Riverstone - Fort Bend County (Sugar Land, The Woodlands: real estate, townhomes, school)

[Sampaguita]

Originally Posted by SmartPinkRose

I think you need to re calibrate your 'sarcasm' meter, because you're WAY off with your interpretation of my comments.

The fact that you didn't address the comments by ipuck means that you can't recognize real elitism either.

All you got out of my post is that I need to "re calibrate" my sarcasm meter and I don't recognize elitism because I didn't address ipuck's comments?

Are you a parent to school-aged children, SmartPinkRose? Have you been following the concerns of parents in FBISD? If so, then you should be able to understand a concern I already brought up - overcrowding of schools within our communities.

Developers throughout the area continue to build more SFHs and MFDs without a concrete plan for where all these children are going to attend school. They just keep on printing the flyers that say "future FBISD school" assuring buyers that their children will attend a great FBISD school right within their community. Aliana is still waiting for the schools promised to be built in that community. I can't speak for Riverstone and Telfair residents but I believe they're still waiting on their development's promises of schools. So when you find out that more SFRs and more MFDs are going up with flimsy promises of more schools coming, there is reason to be upset.

Overcrowding in a school is just that overcrowding - doesn't matter TO ME what race a child is or what kind of money a family has. All I know is that overcrowding affects the quality of education our children receive, puts an enormous amount of pressure and stress on our teachers and stretches school resources to its limits.

[usc619]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

To those of you who don't think apartment dwellers pay property taxes, you're wrong, they absolutely do. The landlord/owner pays them. Where did this idea that apartments don't pay property taxes come from? I bet a nice apartment complex - valued in the millions of dollars - could pay more property taxes per unit than starter homes. You can just look up the taxable value of the apartment property and calculate it for yourself. And by the way, no homestead exemptions for them!

Nope you're wrong, apartments get a better deal on taxes.

[ipuck]

Originally Posted by usc619

Nope you're wrong, apartments get a better deal on taxes.

I was about to say the same thing. I thought it is standard fact all big property owners work out deals on the property taxes in Houston.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by ipuck

I was about to say the same thing. I thought it is standard fact all big property owners work out deals on the property taxes in Houston.

Large industrial, retail, and office buildings - yes. Less common for apartment owners in my experience.

OK, so I just ran a test on a sample apartment project in West Houston (HCAD is easier to use than FBCAD, that's why I chose this one). It's an upscale property in a nice area, though hardly the fanciest part of town (Woodlake / Westchase). It has 265 units, was valued last year for $36.6 million, preliminary value this year is $41 million. I chose $37 million as the test value. At a total tax rate of $2.70 (technically that part of Houston has a total tax rate of $2.56 not including the Westchase Management District assessment), its tax contribution per unit is equivalent to a house valued at $175,000 with a 20% homestead exemption.

Also, for a work assignment I actually analyzed the per-household number of school-aged children in upscale complexes - it is low, lower than typical suburban homes. Now, I admit that lower-end complexes will usually have more kids, but we're talking about upscale ones here.

So you two are flat wrong that apartments get a better deal on a per-unit basis. Please quit spreading blatant falsehoods that contribute to anti-apartment hysteria. They are a completely legitimate part of the development landscape in upscale suburbia.

[ethanw]

the apartments in this video. Starts at 0.34. They're MASIVE. You can actually start seeing them from far far away on 0.27

If I had to buy again seeing those I will NEVER buy in Riverstone. Too late for me.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LcyLLOZ8Uk

[ipuck]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Large industrial, retail, and office buildings - yes. Less common for apartment owners in my experience.

OK, so I just ran a test on a sample apartment project in West Houston (HCAD is easier to use than FBCAD, that's why I chose this one). It's an upscale property in a nice area, though hardly the fanciest part of town (Woodlake / Westchase). It has 265 units, was valued last year for $36.6 million, preliminary value this year is $41 million. I chose $37 million as the test value. At a total tax rate of $2.70 (technically that part of Houston has a total tax rate of $2.56 not including the Westchase Management District assessment), its tax contribution per unit is equivalent to a house valued at $175,000 with a 20% homestead exemption.

Also, for a work assignment I actually analyzed the per-household number of school-aged children in upscale complexes - it is low, lower than typical suburban homes. Now, I admit that lower-end complexes will usually have more kids, but we're talking about upscale ones here.

So you two are flat wrong that apartments get a better deal on a per-unit basis. Please quit spreading blatant falsehoods that contribute to anti-apartment hysteria. They are a completely legitimate part of the development landscape in upscale suburbia.

Even if i agree with you regarding paying the same if not more property tax, Houston have such a negative experience with the run-down apartment complex that EVERY homeowner is feared of them.

For every 1 high end complex that can last 10 years, there are 9 others that have kill the whole area.

Fondern, FM1960, and on and on.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by ethanw

the apartments in this video. Starts at 0.34. They're MASIVE. You can actually start seeing them from far far away on 0.27

If I had to buy again seeing those I will NEVER buy in Riverstone. Too late for me.'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LcyLLOZ8Uk

It looks like they're a good 1/4 mile away from any single family. Is having to drive by them sometimes a major imposition? Or is it just knowing that they're in the community and zoned to the same schools?

[usc619]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Large industrial, retail, and office buildings - yes. Less common for apartment owners in my experience.

OK, so I just ran a test on a sample apartment project in West Houston (HCAD is easier to use than FBCAD, that's why I chose this one). It's an upscale property in a nice area, though hardly the fanciest part of town (Woodlake / Westchase). It has 265 units, was valued last year for $36.6 million, preliminary value this year is $41 million. I chose $37 million as the test value. At a total tax rate of $2.70 (technically that part of Houston has a total tax rate of $2.56 not including the Westchase Management District assessment), its tax contribution per unit is equivalent to a house valued at $175,000 with a 20% homestead exemption.

Also, for a work assignment I actually analyzed the per-household number of school-aged children in upscale complexes - it is low, lower than typical suburban homes. Now, I admit that lower-end complexes will usually have more kids, but we're talking about upscale ones here.

So you two are flat wrong that apartments get a better deal on a per-unit basis. Please quit spreading blatant falsehoods that contribute to anti-apartment hysteria. They are a completely legitimate part of the development landscape in upscale suburbia.

OK I'll play

Apartments do indeed get a better deal better on a per unit basis, you just happend to use one that spins into your theory.

Let's take Camden at Grand Harbor for an example HCAD#1295970010001 valued at 28,336,684 with 300 units(94k per unit), and Dolce Living at Grand Harbor HCAD#1343200010001 valued at 15,340,000 with 162 units(94k per unit) and compare it with the same community (Grand Harbor) that it backs up against....I'll use the street( Cornell Park Ln) that's probably the one of most affordable in the subdivision with an avg appraised value of 160k per home. Please explain to me how is this "equivalent"?

Keep in mind the properties are in the same area in the suburbs (Katy), not the city of Houston as in your flawed example. If I were to waste more of my precious time getting more data within the Katy area, the numbers would have a wider margin due to the fact the homes will have a much higher appraise value and the apartment tend to stay the same per unit.

When you factor in water/sewer taps(BTW there's no way of metering each and every unit in the apt = cash cow for the owners) and number of kids from the apartments attending the same schools..... apartments do indeed get a better break than homes(especially in the suburbs), your example is flawed and you know it.

[LocalPlanner]

Why is my example flawed? I picked an upscale newer suburban complex. And I never said they would be valued more than an upscale single family home - I said they are often valued as much or more than middle class starter homes, meaning often below the $160K figure you used, especially after homestead exemptions.

And I have yet to find a newer upscale Class A complex that's full of school-aged kids. The limited quantities of kids that do happen to be there are (1) from generally higher-income parents who can afford the rents and (2) living there because their parents care about the educational opportunities available to them, and are thus ones generally compatible with the cultural values that the upscale single family residents have for their children.

Don't forget that single family also places an enormous physical infrastructure burden that's more than multifamily as well - streets, water lines, sewer lines, and drainage infrastructure doesn't get minimized just because it's serving single family, and you have to have more of it per household in a single family setting. The increased point load due to multifamily (or commercial) use doesn't offset this at all; many cities and counties are finding out that they desperately need higher value commercial and/or multifamily development in order to afford the infrastructure for even nicer single family over time, especially in terms of maintaining what's been built.

[usc619]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Why is my example flawed? I picked an upscale newer suburban complex. And I never said they would be valued more than an upscale single family home - I said they are often valued as much or more than middle class starter homes, meaning often below the $160K figure you used, especially after homestead exemptions.

But you said I was wrong about Apartments getting a better tax deal than Home owners in the same area.

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

And I have yet to find a newer upscale Class A complex that's full of school-aged kids. The limited quantities of kids that do happen to be there are (1) from generally higher-income parents who can afford the rents and (2) living there because their parents care about the educational opportunities available to them, and are thus ones generally compatible with the cultural values that the upscale single family residents have for their children.

As of now Multi-Family units make up 18% of students in Katy ISD That's alot considering the SFH to MFH ratio.

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Don't forget that single family also places an enormous physical infrastructure burden that's more than multifamily as well - streets, water lines, sewer lines, and drainage infrastructure doesn't get minimized just because it's serving single family, and you have to have more of it per household in a single family setting. The increased point load due to multifamily (or commercial) use doesn't offset this at all; many cities and counties are finding out that they desperately need higher value commercial and/or multifamily development in order to afford the infrastructure for even nicer single family over time, especially in terms of maintaining what's been built.

Oh really?? I haven't heard of a MUD district basing the number of taps in the district on MFH in the suburbs....most meetings I've sat in, it's the developers begging for more taps so they can slip more MFH into the district. Guess what?...time to take out a new bond lol. never mind the fact that apartment owners will not face the same burden as SFH owners.

Take Riverstone for an example... How are they going to provide taps for the Apartments when it was never in the original plans(that's what they told the home owners)??? I'll guarantee you that the MUD was not originally establish to support the MFH in that district. Makes no sense.

Not to get away the the main topic, I can see why suburban folks would have a problem with having apartments built in their back yard...the reason most people move to the suburbs is to get away from that huge strip mall called Houston lol