Not based on the appraised value like the rest of us?
maroon barchetta said:
Not based on the appraised value like the rest of us?
maroon barchetta said:
We are not interested in what everybody else does.
We are interested in cities that provide services in a reliable and cost efficient manner.
I'm not sure this qualifies.
Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
dubi said:Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
dubi said:Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
JP76 said:dubi said:Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
140 to 440 over what timeframe ?
Southgate property ?
dubi said:Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
But these properties still come off the tax rolls once the city owns them, correct?
Taxes are paid but capped based on affordability for the qualifying household.
Where is the concern that we have current COCS homeowners that are being taxed out of their houses?
When your $140k house becomes a $440k house it is an issue.
Quote:
140 to 440 over what timeframe ?
Southgate property ?
Brazoscad.Quote:
I don't know where those numbers are coming from.
Bob Yancy said:maroon barchetta said:
We are not interested in what everybody else does.
We are interested in cities that provide services in a reliable and cost efficient manner.
I'm not sure this qualifies.
If that's your actual goal, the best thing you could do from a strategic perspective is check your city's tax rate, your city's debt load and your city's employees per capita- then compare those statistics to cities of comparable size in your state. That would give you a quick snapshot and go a long way toward answering your concerns.
Respectfully,
-yancy
might want to check that cheap money part.JP76 said:
Just a perfect storm of low supply, high demand, cheap money and run away inflation.
Bob Yancy said:
there's very little city hall can do but tinker at the margins of the problem
Bob Yancy said:
No easy solution.
Bob Yancy said:
If we had more land in the city limits it would help. Scarcity of supply in the face of increasing demand yields higher prices every time. That's what's happening, but I know y'all know that.
The tree locations were fine, but someone must have been on drugs to specify Bald Cypress trees down the middle of University Drive. That's probably the worst tree to plant there. I would have planted a Crape Myrtle variety that grows to about 12 to 20 feet and they would have done well with minimum of care.Hornbeck said:EliteElectric said:That diemaroon barchetta said:
Trees. Lots of trees in green spaces by roads
Because they did not plan for watering them. Rec and Parks guy was pulling the strings. Yeah, dude, trees grow in jolly old England because it constantly rains. Any competent Forestry professional would have told you otherwise, but that guy was not in the discussions and plans. Only pompous rec and parks guy who has parks named after him. So, complete waste of money.
I agree with all you stated, but a question and a comment.Craig Regan 14 said:
*** Maroon I am not directing my comments toward you but just writ-large
Aside from City Hall and the fall from that I think it is important to ID a couple of things REF Southgate
1.) They already built student housing there and the project went bust and everyone lost their money. CCC junk bond lost their money
2.) No one is gonna sell. The city cannot and should not force anyone to sell anything they do not want nor should it be in the business of trying to force them out which is what I am starting to sense. It is their home. Period end of story.
3.) The market has already spoken LOUD and CLEAR - just take one look at the sky line of Northgate and imagine you have money to invest. It would stupid bordering on insane to try and build anywhere else but all the beds going into that area. All the density points toward NG.
4.) What everyone misses about South gate is the infrastructure there is some of the oldest in the city. Developers would have to ripe it out and and lay down fresh water, waster water etc. Also the tie in's in that area would have to be expanded. Who does that fall on? The city, taxpayers... YOU!
And all for a "hope so" and "fingers crossed".
If we are going to make policy that says council cannot buy/build without meeting a set of criteria, one of those is clearly short/long term cost. The numbers simple do not add up.
Some folks need to keep their nose outta peoples private choices and accept the fact that no one in that area is interested in turning it into Northgate-South.
It is also a historical district regarded by the state. So any changes to that area would be so crazy it is not even worth it.
***Edit: wishful thinking and hoping is not solid policy and taxpayers and citizens deserve as much. "We hope it will turn into this" - "we think it will turn into that" is how we bought a mall and shoveled millions into RP ballparks.
See article: point 1woodiewood said:I agree with all you stated, but a question and a comment.Craig Regan 14 said:
*** Maroon I am not directing my comments toward you but just writ-large
Aside from City Hall and the fall from that I think it is important to ID a couple of things REF Southgate
1.) They already built student housing there and the project went bust and everyone lost their money. CCC junk bond lost their money
2.) No one is gonna sell. The city cannot and should not force anyone to sell anything they do not want nor should it be in the business of trying to force them out which is what I am starting to sense. It is their home. Period end of story.
3.) The market has already spoken LOUD and CLEAR - just take one look at the sky line of Northgate and imagine you have money to invest. It would stupid bordering on insane to try and build anywhere else but all the beds going into that area. All the density points toward NG.
4.) What everyone misses about South gate is the infrastructure there is some of the oldest in the city. Developers would have to ripe it out and and lay down fresh water, waster water etc. Also the tie in's in that area would have to be expanded. Who does that fall on? The city, taxpayers... YOU!
And all for a "hope so" and "fingers crossed".
If we are going to make policy that says council cannot buy/build without meeting a set of criteria, one of those is clearly short/long term cost. The numbers simple do not add up.
Some folks need to keep their nose outta peoples private choices and accept the fact that no one in that area is interested in turning it into Northgate-South.
It is also a historical district regarded by the state. So any changes to that area would be so crazy it is not even worth it.
***Edit: wishful thinking and hoping is not solid policy and taxpayers and citizens deserve as much. "We hope it will turn into this" - "we think it will turn into that" is how we bought a mall and shoveled millions into RP ballparks.
Where in Southgate was there a student housing complex that went bust? I live there and never was aware of that.
Also, the Southgate area is not an Historical District and there is no designation by the State of Texas or through the National Historical District as designation by the National Park Service. At some time in the past, the city at the request of a few homeowners label it as an historical area as identified on many of the street signs but it is no official designated area.
Craig Regan 14 said:
So my point was directed at the fact that NG is going to be the "downtown" of BCS. Park West didn't just miss "one payment". I invite you to read other articles on the subject.
Southgate owners do not want it to turn into NG. That pretty much closes the book.
If owners are refusing to sell or deed restrictions (both?) do not allow them to sell for certain reasons or causes, then that is it. I am seeing some people mentioning that COCS needs to force it to become more dense to solve our housing issues, or what have you but that the same time saying we need "smaller GOV in our lives".
Cannot have it both ways.
And besides, every city has a historic district… even Bryan. People spent millions restoring older homes and the city could be better for it.
Not everything needs to be a parking lot or 29 story student housing.