So how much is your property tax in terms of %?

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]I’m basically disputing the notion that areas with MR always have higher taxes (as percentage of assessed value) to other older areas without MR.
Not necessarily the case.

AN, the MR in CarmelV, about $1850 goes to schools.
The rest is peanuts. This isn’t that much different from areas with special bond assessments to schools, except that in this case the MR is goind directly to the grade schools in the district (not necessarily remote schools or community colleges,etc)….[/quote]
I agree with your argument. I did state why I think CV MR is not that big of a deal. It’s not special to CV. I think for areas that have mostly built out infrastructure, the MR shouldn’t be that big of a deal. It’s only brand new areas like San Elijo, Del Sur, 4S, etc that it can get crazy. The reason CV doesn’t have bond for community colleges because it’s a tiny area and there probably won’t ever be a CC that gets built there. Just look at San Elijo Hills. Since it’s part of San Marcos, although it’s new and have MR, it has to pay the bond for PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M.[/quote]

I got to go with what AN is saying,

Same crazy difference in Tax/MR that exists in TV can be seen in San Marco’s as well.
One tract built Maybe only 5 years before the one next to it (homes look almost the same, not much difference in construction)
The older one built in 2000 will have an MR of say about 1K a year, the one built in 2005 in some cases over 6K a year.
You have to watch your MR in the newer area’s (well unless money is no object).

[bearishgurl]

flu, these “fixed charge assessments” (FCA’s) are charged to every parcel in the county. For the MM condo, they are $30.36 per yr. For a typical SFR assessed at about $300K, they are about $40 to $43 per yr.

FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 3.00
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86

The “Voter-Approved Bonds” (VAB’s) on the MM condo come to only $225.12 per yr.

VOTER APPROVED BONDS:
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 1999A NET 0.00809 16.15
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2000B NET 0.00614 12.26
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2001C NET 0.00766 15.29
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2002D NET 0.00985 19.66
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2003E NET 0.01420 28.35
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO SERIES 1998F REFUNDING NET 0.00312 6.23
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO SERIES 1998G REFUNDING NET 0.00429 8.56
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2006 SERIES F-1 REFUNDING NET 0.00430 8.58
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2005 SERIES G-1 REFUNDING NET 0.00353 7.04
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2009A NET 0.00099 1.97
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2009B NET 0.00453 9.04
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2010C NET 0.00000 0.00
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, 2010D QSCB NET 0.00000 0.00
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2003A NET 0.00117 2.33
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2003B NET 0.01033 20.62
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP N 11/07/06, SERIES 2006A NET 0.00944 18.84
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2009C NET 0.00397 7.92
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SER 2011 REF NET 0.00089 1.77
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP N 11/07/06, SERIES 2011 NET 0.00679 13.55
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2011 NET 0.00481 9.60
SAN DIEGO CITY OPEN SPACE FACILITY DIST NO. 1 D/S NET 0.00000 0.00
SAN DIEGO CITY ZOOLOGICAL EXHIBITS – DEBT SERVICE NET 0.00500 9.98
SAN DIEGO CITY PUBLIC SAFETY COMM SYS – DEBT SERV NET 0.00000 0.00
MWD D/S REMAINDER OF SDCWA 15019999 NET 0.00370 7.38

The total of FCA’s and VAB’s is $255.48. Since the condo is only assessed at ~$200K, that is 13% of the base tax. But on a typical MM SFR assessed at $350K … it’s only 7.3% of the tax … and progressively less of a percentage the higher the assessed value of the property, assuming the same amount of MR is charged to every parcel in the CFD.

flu, this is not an apples to apples comparison of MR to base tax. For example, lets take a newer condo in ChulaV now reassessed at ~$202K which has MR. We’ll go back to a couple of them we discussed in a recent thread briansd1 posted in his OP. (btw, the thread was from March 2012 and neither of these two Fannie-owned REO condos have sold yet.)

http://piggington.com/cv_chula_vista_not_carmel_valley

[quote=bearishgurl on March 13, 2012 – 3:30pm.][quote=briansd1]BG, the tax amount will get reset to be based on the new purchase price. So that should not be a problem.[/quote]

I fully understand this and that is why I posted the current assessed values. HOWEVER, the portion of the tax bill for CFDs will be a set amount, over and above whatever the property is assessed at.

I switched a couple of figures on the comparable tax bills of the smaller condo.

It should should read “…$3,018.32 (for a $186K assessed value) and $3,415.00 (for a $202K assessed value).”

Sorry for any confusion.[/quote]

The larger condo (Cherry Blossom) now has a $2020 base tax. This means any VAB, FCA’s plus MR total $1395 (3415-2020). $1395/$2020 = 69% of the base tax!. The current asking price is $219,900.

The smaller condo (Barbados) now has an $1860 base tax. this means any VAB’s, FCA’s plus MR total $1158.32 (3018.32-1860). $1158.32/1860 = 62% of the base tax! The current asking price is $195K.

Of course, the percentage of MR/FCA’s/VAB’s to base tax is higher on lower-assessed properties such as these condos. I don’t know if the newest tracts in CVista price the MR acc to the sq footage of the house. I’ll have to do some research on a 4-5 bdrm tract I’m familiar with and repost my findings.

Conclusion: percentage of MR/FCA’s/VAB’s to base tax is far higher on MR-encumbered tracts.

MM condo assessed at ~$200K = 13%

Otay Ranch condo (Barbados) assessed at $186K = 62%

Otay Ranch condo (Cherry Blossom) assessed at $202K = 69%

I have no doubt that on some of the SFR’s in 91914 and 91915, the current MR + FCA’s + VAB’s + base tax (- HOEX) = MORE than the mo principal + interest + 1/12 of the annual homeowners ins premium! This doesn’t even include mo dues to the two HOA’s encumbering the tracts.

The reason for this is because many SFR’s which sold new at $530K to $730K at the peak down there have been recently sold short (or sold as REO’s) for $330K to $380K with 20% down with extremely low interest rate mortgages!!

Even if these savvy? (not so sure about that) new buyers decide to pay their properties off in a few years, they are STILL STUCK with the MR for 32 more years and two monthly HOA dues. This is over and above what a non-MR/non-HOA property owner just 2-3 mi away would pay if they decide to pay off their comparably-assessed SFR.

[Coronita]

[quote=bearishgurl]flu, these “fixed charge assessments” (FCA’s) are charged to every parcel in the county. For the MM condo, they are $30.36 per yr. For a typical SFR assessed at about $300K, they are about $40 to $43 per yr.

FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 3.00
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86

The “Voter-Approved Bonds” (VAB’s) on the MM condo come to only $225.12 per yr.

VOTER APPROVED BONDS:
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 1999A NET 0.00809 16.15
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2000B NET 0.00614 12.26
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2001C NET 0.00766 15.29
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2002D NET 0.00985 19.66
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2003E NET 0.01420 28.35
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO SERIES 1998F REFUNDING NET 0.00312 6.23
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO SERIES 1998G REFUNDING NET 0.00429 8.56
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2006 SERIES F-1 REFUNDING NET 0.00430 8.58
UNIFIED BOND SAN DIEGO 2005 SERIES G-1 REFUNDING NET 0.00353 7.04
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2009A NET 0.00099 1.97
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2009B NET 0.00453 9.04
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, SERIES 2010C NET 0.00000 0.00
UNIF BOND SAN DIEGO-PROP S 11/04/08, 2010D QSCB NET 0.00000 0.00
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2003A NET 0.00117 2.33
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2003B NET 0.01033 20.62
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP N 11/07/06, SERIES 2006A NET 0.00944 18.84
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2009C NET 0.00397 7.92
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SER 2011 REF NET 0.00089 1.77
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP N 11/07/06, SERIES 2011 NET 0.00679 13.55
SAN DIEGO COMM COLL-PROP S 11/05/02, SERIES 2011 NET 0.00481 9.60
SAN DIEGO CITY OPEN SPACE FACILITY DIST NO. 1 D/S NET 0.00000 0.00
SAN DIEGO CITY ZOOLOGICAL EXHIBITS – DEBT SERVICE NET 0.00500 9.98
SAN DIEGO CITY PUBLIC SAFETY COMM SYS – DEBT SERV NET 0.00000 0.00
MWD D/S REMAINDER OF SDCWA 15019999 NET 0.00370 7.38

The total of FCA’s and VAB’s is $255.48. Since the condo is only assessed at ~$200K, that is 13% of the base tax. But on a typical MM SFR assessed at $350K … it’s only 7.3% of the tax … and progressively less of a percentage the higher the assessed value of the property, assuming the same amount of MR is charged to every parcel in the CFD.

[/quote]

Stop with the rest of the argument. Because I think there is a math problem right here in your explanation of VAB’s

[quote]
The total of FCA’s and VAB’s is $255.48. Since the condo is only assessed at ~$200K, that is 13% of the base tax. But on a typical MM SFR assessed at $350K … it’s only 7.3% of the tax … and progressively less of a percentage the higher the assessed value of the property, assuming the same amount of MR is charged to every parcel in the CFD.
[/quote]

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????

Take a look at the assessed condo in MM I listed and compare that to what AN said his assessment is for SFH. Fundamentally there is almost no difference.
1.13% for condo 1.11% for SFH…So those special bonds are applied at the same percentage to SFH or non SFH and they don’t decrease in percentage if your assessed value is larger….. right?????

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.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]
I agree with your argument. I did state why I think CV MR is not that big of a deal. It’s not special to CV. I think for areas that have mostly built out infrastructure, the MR shouldn’t be that big of a deal. It’s only brand new areas like San Elijo, Del Sur, 4S, etc that it can get crazy. The reason CV doesn’t have bond for community colleges because it’s a tiny area and there probably won’t ever be a CC that gets built there. Just look at San Elijo Hills. Since it’s part of San Marcos, although it’s new and have MR, it has to pay the bond for PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M.[/quote]

Yes, but does SEJ have bonds for the local schools and MR for the local schools at the same time?

[an]

[quote=flu]Yes, but does SEJ have bonds for the local schools and MR for the local schools at the same time?[/quote]
I think so…

1% TAX ON NET VALUE NET 1.00000 5,748.54
VOTER APPROVED BONDS:
UNIFIED BOND SAN MARCOS-SFID, 6/04/96, 2004-1 REF NET 0.01436 82.54
UNIFIED BOND SAN MARCOS-PROP K 11/02/10 SER 2010A NET 0.04400 252.93
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M 11/07/06, 2006A NET 0.00959 55.12
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M 11/07/06, 2006B NET 0.00425 24.43
MWD D/S REMAINDER OF SDCWA 15019999 NET 0.00370 21.26
TOTAL ON NET VALUE 1.07590 6184.82
FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
CFD 98-01 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 279.18
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 2.28
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
CFD 98-02 IA #F-9 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 108.68
CFD 99-01 IA #A1 760-744-1050 Ext. 3133 2193.84
CFD 98-02 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 214.72
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86
TOTAL AMOUNT 9010.90

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]Yes, but does SEJ have bonds for the local schools and MR for the local schools at the same time?[/quote]
I think so…

1% TAX ON NET VALUE NET 1.00000 5,748.54
VOTER APPROVED BONDS:
UNIFIED BOND SAN MARCOS-SFID, 6/04/96, 2004-1 REF NET 0.01436 82.54
UNIFIED BOND SAN MARCOS-PROP K 11/02/10 SER 2010A NET 0.04400 252.93
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M 11/07/06, 2006A NET 0.00959 55.12
PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLL PROP M 11/07/06, 2006B NET 0.00425 24.43
MWD D/S REMAINDER OF SDCWA 15019999 NET 0.00370 21.26
TOTAL ON NET VALUE 1.07590 6184.82
FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
CFD 98-01 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 279.18
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 2.28
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
CFD 98-02 IA #F-9 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 108.68
CFD 99-01 IA #A1 760-744-1050 Ext. 3133 2193.84
CFD 98-02 760-744-1050 Ext. 3127 214.72
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86
TOTAL AMOUNT 9010.90[/quote]

VAB’s = 436.28

FCA’s = $29.64

MR = $2796.42

Subject property or comparable assessed at $574,854 in SM/Palomar CC School Districts:

Without MR: $436.28 VAB’s + $29.64 FCA’s + $5,748.54 (1% tax) = $6214.46.

VAB’s + FCA’s = $465.92.

465.92/5748.54 = 8% (percentage of VAB’s + FCA’s to base tax)

********************************

With MR: $436.28 VAB’s + $29.64 FCA’s + $2796.42 + $5,748.54 = $9010.88

VAB’s + FCA’s + MR = $3,262.34

3262.34/5748.54 = 57% (percentage of MR + VAB’s + FCA’s to base tax)

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl]flu, these “fixed charge assessments” (FCA’s) are charged to every parcel in the county. For the MM condo, they are $30.36 per yr. For a typical SFR assessed at about $300K, they are about $40 to $43 per yr.

FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 3.00
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86

[/quote]

I stand corrected here. The universal FCA’s for SFR’s in SD Co appear to be $29.64. I just looked at my tax bill, then sdr’s sample, then AN’s SEH sample and a couple of other random samples. They’re all $29.64.

Not sure why the MM condo fixed charges are $30.36. This bears further research on condo tax bills.

flu, you are correct that these are “fixed” charges.

[Coronita]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=bearishgurl]flu, these “fixed charge assessments” (FCA’s) are charged to every parcel in the county. For the MM condo, they are $30.36 per yr. For a typical SFR assessed at about $300K, they are about $40 to $43 per yr.

FIXED CHARGE ASSMTS: PHONE
MOSQUITO SURVEILLANC 800-273-5167 3.00
CWA WTR AVAILABILITY 858-522-6900 10.00
MWD WTR STANDBY CHRG 866-807-6864 11.50
VECTOR DISEASE CTRL 800-273-5167 5.86

[/quote]

I stand corrected here. The universal FCA’s for SFR’s in SD Co appear to be $29.64. I just looked at my tax bill, then sdr’s sample, then AN’s SEH sample and a couple of other random samples. They’re all $29.64.

Not sure why the MM condo fixed charges are $30.36. This bears further research on condo tax bills.

flu, you are correct that these are “fixed” charges.[/quote]

The other more important point though was the VAB is assessed at the same percentage based on the assessed value.

So someone with a $100k home or $2million home will have the same VAB percentage rate.

This is important when we talk about higher end homes that cost more. because in some cases VAB > MR

[bearishgurl]

[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.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]And not sure MM would have $2M properties (ask AN) but would have to say no. MM is entirely on tract.[/quote]
Except for these: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120017706-5912_Shaw_Lopez_Rd_San_Diego_CA_92121

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]And not sure MM would have $2M properties (ask AN) but would have to say no. MM is entirely on tract.[/quote]
Except for these: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120017706-5912_Shaw_Lopez_Rd_San_Diego_CA_92121
[/quote]

YIKES, AN! That’s rather “industrial-looking.” The landscaping is nice but the interior appears to be rather stark. The block looks like “lizardland” but has no MR. Is 92121 part of MM? I was referring to 92126 when I stated it was “entirely on tract.”

Questions: It states it was built in 2010. Do you know if it has ever been occupied? If not, why has it only been listed for 105 days? Has it been listed before? And the 1995 previous “sale” for $1M … was this a bulk land sale (which was later subdivided? There is little there on the street and this property sits on a lot < 1/4 AC.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]And not sure MM would have $2M properties (ask AN) but would have to say no. MM is entirely on tract.[/quote]
Except for these: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120017706-5912_Shaw_Lopez_Rd_San_Diego_CA_92121
[/quote]

YIKES, AN! That’s rather “industrial-looking.” The landscaping is nice but the interior appears to be rather stark. The block looks like “lizardland” but has no MR. Is 92121 part of MM? I was referring to 92126 when I stated it was “entirely on tract.”

Questions: It states it was built in 2010. Do you know if it has ever been occupied? If not, why has it only been listed for 105 days? Has it been listed before? And the 1995 previous “sale” for $1M … was this a bulk land sale (which was later subdivided? There is little there on the street and this property sits on a lot < 1/4 AC.[/quote] Yes, MM encompass east of the 805 and west of the 15. So part of 92121 belongs to MM. 92121 West of the 805 is not Mira Mesa. You're right, all of 92126 are entire on tract and nothing in 92126 is current above $600k. I think you're right about bulk land sale in 1995. They tried to build a few custom homes designed by some famous designer. But, AFAIK, they were never sold and has always been vacant since 2010. There's still many more lots on this street. However, none of the other lots are for sale. Just these few custom homes.

[Coronita]

[quote=bearishgurl]
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.
[/quote]

No, that is not the case. CarmelV is a planned community,right? And speaking of sdr’s Lizardland. It’s planned, but take a look at sdr’s assessment. If his community is planned, as you say.. Look at his total property tax rate and fixed assessments..

He his standard rate and VAB is 1.00870%
On top of that, he has a fixed assessment lower than CarmelV (namely because he only needs to pay into San Diegiuto school district and not DMUSD, unlike CarmelV folks that need to do both)…
So his fixed assessment is only $1171.42

IF someone was buying his home today, say around $850k (I know it’s a low price), the effective tax rate on that property is 1.14%….Folks in lizardland *without VAB but with MR) aren’t going to be paying a higher tax rate then folks in ChulaV with all the VAB’s in ChulaV… Furthermore, as you say, if someone buys in newer ChulaV, they probably have both VAB and MR.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Irrelevant…. What *can happen* (speculation) has no data/basis to back it up…CarmelV or areas like lizardland NorCounty hasn’t had VAB’s since beginning and it’s been like that for 10+years… It is as theorectically possible as places like MM or ChulaV to have additional VAB’s to the existing ones that drive property taxes in those areas even higher. In the interest of meaningful comparison for a homebuyer that is purchasing in present day, it only makes sense to consider what taxes is happening now, and what is well-known going to happen in the future, not what could theoretically happen.

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Believe it…

As you mention, there are some multi-million homes in ChulaV in 91910.. I found some off of Milagrosa Cir in 91910. Here was an example of $2.25 million home (at least that’s the assessed value when it was taxed).Looking at some of these property tax statements on homes on this street (aside from the fact that a lot of them are deliquent…surprise surprise… 🙁 ), you’ll see that they have the same VAB’s with the same tax rates on the VAB’s as the previous ChulaV homes I posted that were in the $400kish range…Actually, the interesting part is in these homes in Miagrosa Cir, they also have MR…So, it actually costs a lot more to own a home in ChulaV in this area than say CarmelV or Encinitas, purchase price being equal.

But that’s besides the point. The point is there doesn’t appear to be a cap on VAB, even if the property is considerably more expensive, as I suspected….So for a higher end/more expensive home, it actually works out better to have a lower/fixed MR versus having VAB.

[sdrealtor]

FLU
Nice Detective work! Damn those pesky facts. Could it be that our school is so highly ranked because it attracts intelligent homeowners who understand the total tax/MR burden here is actually a great deal. Additionally, our MR are about 1/2 paid off and once they are my taxes will be lower out here in lizardland. FWIW-I could pay off my MR in full today for about $7500.

[img_assist|nid=16470|title=The view from lizardland|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=350]

[davelj]

1.084%

[Author]

Posts