The Mediocre TITLE FAIRY thread :: Change my title, please.

jay125 wrote in post #19511020
Now I need to prepare for my meet with the Assessor. I hear he can scale buildings in no time at all.

Good luck we're all counting on you.

Chet wrote in post #19511024
Good luck we're all counting on you.

Interesting meeting. He came, he saw, we chatted. This is all the result of a massive 400 sales out of 25,000 properties last year which triggered the city-wide increase in home values. He inspected my home, I asked some questions which he sort of evaded as I will need to meet with the board in May to discuss my concerns. They will have the new appraisal, performed today, so with some luck and common sense, my homes value should be returned to something more normal. Now...again...I sit and wait. I can wait. What astonishes me is that of 25,000 properties, only 400 sold, which affected the value of the remaining 24,600 homes. How does that even happen???

jay125 wrote in post #19511169
Interesting meeting. He came, he saw, we chatted. This is all the result of a massive 400 sales out of 25,000 properties last year which triggered the city-wide increase in home values. He inspected my home, I asked some questions which he sort of evaded as I will need to meet with the board in May to discuss my concerns. They will have the new appraisal, performed today, so with some luck and common sense, my homes value should be returned to something more normal. Now...again...I sit and wait. I can wait. What astonishes me is that of 25,000 properties, only 400 sold, which affected the value of the remaining 24,600 homes. How does that even happen???

They are using the 400 sold homes to set the value for the 24,400 unsold homes. It makes sense, how else can you judge fair market value other than looking at what has actually sold?

gjl711 wrote in post #19511176
They are using the 400 sold homes to set the value for the 24,400 unsold homes. It makes sense, how else can you judge fair market value other than looking at what has actually sold?

I get your point, but the method might still be flawed. What if those 400 sold because they were, uh, more salable than average? They were closer to downtown or farther from downtown, or they were bigger or had nicer yards or were close to schools or had recently been renovated . . .

OhLook wrote in post #19511194
I get your point, but the method might still be flawed. What if those 400 sold because they were, uh, more salable than average? They were closer to downtown or farther from downtown, or they were bigger or had nicer yards or were close to schools or had recently been renovated . . .

That's why you find 2 or 3 comps that are close in both style/size and location. There really is no other way to do an assessment when the market fluctuates all the time other than guess. 400 houses in a year is actually a large sample size to choose from. All you need is 2 ~4 good comps.

It's good to know they consider home size and so forth. Still, something must have gone wrong with the calculation for Jay's house. Then there's the question of what should happen when home prices rise faster than incomes. Proposition 13 in California keeps people from being punished for that.

I did have my comps, but he wasn't interested in them. I'm to save those for the Board meeting. Of the 400 homes that sold, many were in the $100,000 to $300,000 dollar range, or new construction. In a town where a lot of the homes are 100 + years old and have 2 or 3 bedrooms on a half lot or single lot vs a $250,000 home with 5 bedrooms, 3 baths and a three car garage on a huge lot, the scales were tilted. The guy from the assessors office admitted that himself, and did say this will turn around, but the state dictates how the calculations are done. He did mention that of the assessed value, they only expect them to sell for maybe 60% to 70% of the assessed value, but that doesn't help us with the accompanying tax increase. The other issue he said they experienced were battles for properties, so if a house was valued at $100,000, it was actually selling for $125,000 to $150,000 dollars due to the demand for housing purchases in our town. This surprises me, but this is also all new to me too.

OhLook wrote in post #19511215
It's good to know they consider home size and so forth. Still, something must have gone wrong with the calculation for Jay's house. Then there's the question of what should happen when home prices rise faster than incomes. Proposition 13 in California keeps people from being punished for that.

I did ask about the calculation for my house compared to my comps, where larger homes in my area were valued, historically, below my home. The increase was supposedly 30%, which I did find in my neighborhood, both next door and a few across the street, but mine was close to 70%, for the second time. The assessor told me I needed to address this to the Board when we meet. I will admit my home is nice, but comparatively it's as nice as larger homes valued lower than mine. The taxes concern me too, but I just want to know how it's fair that my house has now been increased in value at almost twice the rate as the other homes. I do remember Prop 13, and wish we had that protection here.

He did have a nice camera for the photos though, I will give him credit for that. Probably purchased with my taxes, though.

How is it possible that a 747 can hold 63,500 gallons of fuel???

This is an 8,000 gallon fuel tanker.

A 747 be one big beast.

Chet wrote in post #19511462
How is it possible that a 747 can hold 63,500 gallons of fuel???

This is an 8,000 gallon fuel tanker.

Hosted photo: posted by Chet in
./showthread.php?p=195​11462&i=i11381264
forum: The Lounge

At 6.8lbs/gallon of jet fuel that's 429,045 lbs. of fuel. But it's cargo capacity is 248,000 lb. Just mind boggling.

Checking Google, a 747 burns 1 gallon (4 liters) of fuel per second. That's insane. Why they don't switch them all to the flux capacitor system is beyond me.

Unless I'm mistaken, doing the math that tanker will provide enough fuel for 2 hours and 13 minutes of flight.

Twitter suspension no.? I can't even remember anymore.

Your suspended again?

jay125 wrote in post #19511990
Your suspended again?

I tried suspended once. I didn't like the way they held up my pants. Felt funny.

After what seems like an eternity now, I have either recovered or managed to change the passwords to all my sites I frequented before "the illness" took over. I'm back into everything, and wondering why I was even in a few of them, but there they are. I've created a fail-safe program to manage them so this never happens again, although I'm told it won't, but never say never

It's good to be me!