Driscoll challenges reassessment (Wilkinsburg, Dormont, Castle Shannon: sales, 2013, lease)

[squarian]

Lawyer challenges accuracy of Allegheny County reassessment | TribLIVE

Don Driscoll, a lawyer with the nonprofit Community Justice Project, said his request and 74-page independent analysis of the unpopular reassessment asks county officials to lower home values in about half the school districts because the assessment increased the values of low-end homes at a greater rate than their high-end counterparts.

[robrobrob]

Let us know if anyone finds a link to the expert's report.

So, the attorney says we should reduce the assessments in certain areas? I quess he is preceeding on the assumption that these property owners aren't going to appeal or will not be successful in their efforts to appeal.

Frankly, the way I see it we will end up with a more accurate assessment if all parties appeal the assessments that they felt are wrong. This means that School Districts, especially the PPS, has to appeal assessments that are too low. Now, from the rumor mill (at least among school district solicitors) many are told not to appeal any assessment nor are the permitted to attend the hearings.

[squarian]

The PG's version - not that it adds much or anything, but for the sake of completeness.

[BrianTH]

Lovely to see Fitzgerald wading in to defend indefinitely screwing over the County's lower-end homeowners.

[Lobick]

Here's a link to Driscoll's Motion (hope it works):

https://dcr.alleghenycounty.us/Displ...&SeqNumber=160

[squarian]

Among the tons of data in the motion and appendices, this list stands out rather starkly (p. 5 of the motion in link above):

2005 vs 2013 change in value:

Braddock -16.09/+24.1
Rankin 6.37/59.7
Clairton -1.07/+39.3
Duquesne 6.29/30.6
Wilkinsburg -5.08/+24.1
West Elizabeth 7.05/47.03
Heidelburg 13.97/38.3
Castle Shannon 17.13/34.3
Bridgeville 16.18/39.2
Dormont 20.8/49.6

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Originally Posted by squarian

Among the tons of data in the motion and appendices, this list stands out rather starkly (p. 5 of the motion in link above):

2005 vs 2013 change in value:

Braddock -16.09/+24.1
Rankin 6.37/59.7
Clairton -1.07/+39.3
Duquesne 6.29/30.6
Wilkinsburg -5.08/+24.1
West Elizabeth 7.05/47.03
Heidelburg 13.97/38.3
Castle Shannon 17.13/34.3
Bridgeville 16.18/39.2
Dormont 20.8/49.6

Outside of paying more than their "fair share" towards the county, would this even impact these areas? Is the increase in value supportable by data? At lease one of those areas, Wilkinsburg, I can actually believe. When you're talking about smaller dollars, I don't see how just pointing to % increases in values are really wrong.

One would think it would be pretty easy to, by municipality, compare increase in sales price vs increase in assessment over that period. This actually tells you nothing, anyways. I think the error term of % difference from average sales price is what you need to look at. Is this signficantly different for rich areas vs. poor ones? That's how you have to look at this.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

That's how you have to look at this.

No doubt you're right, and the necessary data must be available.

How I look at it is that, if Rankin's prop values really have increased 60% since 2005, I wish I'd bought some property in Rankin.

[robrobrob]

I thought previoulsy we discussed the amount of money that has been invested in some of these areas. At the very least this would have increased the value of property in these areas.

Also, we also are assuming that the values in 2005 were accurate. Perhaps they were low. This fact would affect the increase.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

One would think it would be pretty easy to, by municipality, compare increase in sales price vs increase in assessment over that period.

The report does in fact get into that, and that is where it becomes clear that lower-value properties are systematically being assessed more than higher-value properties relative to recent sales. This in turn does have aggregate effects from poorer to richer school districts, or richer to poorer neighborhoods, and so on, but that is really a byproduct of this consistent underlying bias in the assessments.