[EconProf]

What is amazing is that this was three and a half years ago, and pretty much the same trends are playing out. The Fed, deficit spenders, and RE schills are still trying to goose the market, and the renters and taxpayers are still getting the shaft.
Time to call out all the 2007 optimists, be they politicians, economists, lenders, and RE industry insiders, and hang their awful record in a sign around their necks. A conscientious mainstream meadia would do exactly this; instead we have learned to trust sites like this.

[EconProf]

What is amazing is that this was three and a half years ago, and pretty much the same trends are playing out. The Fed, deficit spenders, and RE schills are still trying to goose the market, and the renters and taxpayers are still getting the shaft.
Time to call out all the 2007 optimists, be they politicians, economists, lenders, and RE industry insiders, and hang their awful record in a sign around their necks. A conscientious mainstream meadia would do exactly this; instead we have learned to trust sites like this.

[EconProf]

What is amazing is that this was three and a half years ago, and pretty much the same trends are playing out. The Fed, deficit spenders, and RE schills are still trying to goose the market, and the renters and taxpayers are still getting the shaft.
Time to call out all the 2007 optimists, be they politicians, economists, lenders, and RE industry insiders, and hang their awful record in a sign around their necks. A conscientious mainstream meadia would do exactly this; instead we have learned to trust sites like this.

[EconProf]

What is amazing is that this was three and a half years ago, and pretty much the same trends are playing out. The Fed, deficit spenders, and RE schills are still trying to goose the market, and the renters and taxpayers are still getting the shaft.
Time to call out all the 2007 optimists, be they politicians, economists, lenders, and RE industry insiders, and hang their awful record in a sign around their necks. A conscientious mainstream meadia would do exactly this; instead we have learned to trust sites like this.

[EconProf]

I’ve been through this process several times plus once taught Public Finance, so can offer you this:
Pencilneck is right–80k spent on fixup, cleanup, etc. should only add to assessed value to the extent it was an addition. Assessor’s don’t put much value into condition–it is largely a matter of price/sf.
You have documented well the fact that you are overassessed, i.e., it was an open market, arm’s length transaction with sufficient market exposure. Stick to your guns–county assessors rely on bluff and intimidation these days.
Immediately appeal and demand a hearing. Believe me, they will cave beforehand. Once you file for a hearing, they have, by law, 2 years to give it to you. They are so backed up–by tens of thousands–and they can only get 2 – 4 hearings in per hour, that probably less than 1% actually make it to hearing. Instead, they will call you a few weeks before the hearing and offer to stipulate, that is, compromise. Even that offer will not be everything you are asking for, but at least they are ready to seriously compromise on valuation.
Also, the two-year time gap does not mean you shouldn’t file ANOTHER appeal for the interim year. Otherwise they will eventually grant you the lower value for the first year, but not the second year because you technically did not ask for a lower valuation for that year.
Yeah, it is pretty sleazy on their part. They are extracting what they can from the taxpayer by fair means or foul. But this did actually did happen to me–they only granted the lower valuation for the year of the appeal, not the second year (at a time of declining market values!), so the $1200 or so I eventually extracted from them in a refund should have been about twice as large.
Also, to everyone here thinking of appealing, I believe you only have till the end of November to file your appeal. It is a simple one-page form available on line or at the County Assessor’s Office. It requires you to do some homework & get comps, so cozy up to your favorite RE agent to get some documentation for your claim.

[EconProf]

I’ve been through this process several times plus once taught Public Finance, so can offer you this:
Pencilneck is right–80k spent on fixup, cleanup, etc. should only add to assessed value to the extent it was an addition. Assessor’s don’t put much value into condition–it is largely a matter of price/sf.
You have documented well the fact that you are overassessed, i.e., it was an open market, arm’s length transaction with sufficient market exposure. Stick to your guns–county assessors rely on bluff and intimidation these days.
Immediately appeal and demand a hearing. Believe me, they will cave beforehand. Once you file for a hearing, they have, by law, 2 years to give it to you. They are so backed up–by tens of thousands–and they can only get 2 – 4 hearings in per hour, that probably less than 1% actually make it to hearing. Instead, they will call you a few weeks before the hearing and offer to stipulate, that is, compromise. Even that offer will not be everything you are asking for, but at least they are ready to seriously compromise on valuation.
Also, the two-year time gap does not mean you shouldn’t file ANOTHER appeal for the interim year. Otherwise they will eventually grant you the lower value for the first year, but not the second year because you technically did not ask for a lower valuation for that year.
Yeah, it is pretty sleazy on their part. They are extracting what they can from the taxpayer by fair means or foul. But this did actually did happen to me–they only granted the lower valuation for the year of the appeal, not the second year (at a time of declining market values!), so the $1200 or so I eventually extracted from them in a refund should have been about twice as large.
Also, to everyone here thinking of appealing, I believe you only have till the end of November to file your appeal. It is a simple one-page form available on line or at the County Assessor’s Office. It requires you to do some homework & get comps, so cozy up to your favorite RE agent to get some documentation for your claim.

[EconProf]

I’ve been through this process several times plus once taught Public Finance, so can offer you this:
Pencilneck is right–80k spent on fixup, cleanup, etc. should only add to assessed value to the extent it was an addition. Assessor’s don’t put much value into condition–it is largely a matter of price/sf.
You have documented well the fact that you are overassessed, i.e., it was an open market, arm’s length transaction with sufficient market exposure. Stick to your guns–county assessors rely on bluff and intimidation these days.
Immediately appeal and demand a hearing. Believe me, they will cave beforehand. Once you file for a hearing, they have, by law, 2 years to give it to you. They are so backed up–by tens of thousands–and they can only get 2 – 4 hearings in per hour, that probably less than 1% actually make it to hearing. Instead, they will call you a few weeks before the hearing and offer to stipulate, that is, compromise. Even that offer will not be everything you are asking for, but at least they are ready to seriously compromise on valuation.
Also, the two-year time gap does not mean you shouldn’t file ANOTHER appeal for the interim year. Otherwise they will eventually grant you the lower value for the first year, but not the second year because you technically did not ask for a lower valuation for that year.
Yeah, it is pretty sleazy on their part. They are extracting what they can from the taxpayer by fair means or foul. But this did actually did happen to me–they only granted the lower valuation for the year of the appeal, not the second year (at a time of declining market values!), so the $1200 or so I eventually extracted from them in a refund should have been about twice as large.
Also, to everyone here thinking of appealing, I believe you only have till the end of November to file your appeal. It is a simple one-page form available on line or at the County Assessor’s Office. It requires you to do some homework & get comps, so cozy up to your favorite RE agent to get some documentation for your claim.

[EconProf]

I’ve been through this process several times plus once taught Public Finance, so can offer you this:
Pencilneck is right–80k spent on fixup, cleanup, etc. should only add to assessed value to the extent it was an addition. Assessor’s don’t put much value into condition–it is largely a matter of price/sf.
You have documented well the fact that you are overassessed, i.e., it was an open market, arm’s length transaction with sufficient market exposure. Stick to your guns–county assessors rely on bluff and intimidation these days.
Immediately appeal and demand a hearing. Believe me, they will cave beforehand. Once you file for a hearing, they have, by law, 2 years to give it to you. They are so backed up–by tens of thousands–and they can only get 2 – 4 hearings in per hour, that probably less than 1% actually make it to hearing. Instead, they will call you a few weeks before the hearing and offer to stipulate, that is, compromise. Even that offer will not be everything you are asking for, but at least they are ready to seriously compromise on valuation.
Also, the two-year time gap does not mean you shouldn’t file ANOTHER appeal for the interim year. Otherwise they will eventually grant you the lower value for the first year, but not the second year because you technically did not ask for a lower valuation for that year.
Yeah, it is pretty sleazy on their part. They are extracting what they can from the taxpayer by fair means or foul. But this did actually did happen to me–they only granted the lower valuation for the year of the appeal, not the second year (at a time of declining market values!), so the $1200 or so I eventually extracted from them in a refund should have been about twice as large.
Also, to everyone here thinking of appealing, I believe you only have till the end of November to file your appeal. It is a simple one-page form available on line or at the County Assessor’s Office. It requires you to do some homework & get comps, so cozy up to your favorite RE agent to get some documentation for your claim.

[EconProf]

I’ve been through this process several times plus once taught Public Finance, so can offer you this:
Pencilneck is right–80k spent on fixup, cleanup, etc. should only add to assessed value to the extent it was an addition. Assessor’s don’t put much value into condition–it is largely a matter of price/sf.
You have documented well the fact that you are overassessed, i.e., it was an open market, arm’s length transaction with sufficient market exposure. Stick to your guns–county assessors rely on bluff and intimidation these days.
Immediately appeal and demand a hearing. Believe me, they will cave beforehand. Once you file for a hearing, they have, by law, 2 years to give it to you. They are so backed up–by tens of thousands–and they can only get 2 – 4 hearings in per hour, that probably less than 1% actually make it to hearing. Instead, they will call you a few weeks before the hearing and offer to stipulate, that is, compromise. Even that offer will not be everything you are asking for, but at least they are ready to seriously compromise on valuation.
Also, the two-year time gap does not mean you shouldn’t file ANOTHER appeal for the interim year. Otherwise they will eventually grant you the lower value for the first year, but not the second year because you technically did not ask for a lower valuation for that year.
Yeah, it is pretty sleazy on their part. They are extracting what they can from the taxpayer by fair means or foul. But this did actually did happen to me–they only granted the lower valuation for the year of the appeal, not the second year (at a time of declining market values!), so the $1200 or so I eventually extracted from them in a refund should have been about twice as large.
Also, to everyone here thinking of appealing, I believe you only have till the end of November to file your appeal. It is a simple one-page form available on line or at the County Assessor’s Office. It requires you to do some homework & get comps, so cozy up to your favorite RE agent to get some documentation for your claim.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[EconProf]

jstoesz: well put.
You are using science and real data to make your points. But the global alarmists are unconvinced because environmentalism has become a religion.
Every commentator here is against pollution. The question is one of balance: how much should we sacrifice to obtain each increment of reduced pollution. At some point it becomes wasteful of resources that could be better used to some other desirable ends. To extremists and those who do not understand tradeoffs, lessening pollution should be our only goal.

[Author]

Posts