You can look at the previous posts, where I've provided links to property records of homes in teardown neighborhoods. You've seen that as the lot values increase, the structure values rapidly and dramatically decrease, yielding a near flat value when normal citywide appreciation of property is taken into account.
Further, I took a sampling of the first 10 original houses on Santa Barbara, starting at 4007, and contrasted them with the first 10 houses on my street, Haverford, here in University Terrace, and the first 10 homes on Westbrook in Dalewood, an area protected by an NSO. The result was as follows:
The homes on Santa Barbara, with an average age of 36 years, mostly built in 1971, have a value of $163.19 per sq. ft.
The homes on Haverford, with an average age of 50 years, mostly built in 1957, have a value of $144.37 per sq. ft.
The homes on Westbrook, with an average age of 58 years, mostly built in 1954, have a value of $156.75 per sq. ft.
Considering the 14 to 22 additional years of normal depreciation for the homes on Haverford and Westbrook, that's a provable, negligible difference in the tax record market value for these homes. You may take other sampling groups and find slight variations, but I think these are generally accurate numbers.
But what you see in every case, in every home that you look at, is that once the builders move in, the value shifts from the structure to the lot. Your home doesn't appreciate any faster. You're not going to get a fat check from the builder. You're going to get market value for your home.
What will affect your home the most is it's Condition, and if you live in a teardown nieghborhood, and you've lost your incentive to improve your structure because your only value is in the lot, then your home will slide from Good to Average to Fair to Poor, and along with it, so goes your total value.
Look at the Dallas Central Appraisal District records and pick homes listed Fair and Poor condition and contrast them with homes in Good condition. The price per square foot is startlingly different.
This is legislative tax value and not market value. Why don't you talk about market price per foot.
ReplyDeleteDijea - since you're a realtor, why don't you provide that data for us?
ReplyDeleteWe all know the game thats played with taxable values and how they differ from market values, but as the Appraisal District likes their tax money, taxable value of residential real estate more closely follows actual market value than, say, commercial real estate. So, while a house that is currently listed for sale at $289,500 in our neighborhood, if it hasn't changed hands for several years, it might have a taxable value of somewhere around $200,000. But I guarantee you this; if that house sells for $289,500, the new owners will pay taxes based on that resale value. That is why the taxable value of many of the houses in UT reflect higher Market Value than others, because they recently changed hands. So, you CAN look at the data and gather information from it.
But the main reason I use DCAD data is because the real estate industry that you serve keeps the actual sales data hidden from the public. We don't get to see sale price information, and each legislative session your industry lobbies hard to keep it that way.
I do have a couple of questions for you:
1. Where's the data that proves that the NSO is going to wreck our property values? There are several NSO neighborhoods in Dallas, some more than a few years old. So, there is plenty of recent sales data available for those neighborhoods. And all you folks on the Opposition side do work in real estate. So why don't you prove what you're saying with some hard data?
2. Where have you folks been the last 18 months? Why did you folks wait until such a late date to start your Opposition campaign? You like to claim that you weren't allowed to participate in the process and that this whole thing is being ramroded by "a minority". But did any of you ask for equal time to speak at the neighborhood meetings? No. You didn't. You have waited until the last minute here to start this blog and to post a few yard signs and claim that you were shut out of the process. It's a false argument and most everybody sees right through it.
Yes our asked to speak - and your group told us this was not the forum.
ReplyDeleteAnd it didn't occur to anyone in your group in the last year and a half to find your own public venue - rec center, school auditorium, etc. - post some yard signs, hand out some flyers to get your neighbors to come and listen to your side of it?
ReplyDeleteI believe that if you had, you would have found that the city administrators who showed up for the NSO meetings would have been just as willing to come to your meeting and explain what an NSO was and what it wasn't. And I know you could have got builders to come and tell their side of the story. That's a given, eh?
So, why didn't you?
Anonymous - I know you're waiting for your comments to show up. Please read the header info for this blog. We choose to restrict comments to our neighbors who identify themselves.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous comments and comments made under pseudonyms aren't appropriate in this kind of a neighborhood forum. You either own your comments or you don't. I've made an exception for Dijea because she appears to be the person running the Against blog, although it wouldn't hurt if she let us all know who she is.
If Dijea asked to speak at the NSO meetings and was turned away or told to find her "own venue," I am concerned and disappointed. That said, I attended one of the early meetings, and I remember there were folks on both sides of the issue who spoke. There was a builder on the agenda who was clearly not in favor of NSO's. However, he allowed that he could work with them. There were a number of pointed questions from audience members who were concerned and said so. I thought the whole meeting was fairly open and in line with what I think the NSO process is supposed to be.
ReplyDeletePete Dickson