Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Dallas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2009, 10:24 PM
 
Location: On the golf course
264 posts, read 623,021 times
Reputation: 431

Advertisements

I would like clarification as to why prop 2 would be a disadvantage to those who own rental properties. If anything, it would help due to the fact that the property would have to be valued as a "residence" and not an income producing property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-01-2009, 09:55 AM
 
63 posts, read 185,089 times
Reputation: 31
My boss and my staff fellows in my company are going to vote YES on this. Most people buy house for living, not for doing business. They have tendency to live long-term, at least 5 years or more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Katy,TX.
4,244 posts, read 8,725,410 times
Reputation: 4014
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTDGraduate View Post
My boss and my staff fellows in my company are going to vote YES on this. Most people buy house for living, not for doing business. They have tendency to live long-term, at least 5 years or more.
Ditto, I'm going to vote yes on the props.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 11:59 AM
 
4,775 posts, read 8,808,349 times
Reputation: 3101
Quote:
Originally Posted by momof2dfw View Post
I don't think renters should be allowed to vote in instances like this. I'm with you though on the props. We keep this nonsense up we are going to turn into California II.
Sadly but true....History teaches us valuable lessons...and often repeats itself...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 12:44 PM
 
Location: The Big D
14,862 posts, read 42,752,847 times
Reputation: 5787
Quote:
Originally Posted by MurphyPl1 View Post
I'm actually torn on Prop 2. We have a situation in Murphy that is exactly what this Prop deals with. Quite elderly lady living on a few acres across from the new Murphy Marketplace. Longest Murphy resident in town. Living on a fixed income. Intends to live in the home til she dies or has to live in a nursing home. It IS her residence and has been valued as such until this past year.

The Murphy City Council in their 2008 Comprehensive Plan included a Future Land Use plan that would make that property commercial. THAT is what the County used to determine the value this last year. So now the property is suddenly valued substantially more than it historically has been. Because 7 people on the current City Council believe that the land should be used for commercial property. (keep in mind she's sided on either side by parkland and residential homes.)

So I can get behind the why penalize someone because someone else determined their property would be good for a higher and best use? But I can also get behind the fact that she could theoretically sell it for substantially more as commercial than if it was zoned residential so why not be taxed at that level. Which is why I do like the addition of the "homestead" portion of the law.

I normally like to vote early but I'm still working my way thru these amendments.
I understand this one. It is kind of like the old family farm all of a sudden being taken away even though it has been "paid for" for decades.

If this owner has a large enough parcel what about going to the city and subdividing it and then selling a portion. Then the small portion left that would be easier for them to maintain (being it is an elderly lady) and she would still have the family house that is paid for. She could "bank" the huge windfall she would make from the land sale and would not have to worry about where the money is going to come from to help pay for any expenses she may have or need.

If she does live to end up in a nursing home and her estate is not in order the nursing home/state CAN take the ENTIRE piece of property. They would be the ones making the money off the sale of the property to the developers. Talk about a chunk of change they could stand to get their hands on and they WOULD go after it if they knew. Subdividing it NOW while she is alive and selling a portion of it off and banking the rest in a trust to go on to her heirs or whatever beneficiary she sees fit would actually be in her best interest and she could make sure the money goes to who SHE WANTS to have it. If she is living on a fixed income and gets a nice tidy sum for the sale of some of it she could have the means to pay for in home care if she would rather stay at home than go to a nursing home. Then the estate can sell the property that is left to the developer.

I'm betting if she got the right representation she could find a developer that would go ahead and buy the entire thing now from her and let her live out her days there rent free. They could go ahead and develop one portion and leave her house and a yard for her to tend to. If she doesn't own it then she would not have to worry about paying the property taxes on it either.

There are several options in this case that could greatly benefit this landowner and keep her in her house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2009, 06:32 AM
 
37,315 posts, read 59,633,623 times
Reputation: 25335
my issue is with developers who buy raw land, pay raw land tax until after THEY sell the land with residential improvements (and have often rolled the land over several times at higher and higher prices through various entities to jack up the selling price) yet the tax on improved property is left to the homeowner to pay when the developer has often made out like a bandit
I don't know that this will stop that practice
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,939 posts, read 17,772,517 times
Reputation: 10366
Easy enough to fix. I agree with Debra Medina who is running for Guv'ner. Do away with the yearly property tax. Make the property tax a one time 12 percent tax at the time of purchase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2009, 10:17 AM
 
Location: On the golf course
264 posts, read 623,021 times
Reputation: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Easy enough to fix. I agree with Debra Medina who is running for Guv'ner. Do away with the yearly property tax. Make the property tax a one time 12 percent tax at the time of purchase.
Bad idea.

Full disclosure of sales prices would eliminate a number of issues with regards to property taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 03:41 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,939 posts, read 17,772,517 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakehighlands View Post
Bad idea.

Full disclosure of sales prices would eliminate a number of issues with regards to property taxes.
What does that mean? Was it sarcastic and you are agreeing with me?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2009, 08:10 AM
 
Location: On the golf course
264 posts, read 623,021 times
Reputation: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
What does that mean? Was it sarcastic and you are agreeing with me?
I wasn't being sarcastic and I definitely wasn't agreeing with you. Eliminating the current property tax system and going to a 12% tax at the time of purchase is not going to happen.

I stated that the best idea for property tax reform would be to mandate that all sales prices be fully disclosed to ensure the appraisal districts value all properties at 100% of their market value.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Dallas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top