AgLA06 said:
Dr. Venkman said:
I've been doing my own protests for 16 years now and if you're going into the formal hearing with only "comps" as your evidence, you'll lose. From the board's perspective, it's like being your own witness against a traffic ticket for rolling a stop sign. If your only defense is "I didn't do it", you'll lose. Yes, I understand "comps" are evidence, but the point is you are completely biased because the selected comps lower your personal taxes vs. the appraiser's comps don't affect him one bit. He may be biased, but you're 100x more.
Look at their evidence pack before you go and do research on each of their comparable properties. Look for anything that can justify a different adjustment than they used. Better location, nicer curbs appeal, etc. Take pictures of your ****ty house vs. the comparables.
But in the end, you'll lose in the formal 9 times out of 10. A homeowner with a vested interest in the outcome vs. a somewhat unbiased professional appraiser. Again, it's like a driver being his own witness vs. the cop that wrote you the ticket. Unless you get a sympathetic jury, you're going to lose. If the DA gives you any sort of deal before the trial, take it.
If they have to change the comp value to be different that what they literally taxed that comp, it's more subjective and biased than a homeowner submitting the tax accessors factual numbers.
They're job is to secure the most tax base. There's nothing unbiased about it. I've literally had them tell me there was specific requirements or percentages they couldn't agree to even though my data supported it. It's borderline corruption.
Sale comps and their own taxed comps are the only unbiased things that can be submitted. Them then adjusting their own value or a known sales value is subjective and rigging the game.
THIS! There is no better data than sales data, and they have almost all of the sales data. The fact that they aren't using it is infuriating because it's the best option for the vast majority of residential properties.
This arguing over whose house does or doesn't have a new roof or a new A/C or a remodel is garbage for TAX assessment purposes. The house with the most expensive remodel on the block could sit on the market for months and sell at a loss because the owners did something stupid like put in red lacquered kitchen cabinets and black toilets.
The only things about condition that should significantly affect the tax value is if the home is unsellable and/or uninhabitable (ie, major structural repairs).
Tax assessments shouldn't be about getting "maximum market value" for every property every year. They should reflect the average of all sales comps in a particular area, and comps should be grouped by square footage and pool/no pool. If someone does an extensive remodel, it will work itself out when the property sells and is reassessed based on the most recent sales price.
Will this mean some people's values are a little high and some too low? Sure it will, but this current situation of protesting grossly overinflated "mystery" values year over year is a waste of time and money. No homeowner should have to argue that their value is $30k too high because they need a new roof when the sales comps clearly show the value is $50k to high.
I think that's the point the guy on the previous page was trying to make about the economy of scale principle. Sure, that's a basic fundamental concept that usually applies to the cost of building something. But it doesn't continue to have the same effect 5, 10, or 20 years after a property is built, nor does it necessarily apply to resales.
Smaller houses really don't sell for a premium in my neighborhood because the demand is overwhelmingly for 3000+ sq ft McMansions. For years my $/sq ft was less that than of larger homes one cul de sac over because it's a smaller patio home among a development of family homes, and the smaller homes weren't selling as well. That's a trend specific to my market that would be reflected in prices of sales comps, not some arbitrary "adjustment". The trend has changed somewhat recently (values are more equal), but that's more a function of crazy low inventory causing sales prices to be higher across the board.
IMO, there is no reason to even routinely use human appraisers for tax assessments. Let a computer calculate it based on sales data specific criteria (ie, neighborhood and sq footage). Assuming the input is correct, there is no need for a human to make any "adjustments".
