Alan NV8A wrote:
> It just occurred to me to look at this issue differently.
> I have read that one reason municipalities demand building permits is
> that they can up the value of a property based on the improvements and
> then collect more property tax.
> Are there cases where people have been granted a permit for a tower on a
> residential property and had the value raised as a result?
> Alan NV8A
When I have gotten permits for towers or other buildings, the
taxing authority has simply mechanically increased the valuation by the
amount of construction cost, which must be declared on the permit
application. They make no value judgment about what the new value
of the property is. When I built a house, they didn't even use
the actual cost, they used a square foot multiplier that underestimated
both the cost and the market value of the house severely (OK with
For example, any appraiser will tell you that a swimming pool LOWERS
the value of a property. (My first house had a pool from the original
owner. I enjoyed the discount.) However, if you put a pool in, your
assessment will be mechanically raised by $25,000 or whatever it cost to
put it in.
My point is that these automatic supplemental assessments aren't very
useful as an argument against "towers lower property values".
My neighborhood has everything from teardowns to McMansions. A
teardown next to a Mcmansion seems to have little effect on price,
so neither would a tower, IMHO. Of course, you could argue that
the busybody set has de-selected themselves from living in my
neighborhood in the first place because it has no CC&Rs.
TowerTalk mailing list