"assessed Value" vs. List price

[GeorgeJ.]

I guess none of this applies to Duval County....they have appraised values so high still that they are 25% or more over market value...

And then to raise the millage over and above that too?

Give me a break. The amount of property taxes coming into the county between 2000-2005 went up a huge amount...and now they don't want to go back to where they really should be with the budget. So they continue to stick it to the taxpayer..

[cyrece]

Originally Posted by GeorgeJ.

I guess none of this applies to Duval County....they have appraised values so high still that they are 25% or more over market value...

And then to raise the millage over and above that too?

Give me a break. The amount of property taxes coming into the county between 2000-2005 went up a huge amount...and now they don't want to go back to where they really should be with the budget. So they continue to stick it to the taxpayer..

GeorgeJ--Have to agree with you here!! I have done a few CMA (market analysis) and kid you not--they values are probably 1/2 if not more of the assessed value compared to the tax records..We could NEVER depend on them to be accurate here.

[jsimms3]

Yea but did you know our milleage rate used to be 19? So actually, I believe it's 16.5 right now or something along those lines, so it is in fact a lower rate than we used to have. Values might have come down, but our milleage rate is still lower than it used to be. Also, local taxes come back to us. I understand the folly that is federal income taxes, etc, but local taxes help pay for our local infrastructure, schools, civic buildings, etc. Jax property taxes and just about every other form of local taxation is still significantly lower than other FL metros and Atl, Charlotte, etc...and it shows. We can't just rely on a few rich people in PVB and Ortega to donate money to libraries and schools, etc, we must bite the bullet and the way we do that is to return our milleage rate back to 19. Most people "I" talk to (when the subject comes up) are in favor of a higher rate. Now I know so many on this board are not, but there are people in this city who realize we are kind of in the poor house and so many things need more money (like parks, as I have mentioned, new roads and added lanes to your beloved suburban houses, sidewalks, new schools, better schools, not reduced library hours, aesthetic improvements, etc etc, and we won't get these with lower taxes).

Bottom line, when I move back, one of the first things I will do is push for my neighborhood to take part in a CID (community improvement district) where we tax ourselves to pay for improvements (like an HOA fee, but for a neighborhood, not a gated community). Most other cities that are booming right now (relatively) have higher local taxes (higher property taxes per se), CIDs, and TADs. The whole city might also be in a SPLOST tax (like the BJP was) to fund certain improvements or transit systems.

Bottom line is I understand why we want lower taxes, but we can't consider ad valorem/local property taxes as the same as federal income taxes. Our chances of fed taxes going to wasteful social programs and "big government" programs is very high and we never see that money return; it's like wealth distribution. State taxes less so. City taxes wayyy less so. Just like mayoral races aren't even "political" because people don't run as Republican and Democrat (well I guess in Jax they do, heh), the city taxes, especially in a conservative city like Jax are there for the people. If someone thinks taxes being used to pay for better transit or for the schools is wealth distribution, consider that companies will only relocate to areas where both young single professionals will live and also where young families can send their kids. Right now, middle class families that send their kids to public schools will not live in Duval, and young single professionals with advanced degrees don't bother looking at Jax because we are lacking that energetic urban environment they can get elsewhere.

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by GradyWhite

funny jsimms, because I live in ortega. now I don't have access to direct sales on the mls, but I do through zip and when I did have direct mls access i noticed that sales eventually did show up on zip, just not as fast as on the mls of course.

My point is there are 6 houses that have sold in ortega (e of roosevelt) in the past six months. 3 have sold for above assessed value, 3 below. 3 of the houses have sold on yacht club dr. two of them sold for under assessed value. 2 of the 3 that sold over assessed sold for less than 10% over. going back to all of 2010, there are another 2 houses that sold, one over and one under.

The average price per sqft on the non-waterfront three is $74. The average price per sqft. on the three on the water is $258. I don't know if that means prices are going back up....

In the whole neighborhood, there are three houses not on the water that are priced with a slim hope of selling. (4998 ortega, 4463 chippewa, and 2940 cherokee) Other than those three, the other houses, not on the water, are priced at least $150 per sqft. Some are even around $240 per sqft. which the sales data shows us is what a waterfront home should go for. The worst is either 4334 baltic, which isn't on one of the more impressive streets in the area (it is alright) priced at $212 per sqft or 3963 mcgrits priced at $233 per sqft. (look at the photos of the outside of the house), or 4642 Iroquois, priced at $198 per sqft. and it backs up to roosevelt. I live a block away from roosevelt and that traffic is LOUD. If it is in the backyard i guarantee you arent getting any quiet enjoyment out of your backyard.

It's hard to get a sense of what older waterfront houses are worth - because the lot is frequently worth more than the house. And when people are looking at the lots - they're looking for specific features (e.g., docks - water depth - proximity to inlets - etc.). Robyn

[Robyn55]

Originally Posted by jsimms3

Yea but did you know our milleage rate used to be 19? So actually, I believe it's 16.5 right now or something along those lines, so it is in fact a lower rate than we used to have. Values might have come down, but our milleage rate is still lower than it used to be. Also, local taxes come back to us. I understand the folly that is federal income taxes, etc, but local taxes help pay for our local infrastructure, schools, civic buildings, etc. Jax property taxes and just about every other form of local taxation is still significantly lower than other FL metros and Atl, Charlotte, etc...and it shows. We can't just rely on a few rich people in PVB and Ortega to donate money to libraries and schools, etc, we must bite the bullet and the way we do that is to return our milleage rate back to 19. Most people "I" talk to (when the subject comes up) are in favor of a higher rate. Now I know so many on this board are not, but there are people in this city who realize we are kind of in the poor house and so many things need more money (like parks, as I have mentioned, new roads and added lanes to your beloved suburban houses, sidewalks, new schools, better schools, not reduced library hours, aesthetic improvements, etc etc, and we won't get these with lower taxes).

Bottom line, when I move back, one of the first things I will do is push for my neighborhood to take part in a CID (community improvement district) where we tax ourselves to pay for improvements (like an HOA fee, but for a neighborhood, not a gated community). Most other cities that are booming right now (relatively) have higher local taxes (higher property taxes per se), CIDs, and TADs. The whole city might also be in a SPLOST tax (like the BJP was) to fund certain improvements or transit systems.

Bottom line is I understand why we want lower taxes, but we can't consider ad valorem/local property taxes as the same as federal income taxes. Our chances of fed taxes going to wasteful social programs and "big government" programs is very high and we never see that money return; it's like wealth distribution. State taxes less so. City taxes wayyy less so. Just like mayoral races aren't even "political" because people don't run as Republican and Democrat (well I guess in Jax they do, heh), the city taxes, especially in a conservative city like Jax are there for the people. If someone thinks taxes being used to pay for better transit or for the schools is wealth distribution, consider that companies will only relocate to areas where both young single professionals will live and also where young families can send their kids. Right now, middle class families that send their kids to public schools will not live in Duval, and young single professionals with advanced degrees don't bother looking at Jax because we are lacking that energetic urban environment they can get elsewhere.

Nope - you can't ask people in PVB to pay for anything in JAX - we "gave at the office" in SJC .

The collection and distribution of property taxes in Florida is kind of complicated - at both ends. And both the in-box and out-box are affected by local and state-wide politics. Plus there are considerable constraints on discretionary spending - Medicaid and education will take up more than half the state budget this year - before dealing with the projected deficit. I don't know if you think Medicaid is a wasteful social program - but a lot of it is being paid for through property taxes.

I think community improvement district is an older name for a CDD (community development district). And it takes the consent of 100% of affected landowners to establish one. Having dealt with condo associations and HOAs - I don't think you could get 100% of the people in those places to agree that it's night at midnight - much less agree to something that's going to cost them more money. FWIW - I don't much care one way or the other about property taxes - but a lot of people I know are pretty rabid about them - because they don't see the mandated spending - only the waste (like there's an equestrian center in JAX - well we have one too in SJC - it was an issue in the recent commission elections). Robyn