🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article tylerh@alumni.caltech.edu (Tyler R. Holcomb) writes:
>
<Let's be clear.  Prop 13 (using purchase price for tax assessment )
>is a benefit *only* to owners who have experienced an unrealized
<captial gain - that is, those for whom forces "out of control" have 
>have raised their property values and directly
<enriched the owner.

A small correction.  Prop 13 does not say "use purchase price for tax
assessment".  It says to use the "market value" at the time of purchase.
I believe the distinction is to prevent certain types of fraud in which
houses are sold between friends or relatives for the purpose of reducing
the tax assessment.

The notion, has been exploited by the assessors to increase the amount
of tax collected.  It is now a common practice for a new purchase to be
assessed a small percentage above the selling price.  Big enough to make
a difference to the assessor, but small enough so that a typical home
owner will not bother to file an appeal. 

My house is an exception to this.  I have bought my Pasadena home for
350K after it has been languishing on the market for 5 months; however,
the assessment came to 675K.  The assessor looked at the prices of a few
houses sold in the near by up-scale neighborhood and concluded that my
house should have a "market value" of 675K.  I must now go through a slow
and long process of filing an appeal to have my assessment reduced.

It appears that assessors are still in the habit to jack up the assessment
at every opportunity.  I am afraid to think what will happen if prop 13
is not in effect.  It may be flawed, but it is necessary, unless someone
has a better idea.  I propose that we pass a law such that the state must
be willing to buy from the property owner the assessed property at the
assessed price minus a commission.