I just don't get it! (Eastport, Washington: home, buyer, bankrupt)
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.
Location: 3.5 sq mile island ant nest next to Canada
3,036 posts, read 5,893,473 times
Reputation: 2171
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutDoorNut
The other drawback to more rural areas, is possibly fewer zoning restrictions giving less protection from external changes that could negatively affect one's property value in the future.
That kind of risk should be reflected in a lower price of property in areas that may have less influence over changes made by government or big business to the area the property is in.
There are usually risks to buying in a rural area, which should be reflected in lower prices.
What makes you thinnk there are less zoning restrictions? The State sets minimun (which is a misnomer in itself) restrictions for shoreland. Eastport, with 1500+ people, 1598 parcels of land and 3.7 sq. miles of island restrict you from minimum lot size right down to the fence you put up. If that is less then I'd hate to see out of state restrictions.
BTW, that doesn't even cover the EPA, Army Corps of so called Engineers, plumbing codes, and the new Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code coming soon to a hamlet near you. Pheeew! Regulatedsd right out of house and home.
Taxing housing based on income? a disaster, good for the underground work force (off the books) and cannabis plantation owners, very bad for regular citizens... Its not easy to get an invoice for work performed down East, you want to get it done and nobody else shows up, you got no choice, what is the yearly income of someone that works off the books? not much.
Housing taxes should be based on what you originally paid for the property and held there until the property turns over. That way the family farm cannot be taxed more than the newly constructed home on the water. If you were lucky enough to buy a home in the 50's on the ocean for $25,000 you should pay on the $25,000 you paid for it not what a real estate assessor deems it's value now. When the next person buys your property for $800,000 they can pay the tax on the new value of the house.
It really is the only fair way to assess taxes. People should not be taxed out of their homes!!!
What makes you thinnk there are less zoning restrictions? The State sets minimun (which is a misnomer in itself) restrictions for shoreland. Eastport, with 1500+ people, 1598 parcels of land and 3.7 sq. miles of island restrict you from minimum lot size right down to the fence you put up. If that is less then I'd hate to see out of state restrictions.
BTW, that doesn't even cover the EPA, Army Corps of so called Engineers, plumbing codes, and the new Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code coming soon to a hamlet near you. Pheeew! Regulatedsd right out of house and home.
I agree that Federal government agencies have established codes within which everyone nationwide is supposed to be operating; which then implies that everyone everywhere are on a level playing field.
States generate their own system of building codes, set-backs and restrictions. But again in theory that should be universal everywhere in that state.
I think the difference being pointed out here is how organized townships do their own planning; and town Code Enforcement Officers may often be enforcing things that simply do not exist outside of their township.
I have had experience in a city where their code enforcement folks had each developed twists onto how they interpreted the code books.
Three different departments [of the same city] each had inspectors, and the codes they were enforcing contradicted each other. [Fire Marshall, Building Inspector, Housing Inspector]
But if you stepped away from that city to a neighboring smaller town, with a smaller budget and less inspectors; and their level of 'enforcement' was much less.
Housing taxes should be based on what you originally paid for the property and held there until the property turns over. That way the family farm cannot be taxed more than the newly constructed home on the water. If you were lucky enough to buy a home in the 50's on the ocean for $25,000 you should pay on the $25,000 you paid for it not what a real estate assessor deems it's value now. When the next person buys your property for $800,000 they can pay the tax on the new value of the house.
It really is the only fair way to assess taxes. People should not be taxed out of their homes!!!
That sounds good.
I was in California when prop13 passed, they stopped doing the periodic reassessments. Now a property assessment is only changed when the title is transferred into a new name.
I was in California when prop13 passed, they stopped doing the periodic reassessments. Now a property assessment is only changed when the title is transferred into a new name.
A few years later and that state is bankrupt.
It's bankrupt because of over spending, too many social programs, too many public unions and pensions to pay, too many government run services, an abundance of Illegal aliens, and nobody with the backbone to step and do what Chris Cristie has started to do in New Jersey. It should not be the property owners burden to pay for all that non essential mandated graff when all they are trying to do is get by. This leftist way of nanny state governing has GOT to stop. We cannot afford to pay for it. It will simply break us and ruin what economy we have left. It becomes obvious who needs to go when you look at the places that are already broke.
good idea, that prevent people from force out of home after living there for 30-40 years.the assessment can be done base current market price but put a cap on for the lesser of (previous yr value +(1+cpi) or new market value). this only applied to the primary home for the owner, not second home or rental property.
you paid $25000 for the house 60 years ago,that is a lot of money that time.
let assume cpi is .04 per year in the past 60 year.
the current market price for the is $800,000.
last year assess value on 59 years old house is $252, 876.
current asses is the lesser of (800000 , (252876x1.04)) = $262990.
the new person buy the house this year will pay tax base on 800000.
that would give a break for long time owner, only apply current value when the house change hand, that including from father to son.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maineah
Housing taxes should be based on what you originally paid for the property and held there until the property turns over. That way the family farm cannot be taxed more than the newly constructed home on the water. If you were lucky enough to buy a home in the 50's on the ocean for $25,000 you should pay on the $25,000 you paid for it not what a real estate assessor deems it's value now. When the next person buys your property for $800,000 they can pay the tax on the new value of the house.
It really is the only fair way to assess taxes. People should not be taxed out of their homes!!!
good idea, that prevent people from force out of home after living there for 30-40 years.the assessment can be done base current market price but put a cap on for the lesser of (previous yr value +(1+cpi) or new market value). this only applied to the primary home for the owner, not second home or rental property.
you paid $25000 for the house 60 years ago,that is a lot of money that time.
let assume cpi is .04 per year in the past 60 year.
the current market price for the is $800,000.
last year assess value on 59 years old house is $252, 876.
current asses is the lesser of (800000 , (252876x1.04)) = $262990.
the new person buy the house this year will pay tax base on 800000.
that would give a break for long time owner, only apply current value when the house change hand, that including from father to son.
I remember when the citizens of MA voted for Prop 2 1/2. The constant spending by the State and Towns never ended. A large number of homeowners now pay double or quadruple in taxes. The spending has to end!
I remember when the citizens of MA voted for Prop 2 1/2. The constant spending by the State and Towns never ended. A large number of homeowners now pay double or quadruple in taxes. The spending has to end!
The spending won't end until we cut the size and scope of government to a bare bones minimum. Military, food and drug, and mail delivery. Gut the rest of it and fire all of the government employees. Go find work off the public's back somehwere.
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.
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.
