texAZtea said:
Looks like I found the old man from my story! If you notice, I made no statement passing judgement either way.
The ROO would benefit me, as a non-student with a family currently looking for a place to rent because I can't beat the cash offers above asking price sight unseen coming out of left field these days. Having neighborhoods where I'm not competing with students for a lease would be nice.
LOL...yeah, I did notice...no worries. I'm not especially bothered by most of it but there are some larger issues beyond what is typically discussed.
It's a situation where I can see both sides, honestly. As a business owner, I get the city wanting to maximize revenue and an investor wanting to make money from an asset. As a taxpayer, a lot of what you deal with in this scenario is frustrating.
I left off the one that becomes a real interesting discussion. It's both good and bad for non-students and is the reason Bryan is pushing so hard to keep the higher number for unrelated residents -- property taxes.
Every time someone buys a house and tears it down to build multiple in it's place (as many of these investors are doing), the purchase price is listed at the central appraisal district (CAD) as the LAND purchase price, inflating property taxes all around the college houses.
That's great for city income and, by extension, for residents using city services. It CAN be good for resale value or it can put the value of an existing house beyond what the neighborhood can actually get from anyone other than an investor looking to do the same thing.
At that point, the taxpayers that have supported Bryan can get stuck without the ability to sell it to anyone other than one of these investors because of the increased "value" and now has to pay a good deal more in taxes because of the inflated land values, something like the CAD states flatly are not open for protestation.