[quote=bearishgurl][quote=flu] … Why are there all there all these assessments related to bonds in MM and ChulaV but not in CarmelV?[/quote]
flu, if you check “random” tax bills around the county closely, you will see that these bonds are for construction (or maintenance, in the case of special districts such as fire) which are “Voter Approved.”
The voters in that jurisdiction actually voted them in. Most construction/maintenance bonds usually last for 10+ years.
Aside from voter-approved bonds, if the property is adjacent to RR tracks, the owners will be charged for track maintenance. If the property is in a fire-prone area (ex: Julian and surrounds), the owners will be charged for a contract with fire-retardant helicopters for quick response. If the property is adjacent to a flood plain, the owners will be charged for keeping in shored up and flood-control measures and response. If the property is near drainage canals, the owners will be charged for rat, snake and ‘possum control. If the property is situated in an uninc area and has access to sewer, the owners will be charged for their annual sewer usage (usually $300+) on their tax bill.
And the list goes on. There is no free lunch.
All property owners should pay attn to the local Props on their ballots and determine what they are willing to pay for prior to voting. Unfortunately, renters can vote in (66.7% of vote) school construction bonds by themselves without even a quorum of surrounding property owners and they don’t have to pay them. :=[
So, for illustration purposes, about 1/3 of the voters in a jurisdiction are property owners with school-age children, 1/3 are property owners without school-age children and 1/3 are renters (with or w/o school-age children).
Only the 1% portion of the assessed value portion of the tax bill (minus any $7K HOEX taken by the owner) is the part that is raised 2% per year pursuant to Prop 13.[/quote]
Well here’s the rub then. The notion that folks that live in an MR area pay higher taxes isn’t necessarily true then, is it?
Someone that lives in ChulaV in that area ends up paying slightly more as a percentage of assessed value than folks in MM and more than folks in CarmelV that live in the Del Mar Mesa area, even though those folks have MR… (Those folks have no special bond assessments). And it seems like a lot more of those bond assessments ends up going to things where the owner probably won’t use directly. For example, in ChulaV, a portion went to the community college in that area…Versus in CarmelV, the MR went directly to the DMUSD and SanDieguito grade schools…. So again, it seems like the argument “why would one pay for MR if kids don’t go those grade schools (yet)” would be the same as “why would one pay for bonds to a community college that one has no intention of ever attending”…..
I think the only thing this is proving is that while some areas might not have MR, there sure ways around it that could end up causing owners to pay more. So just because an area doesn’t have MR doesn’t mean your total property tax is necessarily going to be much lower than an area with MR.
