U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 09-15-2011, 04:11 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,867,263 times
Reputation: 2827

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
There will no doubt be some of that.
Perhaps, but people should really look into reverse-mortgages in such situations. Or cash out if they would prefer.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2011, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
752 posts, read 424,396 times
Reputation: 513
I think of Westmoreland County when this subject comes up. Think about how many new housing developments have sprung up on the western ends of the county in the past decade or two. The same with Cranberry and southern Butler county. But their assessments are based on a percentage of values from 1973 for Westmoreland County and 1969 for Butler! No wonder they don't reassess outside of the fact that is a timely and expensive venture.

I grew up in a house in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County that myparents bought brand new in 1979. They paid $80,000 and I think it is assessed at $21,170. They pay about $1900 a year in total taxes. Until the mid-1990's, there was a 18,000 sq ft vacant area between my parent's house and the next house. It was just a big dirt pile. A developer bought that land and built two McMansions. They stick out like a sore thumb on a street with mostly split level ranch houses from the 1960's-1970s. The houses were bought pretty quickly and they sold for close to $300,000. The assessed value on those two houses? $24,000. Basically in the county's eyes, there is only a $3830 difference in value between my parent's 1979 900 sq ft ranch house and a 1997 2000 sq ft McMansions? Crazy.

Plus, my parents have obviously improved on their house since 1979 thus raising its value AND a big dirt pile next to their property turned into two newer houses which would raise their property value. I'm sure Hempfield Area SD would love that extra tax revenue!

The same assessed value for my parents house would yield only $618 a year in total taxes where I live at in Port Vue Borough. Granted, Port Vue is nowhere near the size and wealthy as Hempfield Township and South Allegheny SD is not as big/good as Hempfield Area SD, but that is quite a difference.

BTW, I really wish Allegheny County's website had a public interactive Tax Parcel GIS System like Westmoreland County's website has: http://www.wcgis.us/gis/
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 05:11 PM
 
1,147 posts, read 1,130,580 times
Reputation: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
I guess it depends on what we are talking about. If the house in question was already underassessed in 2002, then that "bargain" may end. But otherwise, I don't think everyone realizes how much the total value in certain jurisdictions has appreciated, such that millages will be going down really quite substantially.

To put it in mathematical terms, this is a question of whether your house has appreciated more than the WEIGHTED average, not a simple average. And the implications of that are not very intuitive.

Those are the people really on the hook. If your house was expensive in 2002 and it is a bit more expensive now, that's not necessarily going to give you much exposure. But if your house was cheap in 2002 and is now considerably more expensive, your bill could go up substantially.
This is going to hurt/help property owners in Woodland Hills the most I suppose (isn't that where the lawsuit originated?) In the borough of Swissvale, most homes will get a 25% drop in their borough taxes; but Regent Square homes will probably be hit with at least a 50% increase. Such is the increase of value in Regent Square vs. the depreciated value of the rest of the borough. The same may hold true for Wilkinsburg.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
981 posts, read 707,320 times
Reputation: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyev View Post
This is going to hurt/help property owners in Woodland Hills the most I suppose (isn't that where the lawsuit originated?) In the borough of Swissvale, most homes will get a 25% drop in their borough taxes; but Regent Square homes will probably be hit with at least a 50% increase. Such is the increase of value in Regent Square vs. the depreciated value of the rest of the borough. The same may hold true for Wilkinsburg.
From the numbers I've seen, the market value of homes in Regent Square have at least doubled since the last assessments, and are generally assessed at a little less than half their current market value.

My house (in Swissvale, near Swisshelm Park) has seen very little appreciation, and is probably assessed at about 70-80% of it's current market value.

It will be interesting to see what happens with assessments in Swissvale, but I have my doubts that most of Swissvale will see a 25% decrease.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 07:45 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,867,263 times
Reputation: 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyev View Post
Such is the increase of value in Regent Square vs. the depreciated value of the rest of the borough. The same may hold true for Wilkinsburg.
Wilkinsburg is going to be interesting. There has been more appreciation overall than one might assume, in part because the areas which have depreciated were already relatively low in 2002 and so on a weighted basis shouldn't subtract too much, and most of the middle and upper-end places have appreciated. We're definitely due for an increase in the Regent Square part, but I don't think it will be quite as much as some people expect.

Edit: Some data points on Wilkinsburg:

2000 Census Median $53,600
2005-09 ACS Median $65,100 (+21%)

Zillow Index July 2002 $52,000
Zillow Index July 2010 $73,000 (+40%)

Last edited by BrianTH; 09-15-2011 at 08:04 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 07:57 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,867,263 times
Reputation: 2827
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
It will be interesting to see what happens with assessments in Swissvale, but I have my doubts that most of Swissvale will see a 25% decrease.
Just a few points of data:

In the 2000 Census, median home value in Swissvale was $54,000. In the 2005-09 ACS data set (also conducted by the Census Bureau), it was $73,600. That is about a 36% increase. The June 2010 Zillow Home Index for Swissvale was $73,000, in June 2002 it was $59,000, which is about a 24% increase.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 08:26 PM
 
4,690 posts, read 2,021,008 times
Reputation: 1571
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
Thanks to all the delays, it looks like the new millage rates are the first thing most people will learn
Stanton Wettick said, piously.

If it works out the way Stan wants it to, we'll all heave a sigh of relief. I'm not quite ready to surrender my happy blanket and nightlite just yet.

PA politicians generally can only agree on a narrow range of issues. One of them is obstruction. Likewise, there are only a few things that can trump a Common Pleas judge, and most of them have already been tried and failed. The one remaining is a statute, just like the one passed for Westmoreland Co.

So far, thanks solely to Mr. Wettick's gritty determination, reassessment has proceeded apace and without hitch. Precedent suggests that if this state of affairs were to continue, it would be remarkable. Time will tell, but I'm not quite in the sanguine camp.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 08:49 PM
 
20,274 posts, read 18,867,263 times
Reputation: 2827
To be clear, I'm not offering any guarantees.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2011, 12:57 AM
 
14,199 posts, read 26,341,715 times
Reputation: 8357
Quote:
Originally Posted by robrobrob View Post
I think California locks in your purchase price as you assessed value. Years ago they passed a measure that made this the law. My friend has a house assessed at 600,000 and his neighbor has an assessement of 25,000 with a larger house.
Actually it is based on the fair market value at the time of transfer... and then may be adjusted up no more than 2% per year without voter approval.

The voters in my area have been very generous... just about any measure on the ballet to override Prop 13 has passed till recently.

Also new construction will increase the base year value.

People buying today are actually seeing lower Prop 13 base values than many that bought 5 or even 10 years ago... this is how much some property has dropped here.... in some areas, it is like 20 years of appreciation vanished.

There are also other laws that kick into place allowing seniors to move or downsize without giving up their base...

This eliminates property tax as justification for seniors not to downsize.
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.


 
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:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 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 > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top