[quote=flu]VAB’s are assessed as a percentage of assessed value, not as a fixed rate. So in your quoted example, $255 is NOT going to be the assessed value for a SFH… Those charges consistently the same percentage of assessed value. Afterall, they aren’t fixed charge…..Right????[/quote]
Right. The VAB’s are an ad valorem tax. HOWEVER, I believe there may be a ceiling on these VAB’s as it would seem to be unconscionable to tax a property owner of a multimillion-dollar property at an ad-valorem rate for voter-approved bonds.
This bears further research and I am very curious about this so will get to it ASAP.
[quote=flu]I’m making this argument in response to a few arguments before in which some folks said why would one want to live in north county where it predominately has MR, when they can live in the parts of the county (insert your favorite non-north county/older city) that has no MR…What wasn’t apparent to me is those parts of the county have VAB’s where my part of the county doesn’t. So it’s a near wash in terms of taxes paid for the prices of homes that I live in now..And if I ever live in a 2+million mcmansion, it actually works out better if the property is in CarmelV versus ChulaV or MM (if you just consider the property taxes alone, assuming you could even find a home worth 2+million in ChulaV or MM) because the VAB on a 2+million assessed home in ChulaV or MM would end up being more than the fixed MR in CarmelV and CarmelV would have no VAB.[/quote]
A few things, here, flu. No one here is touting metro over north county or south county over east county. MR is everywhere! And North County doesn’t isn’t predominately MR-encumbered. Only the planned communities in lizardland are MR encumbered. And CV (92130) could have VAB’s in the future. What is the ratio of rental units to owner occupied units in CV? Could tenants possibly be instrumental in voting in bond issues in CV in the future, to the detriment of owners? It’s not like an individual property owner has any control over this. If ever voted in, these VAB’s would be on top of your MR. And I don’t buy your argument that a property currently assessed at $2M in CV would have VAB’s on its tax bill which would exceed your MR, which you say is “fixed” in your CFD(s).
This warrants further research. Thanks for starting this interesting thread, flu.
And btw, there are several homes in 91910 (ChulaV) likely assessed at $2M (possibly a dozen). And another dozen (at least) which are assessed much lower (or even protected under the Mills Act or Prop 13) but would appraise today for $2M :=]
Not sure about the other four ChulaV zip codes but would guess 0-3 in 91911, 0 in 91913, 8 in 91914 and 0 in 91915. And not sure MM would have $2M properties (ask AN) but would have to say no. MM is entirely on tract.
