07-20-2009, 12:25 PM
quote:The only fair thing is to establish a valuation based on recent sales (a rolling six month period). If sale prices are high, you pay high taxes, if values drop, taxes drop. But, that also means if people want a 3% cap on tax increases, they equally accept a cap of only 3% on any decrease. This way foreclosures, short sales etc will be counted to reduce taxes as well as investors running up prices will be counted towards increases.
Originally posted by Wao nahele kane
The only thing that is ticking me off is when the Hawaii assessor drove all the assessed vacant lot values up to the trumped up predatory lending values of 2007. I’m sure they did this to folks who bought homes during that time also (to whom I feel for deeply what they have to deal with today). They (the assessors) then kicked back and ignored the obvious fall back to normal values and claimed not enough comps by virtue of very few sales in 2008. That's the thing that is torking my butt.
It's funny how many people were complaining when they went to buy and the appraised values came in lower than what they were wanting in a mortgage. So if the appraised value is close to what they paid, why should it be less than what they paid for it?