Two-bill plan emerging for reassessments (Pittsburgh: budget, homeowner, estate)

[squarian]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

Can someone enlighten me as to why h_curtis and other hysterical alarmists I've seen ranting and raving on KDKA are proclaiming that the government is going to see a "windfall" when I was under the assumption that the reassessment would still be revenue-neutral to our taxing bodies?

Can't speak for curtis and certainly not for anyone interviewed on silly local radio, but there is a small flaw in the two laws pertaining windfalls - neither provide for any kind of enforcement mechanism whatsoever. The assumption is that the public bodies involved (county councils or commissioners, municipal councils, school boards) will a) know the law and b) abide by it without any supervision. Not the courts, not the local executives, not even the state auditor-general is given the specific charge to monitor local budgets to ensure anti-windfall rules are followed. It's a typically slipshod example of PA Gen Ass lawmaking.

In practice, for the most part local gov't solicitors do inform their clients of the law and local gov'ts attempt in good faith to follow it. There have been exceptions, and in those cases there is virtually nothing anyone can do. No branch of the state government has immediate authority to intervene, and very few private citizens are both sufficiently well informed and sufficiently wealthy to know about the lapse and bring suit against their local government to correct it. Usually, the most that can be done if a local government exceeds the anti-windfall limits is that either an informed citizen or another government body publicly "outs" the offending body in the hope that it will correct its error voluntarily. See the Allegheny County Controller's "Millage Watch Program Report" (which I posted in either this thread or another on prop taxes recently for an example)

If there is hysteria, and if it has a basis in anything other than knee-jerk distrust of government, it derives from this quaint little quirk of the law in this state.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Of course not. I just missed a duplex in Sharpsburg that had two units at $500 a month each and was under $50K asking. Those numbers work.

The chance of an owner occupant will probably be the only way something like that will sell in Squirrel Hill.

$190K in Wilkins? Why would you even look at it?

On Wilkins just down from Murray. Nice area. At the time, probably 2004 there really wasn't a lot on the market that was affordable in Sq. Hill. Looked at half duplexes in the lousy part of Sq. Hill for 160,000. Probably needed about 20 dumped into them to make they livable.

My experience is that duplexes in nice areas dont' work numbers wise. Have you ever found a duplex in Aspinwall that has numbers that work?

[gg]

Originally Posted by squarian

Can't speak for curtis and certainly not for anyone interviewed on silly local radio, but there is a small flaw in the two laws pertaining windfalls - neither provide for any kind of enforcement mechanism whatsoever. The assumption is that the public bodies involved (county councils or commissioners, municipal councils, school boards) will a) know the law and b) abide by it without any supervision. Not the courts, not the local executives, not even the state auditor-general is given the specific charge to monitor local budgets to ensure anti-windfall rules are followed. It's a typically slipshod example of PA Gen Ass lawmaking.

In practice, for the most part local gov't solicitors do inform their clients of the law and local gov'ts attempt in good faith to follow it. There have been exceptions, and in those cases there is virtually nothing anyone can do. No branch of the state government has immediate authority to intervene, and very few private citizens are both sufficiently well informed and sufficiently wealthy to know about the lapse and bring suit against their local government to correct it. Usually, the most that can be done if a local government exceeds the anti-windfall limits is that either an informed citizen or another government body publicly "outs" the offending body in the hope that it will correct its error voluntarily. See the Allegheny County Controller's "Millage Watch Program Report" (which I posted in either this thread or another on prop taxes recently for an example)

If there is hysteria, and if it has a basis in anything other than knee-jerk distrust of government, it derives from this quaint little quirk of the law in this state.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by CaptainPittsburgh

In theory, I'd be inclined to agree, but there is a large instance of completely absurd discrepancies and inconsistencies that I find difficult to reconcile.

It's important to remember though that these types of discrepancies existed in great numbers prior to this re-assessment and were locked-in by the County's refusal to re-assess. Everybody is finding them now since they're looking at their neighbor's assessments in a way they weren't before. I purchased my home in 2007 and despite being challenged by the Pittsburgh SD and winning my assessment appeal, my home was still assessed at a value higher than many of my neighbors who were long-time residents with similar homes. A quick review of my neighborhood (War Streets) last night shows a greater degree of parity in the valuations than existed before, which to my mind is a good result for everyone.

[gg]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

On Wilkins just down from Murray. Nice area. At the time, probably 2004 there really wasn't a lot on the market that was affordable in Sq. Hill. Looked at half duplexes in the lousy part of Sq. Hill for 160,000. Probably needed about 20 dumped into them to make they livable.

My experience is that duplexes in nice areas dont' work numbers wise. Have you ever found a duplex in Aspinwall that has numbers that work?

Correct. Hence the slum lord is created.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by Lobick

While I feel for the people who will be compelled to sell their homes because they have appreciated to the degree that they can't afford their tax bill, it strikes me as the least bad outcome of these infrequent assessments. Chances are they should realize a pretty good gain from the sale.

I have the feeling you don't really. You're saying that so that you avoid seeming like a completely heartless bastard, but you don't genuinely feel anything except whatever satisfaction you derive from your dispassionate argument.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by Lobick

Raising the millage rate to compensate for a cut in federal and state funding in order to preserve popular programs within the County strikes me as a different and largely unrelated issue.

I can see the relative unfairness of singling out our county, although I agree that more is being made of it than is probably worthwhile if that is the primary basis for opposing reassessment. I paired the millage increase with his opposition to the reassessment because I don't believe he wants to maintain any tax competitiveness; if so, council would say fine, reassess, and we'll reduce the millage (does that ever happen, anywhere?) accordingly to maintain proportion. Or at least had the conversation before the recent election.

If Human Services (which I'm sure could fuel a thread on it own) needed increased local funding to achieve matching federal dollars, it could have probably been done with a lower millage rate increase. But why fund it with property taxes in the first place, especially figuring that increased assessment values will yield additional tax revenues in coming years?

The political pushback to the assessment - which as I said earlier seems to be more accurate than the last one - just strikes me as disingenuous, and that local elected officials are ironically trying to exploit it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Lobick

but he claims to be doing so because the surrounding counties are not being compelled to re-assess and Allegheny County is being put at a competitive disadvantage.

In fact, the exact opposite is likely the case--a county with more accurate assessments likely has a competitive advantage.

The truth is that politicians oppose revenue-neutral reassessments because they get more blame from the people whose taxes go up than they get credit from the people whose taxes go down.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by squarian

The assumption is that the public bodies involved (county councils or commissioners, municipal councils, school boards) will a) know the law and b) abide by it without any supervision. Not the courts, not the local executives, not even the state auditor-general is given the specific charge to monitor local budgets to ensure anti-windfall rules are followed. It's a typically slipshod example of PA Gen Ass lawmaking.

I agree in general that there should be a more specific enforcement mechanism (say in the hands of the PDE), but in this case there is in fact a court overseeing the process, with the power to issue orders as necessary. I'm not saying compliance will necessarily be 100% right away, but I suspect the vast majority of jurisdictions will immediately be in compliance, and almost all the stragglers will quickly be brought in line.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by squarian

I have the feeling you don't really. You're saying that so that you avoid seeming like a completely heartless bastard, but you don't genuinely feel anything except whatever satisfaction you derive from your dispassionate argument.

Look, I recall reading your story regarding what you feel the outcome of this reassessment will be for you and your family and I can appreciate that it's an emotional issue for you, but I'm not really sure what I've written or argued that calls for that kind of personal besmirchment.

I don't think advocating a uniform system of valuation that introduces a more equitable form of taxation for all homeowners is heartless, it's unfortunate that you choose to see it that way. In the abstract, you're partially correct, I don't have a ton of sympathy for people who are holding an asset that they can't afford to maintain. My sympathy derives much more from the fact that, due to the County's lack of action, this realization has been foisted upon them all at once rather than being allowed to come to the gradual realization that, given their growing valuation and corresponding tax burden and given their household income, selling their property may be the most rational option.

Despite what you may think, I do honestly hope that your new reassessment will allow you to remain in your home as you obviously have the desire to do so.