. There’s plenty of room for everyone in West Seattle, not just the people that you despise because they have more than you.
September 14, 2015 at 3:52 am #827785
JeannieParticipantSus, I have more than enough. I just prefer not to spend in on hideous, crappy Hummer House. Modernist, really? Is that the architectural term? I stand by my opinions, and there’s no need for snottiness. A more crowded West Seattle means tons more traffic within area, which means more car pollution, tall blocks of condo buildings block all-too-rare sunlight, more mischief in our parks and public places (graffiti, for one), etc., etc.
Now, I do love West Seattle, but I stand by my views. Nuff said. I don’t want to get into a b-tchfest with you. Ugh.
Gotta admit, though, your first sentence made me smile – reminded me of the Church Lady from SNL. Very cool.
September 14, 2015 at 4:09 pm #827786
skeeterParticipantIt’s an interesting formula. Property taxes collected can only increase by 1% per year. (Let’s ignore the special levies for a moment.) So if the average property increased in value (assessed value) by 10% and *your* property only increased by 5% then you would actually see your property tax bill *decrease* even though your assessed value *increased.* Does that make sense?
Let’s say in year one, there are two homes in King County. Each home is assessed at $1M. Each home gets a property tax bill for $10,000. So King County collects $20,000.
Things are good in year two. Home A increases in assessed value to $1.2M. Home B increases in assessed value to $1.1M. Both homeowners are wondering how they can afford their next tax bill. Fear not!! King County collected $20,000 in year one and they can only collect $20,200 in year two. ($20,000 times 1.01 equals $20,200.) How is that $20,200 apportioned to the two homeowners? By assessed value. Home A will get a property tax bill for $10,539 and Home B will get a property tax bill for $9,661. See what happened there? Home B increased in value, but its taxes *decreased* because Home B’s assessed value increased by less than the county average.
Now… special levies are a different matter. Those are voter approved, and are not subject to the 1% increase cap. But the voters wanted those special levies and approved them. So presumably we are comfortable with the extra taxes.
September 14, 2015 at 4:55 pm #827787
SmittyParticipantHey Skeeter, that’s the way I understand it too, but there must be an exemption for new homes not counting toward the 1% increase? Otherwise – with all the building going on – our bills would actually decrease as the fixed amount (prior year +1%) is spread over more homes?
September 14, 2015 at 5:28 pm #827788
skeeterParticipantYou’re correct Smitty. To the extent there is new housing constructed, the cap grows proportionally. I left that out of my example to keep it simple. But the new housing isn’t increasing (or decreasing) anyone’s property tax bill, theoretically at least. The collected taxes increase by the same amount the tax base increases due to new construction.
September 14, 2015 at 9:06 pm #827789
JoBParticipantsusparker
i spent the last 5 years developing my kitchen garden and was looking forward to growing produce this winter…
that won’t happen now.
the brand new big box home on the lot next door will block the winter sun in the only spot in the yard that once got winter sun.
sure.. they have a right to build there
and someone who loves those big boxes will undoubtedly move in
but they won’t share my winter produce
because there won’t be any.
you may think that’s ok
but even you may find you miss that lifestyle once it’s gone
there is no room for kitchen gardens in the shaded canyons between big box homes
September 14, 2015 at 9:52 pm #827790
metrognomeParticipantok, skeeter, which planet are you from??
Jeannie, nice job on deflecting a trolling expedition and turning it into a positive comment.
September 14, 2015 at 11:04 pm #827791
JeannieParticipantSkeeter and Smitty are from the planet of the Highly Intelligent Life Forms – or at least Highly Intelligent Enough to Figure This Stuff Out.
JoB and metrognome, thanks for your comments – you’re both from a pretty smart planet, too! And, yes, I try to be positive, even when I’m complaining. This is no place for trolling or even for adorable SNL Church Ladies!
September 15, 2015 at 7:53 pm #827792
Michael WaldoParticipantThe biggest hit on property taxes is all the items Seattle voters keep approving to raise property taxes to fix everything. Please people, consider carefully ballot measures that raise our property taxes. There has to be a better way to fund stuff.
September 16, 2015 at 2:31 am #827793
JoBParticipantMichael Waldo
how would you suggest we fund what needs to be funded if not with property taxes?
September 16, 2015 at 6:39 am #827794
JanSParticipantin post # whatever by susparker…I have a question for the poster. What the hell is an I-banker….do you deal in eyes? or do you just fiddle around on the internet trying to take people’s money?
September 16, 2015 at 6:48 am #827795
JanSParticipantas an aside…I decided to look at zillow this weekend, and look at what they say is the value of the only home I ever owned, which I sold back in the dark ages…1997, December…sold it for $195,000 then. 3 beds, one bath, 3 lots ( a tad less than 1/4 acre), on Genesee hill. At the height of the bubble it was valued at about $550,000. Value now? over $600K….
and would have been paid off by now (house payments were about $625 plus taxes, utilities then) …Big Sigh…
September 16, 2015 at 5:40 pm #827796
afrikandoParticipantModernist?!?
The ostentatious box constructions are to modernism what McDonald’s is to new American cuisine.
So sad.
September 16, 2015 at 7:13 pm #827797
SmittyParticipantThe new “boxy” houses – in my opinion – are the result of a couple of things:
1) People care less about the exterior than the interior. Not as communal. More about “me”, then the neighborhood. People use to just about live on their front porches and communicate with neighbors. Not so much any more.
2) While ugly (to some of us) on the outside they are fabulous on the inside. What’s lacking in character is more than made up for in roominess. High ceilings, big rooms, lots of light and a feeling of openness that makes a 2,000 sq ft home feel like 3,000. Prices are so high that these are the only way to appease a market that wants to get more bang for their buck.
September 16, 2015 at 7:16 pm #827798
JoBParticipantafrikando.. i am afraid i agree with you.. :(
smitty.. i am afraid i agree with you too :(
September 17, 2015 at 12:15 am #827799
JeannieParticipantI dunno, Smitty. I’ve seen the interiors of some of these box houses and I haven’t been all that impressed. But I totally agree with you about the lack of front porches. It’s a very insular society. My dream house would have a big front porch.
Afrikando, your comment cracked me up. So true!
September 17, 2015 at 3:03 pm #827800
PangolinPieParticipantSmitty’s right – they built some near me and they’re gorgeous inside that grey box. The lack of yards makes me sad though, and I feel so much for Jo and her garden. Why does no one seem to care about having a little greenery around them any more? Yards are becoming extinct and it breaks my heart. All those kids that will grow up without them, all those dogs without grass between their toes, all those people deprived of the joy of growing a plant or two…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.