Clatsop County is in fundraising mode.
This week the Assessment and Taxation Department is doing it's part by launching an unusual door-to-door campaign to figure out how much the county could tax you if the moves Democrats are making toward taxing real market value come to fruition.
Right now your property taxes are figured based on assessed value not real market value. Limitation measures prevent increases of more than 3% annually but if the base figure changes that 3% could be a significantly higher number for you. The County points out in a news release this week that because of budget limitations the A&T department since the 1990's has been figuring real property values based on a few site inspections but generally pegged the price of homes in a particular neighborhood on how much a house would sell for in that neighborhood.
That system, they say, isn't very accurate because houses sitting on properties next to each other can be of widely varied quality. To get a more accurate picture a house by house assessment becomes necessary. The problem with this, of course, is that a property is only worth what a buyer will pay not what an expert estimates it's value might be in a free market with optimum conditions. In other words, the assessment system for real market value is flawed from the very start.
It is important to note that you are not required by law to allow access to your property. You are not required to grant access to the inside of your home or any other building on your property. That does not mean an assessment won't take place but it does mean the inspector will have to do it from the nearest public right of way if you ask them to leave your property.
You can expect to hear a lot of support for this return to on site assessments from the usual suspects who would love to see an overall increase in taxable value. They will say that it makes sense to know exactly what your property is worth and it is possible your real property valuation could drop. That doesn't mean you'll pay less tax because the county automatically increases property taxes 3% each year on the assessed value and this little exercise is aimed at real market which (up to this point) have been two separate things. If the tax and spend crowd gets their way Clatsop County will be at the forefront of places in Oregon no one but the rich can afford. For many we are there already.
I think Measure 5 Said "No more than 3% a year" With interest a 0%, 3% is a good return in America right now and they should be happy with 3% as you can not get that in a savings account right now!
ReplyDeleteTom: It's very discouraging to see your home valuation (real market value) continue to spin downwards yet government is able to add 3% each year to last years tax bill. I know of no assessment (unless challenged) that has ever been lowered during any crisis. This indicates to me the governments continue to receive more and more from this funding source. They never discuss lowering them to become balance with the real world. This could be an excellent discussion you could have with the state and local accessors offices. I would like to hear them stutter and stammer over those questions.
ReplyDeleteAs we continue to struggle with jobs, rising costs governments just continue to spend more, write more and more stupid laws that either tax us to death or regulate businesses to death and impose more and more road blocks to independence.
So, you voiced "The Complaint" Freel....What's your solution to the benefit of all the Clatsop County property owners?
ReplyDeleteYou have one to help us shape our thinking or are you just content with the complaint?
Don't we all strive to improve and appreciate the value of our properties?
Takes more money to support bigger government! In this economic downturn what layoffs have we seen at the county? Keep those benefits comin' for one of the biggest employers in the county, at our expense of course! Who's idea was this?
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the county commission does not support our the state forest plan, what else can we expect from these inexperienced disconnected electeds! I think one of them is a real estate agent.
ReplyDeleteTom, my concern is there appears to be a lack of balance and support in terms of supporting jobs and job creation and taxing county residents for their property. I was very dissappointed in the lack of support for the state forest plan for example, that is a clear revenue source for the county, and for many businesses and families. Fortunately many others are decisionmakers on that issue from other communities, but local support would have meant alot to those of us supported by timber dollars.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteTakes more money to support bigger government! In this economic downturn what layoffs have we seen at the county? Keep those benefits comin' for one of the biggest employers in the county, at our expense of course! Who's idea was this?"
The framers of the U.S. and Oregon Constitution perhaps?
As a matter of fact, to my understanding, Article 1 - Section 8 was added to the U.S. Constitution even before The Bill of Rights, including Freel's new friends pet Amendment 10, to make sure the nation could tap all its citizens, as necessary, to assure funds for paying our debts and funding its operation.
Again the question, relevant to this discussion regarding the taxation and method of property assessment....How do you propose to change it Freel, you just compounded the complaint in your musings Monday morning.
Of course this will likely never see the light of day but, the Constitutional exerpts are valid to the discussion.
U.S. Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
U.S. Constitution - 10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Oregon Constitution - Article 9 - Section 1
Assessment and taxation; uniform rules; uniformity of operation of laws. The Legislative Assembly shall, and the people through the initiative may, provide by law uniform rules of assessment and taxation. All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws operating uniformly throughout the State. [Constitution of 1859; Amendment proposed by H.J.R. 16, 1917, and adopted by the people June 4, 1917]
Local and state governments need revenues to provide necessary and beneficial services. However, taxing real property at real market value (RMV) is not the way to go.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that, rather than the cumbersome and inequitable system created by Measure 50, wherein assessed value (AV) is the lesser of RMV or maximum assessed value (MAV), that the freakish concept of MAV be eliminated.
Unlike the current fiasco of property taxation, the assessed value of newly constructed property and newly purchased property should equal RMV. Assessed value increases would still be limited to three percent per year. If RMV falls below AV, then AV is reset to RMV.
Example 1: House A, with a MAV of $450,000, is purchased for $500,000. Under Measure 50, the new AV equals $450,000 (lesser of RMV and MAV). Eliminating the concept of MAV, the initial assessed value would be $500,000 or market value.
Example 2: House B, with a MAV of $200,000, is purchased for $500,000. Under Measure 50, the new AV equals $200,000 (lesser of RMV and MAV), and the buyer reaps an unfair benefit over the purchaser of House A. Eliminating the concept of MAV, the AV would be $500,000, and the initial assessed values of equally valued Houses A and B are the same and equal to market value.
Example 3: House C, with a RMV of $500,000, is constructed. The tax assessor undertakes a convoluted MAV valuation process that results in a MAV of $400,000. Under Measure 50, the new AV equals $400,000 (lesser of RMV and MAV), and the owner reaps an unfair benefit over the purchaser of House A. Eliminating the concept of MAV, AV would be $500,000, and the initial assessed values of equally valued Houses A, B and C are the same and equal to market value.
This kind of taxing scares the hell out of me, and was exactly what I was trying to avoid.
ReplyDeleteI inherited my parents' fairly modest Long Island waterfront house in Connecticut in 1990, and the taxes were $1200 a year. In the mid- to late-1990s, the town decided to tax its citizens by the waterfront foot. My house was on a narrow peninsula. My taxes went from $1200 to $9000 a year. Who the hell can afford that??? At the time it sold, the taxes were about to rise to to $12,000 a year.
Essentially, I was forced to sell because of the property taxes. Even tho I was earning rent, between the annual repairs and the taxes, I was actually losing money. It killed me to sell it, as it had been in the family for 3 generations, and I had hoped to retire there.
Now my old town, formerly a lobstering, oystering and fishing village, is owned by New Yorkers who have money to burn, and it's an East Coast Beverly Hills full of tacky McMansions.
I know that if this over-taxing scheme passes, sooner or later the current homeowners in Astoria will be forced to sell, at a loss, most likely, and only those who can easily afford the property tax burden will be able to live here.
Astoria will become an exclusive little enclave like Malibu. Is that really what everyone wants?