Property values up 37 per cent
Property values up 37 per cent
- Published on April 8, 2009
- Carter Haydu
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- Sam
- - September 18, 2009 at 15:03:29 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
I noticed that before this current reassessment there were countless cases where taxation was not in proportion to the value of the property. From a personal standpoint I know of many homes that are worth about half the value of mine but the taxes are only about a quarter of the amount. I hope the new reassessment rectifies this situation but I have my doubts. Im retired living on a very modest pension income and I dont mind paying my share of property taxes but I shouldnt be expected to pay a good portion of someone elses as well. The value of your home is a very poor indicator of ones income and Im happy to see increased funding from the federal and provincial governments to the municipalities and education which lessens the need to rely so heavily on property taxation as a revenue source.
-
- norm
- - September 18, 2009 at 15:00:41 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Not so Surprisingly Unexpected callous comments as usual coming from Moose Jaws citizens to one another.
-
- J
- - September 18, 2009 at 14:50:09 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Boy considering a third of the world is living in poverty and couldnt own property if they wanted to people sure do complain about the stupidest things.
Tell ya what you don't like how our governments operate, move to China or Sudan or the Congo.
And hopefully you will open your muther &**)ING EYES.
Stupidest sh*t ever, I want to keep my money so I can spend it on more materialistic crap, then I will retire to ten hours of TV after I drive three blocks to the grocery store to by more fake food.
Perspective is lost on baby boomers -
- observer
- - September 18, 2009 at 14:45:59 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
elihu from sk writes: Wally, assessment is MEANT to reflect market value, but the only thing used in the assessment calculation is a market factor which reflects (and is supposed to compensate for short term variation in) the local market. The rest of the calculation is all dimensions, materials, numbers of rooms, etc. Your 400k (cost to build) house in VLA should have the same assesment as a a 400k house built on Maple Street, though clearly their market values are completely different.
All true, but you neglected to include the third factor used in determining assessed value. This third factor being a recent addition to the assessment process involving the income potential of a property. This is the main reason why I think these 2 seniors on our block are getting nailed so bad. A slum lord moves into the area buying up some small cheap properties renting them out at ridiculous levels to government supported low income renters, resulting in an increase in assessed values on similar properties even though they are not rental properties generating income! Where`s the equality in that? -
- Wally
- - September 18, 2009 at 14:38:01 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Elihu, assessment is now entirely based on the market value of property (multiplied by a factor of 70% to get the taxable portion). You also state that assessment is about getting all city properties on the same scale so that they can be equitably. That is a good thing in my view. Are you against each property being treated fairly?
And you are right, if your property value doubles, your taxes would double if there is no corresponding change to the mill rate. But the mill rate has to change (by law) to make re-assessment revenue neutral.
Oh, and btw, my assessment went up almost 50%. But with the drop in education property taxes, my overall tax bill is probably going to drop by 10%. I assumed revenue neutrality due to reassessment, no mill rate increase for operating expenses and a 10% increase to the municipal portion of my taxes due to the multiplex. -
- anna1
- - September 18, 2009 at 14:29:09 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Elihu has clarified the main issue, the reassessment is meant to move everyone to the same scale (in this case market value) which will in fact increase tax revenues UNLESS the city re-adjusts the mill rate - which is entirely in their power to do. The tax result of the reassessment is entirely dependent on
the actions of council. -
- H
- - September 18, 2009 at 14:24:20 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Smallest violin playing just for you Observer.
Whatever, Who's puffing? More debunking... -
- Elihu
- - September 18, 2009 at 14:16:00 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Getting your property assessed is NOT the same as getting it appraised. Appraisals are for the purpose of determining market value of property, either for the purpose of resale or insurance replacement.
Assessment is all about getting all City properties on the same scale so that they can be taxed equitably. The assessed value that you see on your notice has almost nothing to do with actual market value.
That said, if your assessment doubles, your taxes double, assuming that there is no corresponding chang in the mill rate or mill rate factors.
I see some people think that that is just fine, I don't. What? from MJ thinks that an increased assessment is something to celebrate because it represents return on investment. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it just means a higher tax bill.
The City can say that re-assessment is supposed to be revenue neutral, but if they don't decrease the mill rate by 37% to match the increase in assesment, they are increasing City revenue by 37%. -
- concerned taxpayer
- - September 18, 2009 at 13:57:12 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Yes observer, I agree this might be called a joke, a very sad joke. We have one individual on our block in the same predicament you talk about. It appears it is only the lower priced properties seeing these huge increases over 100%, so therefore it has to be the higher priced properties seeing reductions for this to remain revenue neutral. Like you say the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I don`t know about you but I have failed to get any kind of response out of our local politicians on the matter. It is too bad the Times Herald doesn`t do a more in depth story on the matter.
-
- Whatever
- - September 18, 2009 at 13:53:43 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Mr/Ms. What? I don't know which is worse - listening to the complainers or the ones who try to puff themselves up at their expense - sound familiar??
-
- Elihu
- - September 18, 2009 at 13:50:58 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
What I want to know is, what kind of a mill rate decrease are we looking at to maintain revenue neutrality? It had better be 37%....
-
- observer
- - September 18, 2009 at 13:38:52 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Well obviously What? And Typical MJ from MJ,SK are looking at a reduction in their assessments or maybe they are SAMA employees who don`t give a rats ars about the consequences or hardships some of these over assessed citizens are going to encounter with a 20% tax increase. An increase in value might be nice if you have a buyer at the door, but as far as I know these two individuals on our block, that I mentioned earlier, do not. Nor do they have, or had, any intention of attracting buyers for they are far beyond their prime and can`t just pick up and move. As for confusing the assessment base with actual taxation, wrong, I phoned SAMA for one of these elderly people to try and get an explanation for them (which SAMA couldnt really supply) then I phoned city hall for this same individual to verify this so called revenue neutral and was informed that such an increase in assessment (over 100%) would result in an increase in taxes of upwards of 20%.
-
- Typical MJ
- - September 18, 2009 at 13:29:45 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Only in MJ could someone complain about their house being worth more now that it was a few years ago.
What? Boy have you nailed it on the head. Can't wait to hear people Bi**h about the value of their home when the next set of numbers come in!!!!!
Look out!
If you don't like it SELL!!! -
- What?
- - September 18, 2009 at 13:18:42 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
You guys seem to be confusing the assessment base with actual taxation.
An increase in value especially in these lower value properties (increases of 100%) is nothing but good news for the owner that means you have made a 100% return on investment without doing a thing over 8 yrs supposedly.
If you dont think 37% is reasonable you haven't been follwing the markets for the last 8 yrs, note they were at 2002 levels and have been bumped up to 2006, wait till they start using the 2010 numbers where the pinnacle of the housing bubble lies.
Once again I feel sorry for SAMA who are doing a service for all the low brow complainers out there and all they get in return are sour grapes.
I would love to see how you guys would come up with a value assesment. -
- Elihu
- - September 18, 2009 at 12:53:29 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Actually I thought the income approach only applied to commercial properties. I have had to fill out income statements annually for the past few years on our commercial/rental property.
Admittedly though, there could be some comparative work done in assessment which would raise assessment on privately owned properties *IF* similar, nearby properties were affected by the income approach. Your seniors need to get down to City Hall and pull some field sheets for similar properties to theirs which are privately owned to see if they have grounds for an appeal. -
- observer
- - September 18, 2009 at 12:43:00 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Revenue neutral! what a joke. Explain that to the two senior residents on our block who are seeing their assessments increase over a 100%. Increases that have nothing to do with improvements to their properties, because they haven`t made any in the past 7-8 years. All this resulting in them seeing a tax increase approaching 20%. Then add the upcoming Multiplex tax increase, this should surely put these people on the steps of the food bank if not worse. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
-
- elihu
- - September 18, 2009 at 12:40:11 - The Moose Jaw Times Herald
Wally, assessment is MEANT to reflect market value, but the only thing used in the assessment calculation is a market factor which reflects (and is supposed to compensate for short term variation in) the local market. The rest of the calculation is all dimensions, materials, numbers of rooms, etc. Your 400k (cost to build) house in VLA should have the same assesment as a a 400k house built on Maple Street, though clearly their market values are completely different.
Until we see just how education is actually to be paid for and council's choice of mill rate, the term revenue neutral is meaningless.
