City of Pittsburgh reassessment map (Lebanon: sales, loan, house)

[BrianTH]

Similar to what was linked in the Mt Lebanon thread:

The PUB - Pittsburgh Urban Blog



Note that parcels under 50% in increase (or so) are likely due for a tax cut.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Seeing a sea of pink in the area you call home is bitter sweet.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Seeing a sea of pink in the area you call home is bitter sweet.

So is seeing a see of green.

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

My house decreased :3

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Seeing a sea of pink in the area you call home is bitter sweet.

Chris Briem has suggested that all things considered, you should rather own in a dark green area than a pink area.

I tend to agree--an increase in your tax share obviously isn't great viewed in isolation, but in doesn't actually turn higher appreciation of your property assets into a net negative.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Chris Briem has suggested that all things considered, you should rather own in a dark green area than a pink area.

I tend to agree--an increase in your tax share obviously isn't great viewed in isolation, but in doesn't actually turn higher appreciation of your property assets into a net negative.

So for properties within the City of Pittsburgh, assuming anti-windfall is applied city-wide and not by ward (or neighborhood or whatever they call it...), won't general areas that see a lot of assessment appreciation by default need to see sales price decreases?

What I'm thinking is something like this (purely made up numbers that don't reflect anything I've seen in reality):

Original Annual Tax Burden = $5000

Assessed Value increases 200% -> Say from 100k to 300k (let's say the house just sold last month for $300k, so this is very accurate)

Tax Burden at Current Mill Rate = $15000

Mill Rate Decreases by some percentage that partially offsets that 300%, but maybe it reduces your overall tax increase to 100%.

Tax Burden at Anti-Windfall Adjusted Mill Rate = $10000

Would it not follow that the average price in that area would need to decrease by an amount that would cause your average monthly payment to decrease by $416? ($5000 additional annual tax/12 months).

Quick math at 30 year loan and 4% interest tells me the house would no only be worth $213k ($416 a month at 4% for 30 years is worth $87k today).

Am I missing something here? Aren't we in a circular reference spiral here? If you increase the tax burden, property is worth less money as far as sales price goes...assessment goes down...eventually things balance?

[Bong477]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Chris Briem has suggested that all things considered, you should rather own in a dark green area than a pink area.

I tend to agree--an increase in your tax share obviously isn't great viewed in isolation, but in doesn't actually turn higher appreciation of your property assets into a net negative.

That assumes the county assessment actually reflects the real value of the property.

[Bong477]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

So for properties within the City of Pittsburgh, assuming anti-windfall is applied city-wide and not by ward (or neighborhood or whatever they call it...), won't general areas that see a lot of assessment appreciation by default need to see sales price decreases?

What I'm thinking is something like this (purely made up numbers that don't reflect anything I've seen in reality):

Original Annual Tax Burden = $5000

Assessed Value increases 200% -> Say from 100k to 300k (let's say the house just sold last month for $300k, so this is very accurate)

Tax Burden at Current Mill Rate = $15000

Mill Rate Decreases by some percentage that partially offsets that 300%, but maybe it reduces your overall tax increase to 100%.

Tax Burden at Anti-Windfall Adjusted Mill Rate = $10000

Would it not follow that the average price in that area would need to decrease by an amount that would cause your average monthly payment to decrease by $416? ($5000 additional annual tax/12 months).

Quick math at 30 year loan and 4% interest tells me the house would no only be worth $213k ($416 a month at 4% for 30 years is worth $87k today).

Am I missing something here? Aren't we in a circular reference spiral here? If you increase the tax burden, property is worth less money as far as sales price goes...assessment goes down...eventually things balance?

That's not exactly how it works in the real world free market, but I think its very likely that areas which have a large jump in property taxes will see a fall in the property values since those properties are now less desirable to buy as their cost of ownership is now higher.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by Bong477

That's not exactly how it works in the real world free market, but I think its very likely that areas which have a large jump in property taxes will see a fall in the property values since those properties are now less desirable to buy as their cost of ownership is now higher.

Yeah I know that any affect will likely be dampened, I guess I was just doing a back of the envelope calculation to illustrate a point. The same house at a higher tax burden will have to sell at a lower price than it would with a lower tax burden. And this in turn might cause issues with people whose homes sold especially in the few years before and few years after the new tax amounts begin to become public.