anita wrote:
OK folks, thanks for all the helpful info. We finally "MAY" be
getting the
house. I am not going to post all the details of what happened here-
just
yet. We plan to complain about it to the appropriate authority- if I
have
the energy to. I say "may" because we no longer know what our agent
is
capable of and at what stage this can be derailed. It helps that many

parties involved in the transaction have seen through the scheming of
this
agent so we are trying to do this by keeping him out of the picture
as much
as possible. still who knows- I have my finers crossed...

We are buying this house for a few thousand less than the assessed
value as
shown in the assessment records. But the assessed value of this house
is
still WAY over the assessed value of the immediate neighbours with
MUCH
bigger plots, more accesible, newer built and better maintained. I
dont
understand how our assesment could be so way off.

Are there any grounds for contesting this assessment ? Or do we have
to
just live with it- because by buying this house we have PROVED that
the
assessment is close to its market value. It does not seem fair that
this
property has such a high tax compared to its neighbours twice the
size of
the lot, and newer buildings, better maintained etc.,

BTW Its in King county, WA

Thanks
Anita

Have you checked out the township/town records regarding their
assessment basis? A two-second search on google turns up:

http://www.metrokc.gov/appeals/faqs.htm

Seems like a pretty codified process.

Caledonia

anita wrote:


Are there any grounds for contesting this assessment ? Or do we have
to
just live with it- because by buying this house we have PROVED that
the
assessment is close to its market value. It does not seem fair that
this
property has such a high tax compared to its neighbours twice the
size of
the lot, and newer buildings, better maintained etc.,

Well, the way it works around here, is they don't reassess until
someone sells the house. So all our neighbors who've lived here for
decades have much, MUCH lower assessments than ours, regardless of any
additions, renovations, etc they've made through the years.

After we bought this place, it didn't take too long for the tax
assessor to come out and have a look-see. They raised our assessment,
as we'd been warned would happen by the agents and my lawyer. The
assessment compared our house to other houses that had currently sold -
NOT those houses in our neighborhood that hadn't changed ownership in
decades.

Is it fair? I dunno. I suppose if I was retired, on a fixed income, and
my kids were grown, I'd be very glad not to have my taxes raised every
year. So I take the long view on this - it's not just about me. And,
frankly, why shouldn't I pay more taxes since my kids are attending the
schools? The schools are why we moved here in the first place.

jen

Is it fair? I dunno. I suppose if I was retired, on a fixed income, and
my kids were grown, I'd be very glad not to have my taxes raised every
year.

True. I was not thinking of that. It would be hard to live in an area where
the property taxes were going through the roof and your income remained
steady. But the flip-side is that they do benefit from the property price
increase which happens mainly from new people coming in to the
neighbourhood.

This particular property has not changed hands for decades, same as
neighbour, yet the assessment for this property went up by a HUGE amount
last year. Why would they just change the valuation for just this one house
?

There seems to be a lot of exempted properties around here for all sorts of
things and from what I was reading after I posted my question, the extra
tax burden just gets re-distrubuted to the ones that do pay taxes.

We are still buying the house ofcourse, but worry about the taxes, which
really ARE VERY high.

Anita

No grouse about paying my fair share of taxes, but I dont want to pay
someone else's share too ! Ours is not a good school district or anything.

anita wrote:
True. I was not thinking of that. It would be hard to live in an area
where the property taxes were going through the roof and your income
remained steady. But the flip-side is that they do benefit from the
property price increase which happens mainly from new people coming
in to the neighbourhood.

This dilemma is why the State of Florida passed a constitutional
amendment in 1995 that limits the increase in assessed value for
homesteaded property to 3% or the annual change in the CPI, whichever is
less. For those on a fixed income this is a home saver, especially
with property values climbing at 20% / year or more in some areas of the
state.

wrote:
I'm on a fixed income and my propety value (just bought the house
last month) went up by 30% this year. YIKES!

If my property value wasn't capped, I would have to move. Taxes on the
market value of my home would be more than twice what I am now paying,
and simply unaffordable. And I've only been in my home for 10 years.

anita wrote:
Is it fair? I dunno. I suppose if I was retired, on a fixed income,
and
my kids were grown, I'd be very glad not to have my taxes raised
every
year.

True. I was not thinking of that. It would be hard to live in an area
where
the property taxes were going through the roof and your income
remained
steady. But the flip-side is that they do benefit from the property
price
increase which happens mainly from new people coming in to the
neighbourhood.

Sure, they benefit when they sell. Lot of good that does them while
still in the house. The way I look at it, if you start raising
everyone's assessment, the retirees start moving out because they can't
afford it. Which means more sellers. Which means house prices don't go
up as fast. Which means you've been penny wise but pound foolish!

Besides, I like our elderly neighbors very much. I don't want them to
move. They keep the area stable, and they are like extended family to
us. I lived in one of those towns with the new housing and everyone
being about the same age range with young kids. That gets old - it's
not as interesting, IMO. I like the fact that the majority of owners on
our street are here for the long haul, not the quick 2-4 year in/out
turnover. If I wanted that, I'd have continued renting!

This particular property has not changed hands for decades, same as
neighbour, yet the assessment for this property went up by a HUGE
amount
last year. Why would they just change the valuation for just this one
house
?

Perhaps because your town is like ours, and only re-assesses when the
property changes hands.

There seems to be a lot of exempted properties around here for all
sorts of
things and from what I was reading after I posted my question, the
extra
tax burden just gets re-distrubuted to the ones that do pay taxes.

We are still buying the house ofcourse, but worry about the taxes,
which
really ARE VERY high.

Well, when we were looking, we took the assessed value on the listing
sheets with a huge grain of salt. The agents, the lawyer, the mortgage
brokers were all very candid with us when calculating out what our
estimated taxes might be, considering the house would be re-assessed
upon our purchasing it. In our case, they overestimated a bit. We just
had our tax payment reduced, and rec'd an escrow refund. Ultimately our
house assessed for $5K less than we bought it for, which seems about
normal for re-assessments around here. The house has since appreciated
by at least $75K but our tax is the same and unless they change the
rules, will remain the same from here on out. I'm not complaining. We
anticipate retiring here.

Anita

No grouse about paying my fair share of taxes, but I dont want to pay

someone else's share too ! Ours is not a good school district or
anything.

I understand that, I just think it might be short-sighted, that's all.
Think of it as the tax you pay for the benefit of living in an area
with a large proportion of long-term owners that lend stability and
diversity.

Have you met the neighbors yet? Are they nice? Are you getting excited
yet? :-)

jen

anita wrote:
No grouse about paying my fair share of taxes, but I dont want to pay

someone else's share too ! Ours is not a good school district or
anything.

One more thing to consider: you can deduct your taxes *and* your
mortgage. Those people who have a small or no mortgage can't deduct as
much. So you are paying more in that monthly payment, but you're
getting a much bigger break than they are come tax time. It all evens
out in the wash.

Have you played around with the online tax estimators yet? When I
bought, I went from being able to only take 2 deductions to 9 - and
still getting a refund. If you haven't calculated all this out, it will
probably make you feel a lot better if you do so now.

jen

Jen, thanks

Haven't met neighbours yet. Spoke to them on the phone- very nice people.

Our county seems to have a senior tax exemption, so retirees dont get hit
by huge tax increases.


Have you met the neighbors yet? Are they nice? Are you getting excited
yet? :-)

jen

shinypenny wrote:

anita wrote:
No grouse about paying my fair share of taxes, but I dont want to pay
someone else's share too ! Ours is not a good school district or
anything.

One more thing to consider: you can deduct your taxes *and* your
mortgage. Those people who have a small or no mortgage can't deduct as
much. So you are paying more in that monthly payment, but you're
getting a much bigger break than they are come tax time. It all evens
out in the wash.

I scratch my head every time I hear this argument. What tax bracket are you
in???

_I'm_ in the 28% tax bracket, so for every extra dollar my local property
tax bill goes up, I pay $0.28 less in federal income tax. I still have to
pay $0.72 of that myself.

Also the deduction is only saves me money on the amount my deductions are
above the standard deduction ($9,700 for married filling jointly in 2004).
My local property taxes/vehicle excise taxes/state income taxes are about
$10,000/year this year. From your argument it sounds like a good thing
that I'm paying $5,600 in local property taxes because it allows me to
deduct an extra $300 from my federal income and save $84 on my tax bill.
I'd rather pay $2,400 less in property taxes like when we first bought the
house (1999-2000), and miss out on the $84 tax savings.

wrote:
shinypenny wrote:

anita wrote:
No grouse about paying my fair share of taxes, but I dont want to
pay
someone else's share too ! Ours is not a good school district or
anything.

One more thing to consider: you can deduct your taxes *and* your
mortgage. Those people who have a small or no mortgage can't deduct
as
much. So you are paying more in that monthly payment, but you're
getting a much bigger break than they are come tax time. It all
evens
out in the wash.

I scratch my head every time I hear this argument. What tax bracket
are you
in???

I'm about to go up to the 28% bracket, since I just got a raise. :-)

_I'm_ in the 28% tax bracket, so for every extra dollar my local
property
tax bill goes up, I pay $0.28 less in federal income tax. I still
have to
pay $0.72 of that myself.

Also the deduction is only saves me money on the amount my deductions
are
above the standard deduction ($9,700 for married filling jointly in
2004).
My local property taxes/vehicle excise taxes/state income taxes are
about
$10,000/year this year. From your argument it sounds like a good
thing
that I'm paying $5,600 in local property taxes because it allows me
to
deduct an extra $300 from my federal income and save $84 on my tax
bill.
I'd rather pay $2,400 less in property taxes like when we first
bought the
house (1999-2000), and miss out on the $84 tax savings.

All very true, but you are comparing apples to apples, and I was
attempting to compare apples to oranges for Anita.

I was mostly responding to my suspicion (which admittedly may be
incorrect) that she was going from renting to home owning and possibly
concerned about cash flow. Because of the deductions, you can't compare
a montly rent payment to a mortgage plus tax payment. When you rent,
you can't deduct anything, but you are still paying taxes - it's just
that your landlord gets to deduct them, and not you. When you own, you
can raise your deductions and increase cash flow, particularly in the
beginning when your payment is mostly interest. If one's mortgage is
the same amount as one's rent used to be, it is typically *more*
affordable to own vs rent.

I was also comparing someone like Anita who is starting out on a 15 or
30-year mortgage, to someone like her neighbors that may have their
house all paid off. In the beginning of Anita's mortgage, she is mostly
paying interest and not principal, and it's all deductible and if her
mortgage is high enough, it further offsets the tax she is paying (you
can't just look at the property tax deduction - you need to consider
the interest deduction too). Her neighbors probably don't have that
deduction anymore, what's more, they are probably retired or close to
retired, and don't have the same earning ability or 401K leverage as
someone in the prime of their career.

Anyway, I was primarily hoping to suggest to Anita it may not be as bad
as she fears. I remember going through this myself - choking at how
high the monthly payment was and mentally/emotionally comparing it to
my rent - until I sat down and ran all the numbers. (My mortgage is
exactly what I was paying per month in rent PLUS a hefty amount for
taxes on top of that - it was the taxes that made it seem like I was
going to be in big trouble and not be able to afford the place on my
salary).

Ultimately, for me (and yes I have a big mortgage), I have found after
renting for 5 years and not being able to save a dime, I was finally
able to save quite a bit since the cash flow picture is much more
favorable. By increasing my deductions from 2 to 9, I am now able to
save 20% (automatically deducted and goes into 401K, where it earns
even more). Before, I couldn't save anything because it all went into
my landlord's pocket.

jen

Hello Jen,
Thanks for the concern. We are indeed going from renting to buying a
home and though the monthly increase in payments is to be expected, my
worry is the amount we have to spend on fixing up the place. On account
of how much this house costs (it was a nice architect built house
-which is quite run down- no maintenance or years etc., many many
problems, but I guess to an assessor drving by it still looks pretty
good!) versus how much we have to pay in taxes. I've spoken to the tax
people and they have let me know if there are any major repairs that
need to be undertaken before or as soon as we move it, to take pictures
and have a contractor give us an estimate. This should help me appeal
the taxes. Next year when the house is all done up and actually lives
up to its grade 9, then I have no problems paying what they want me to.

We bought the house not expecting so many hidden major problems
(nothing money and sweat equity wont take care of...) Still I'm happy
we bought it, its in the right location and has lots of yard. My
husband has already taken to calling it "the money pit"!

I do understand the tax deduction thing. Like the previous poster it
always amuses me when they say you can take deductions on something. If
you go overboard on the deductions there is the Alternate Minimum tax
to get ya. I really havent itemized (I always itemize but it never
comes up to more than the standard deduction! ) so I dont know if it
will be any better this time.

I have to go do my HW on the tax law updates before the taxes. sigh.
Anita

"an" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello Jen,
Thanks for the concern. We are indeed going from renting to buying a
home and though the monthly increase in payments is to be expected, my
worry is the amount we have to spend on fixing up the place. On account
of how much this house costs (it was a nice architect built house
-which is quite run down- no maintenance or years etc., many many
problems, but I guess to an assessor drving by it still looks pretty
good!) versus how much we have to pay in taxes.

Assessors can be reasonable people. You can actually have them come into the
house and look around if you are concerned. Most places have some sort of
grading system for properties; it could be numerical or an excellent, good,
fair, poor system.

So if you have an identical property to your neighbors in terms of square
footage, rooms, lot size, etc. then some multiplier is applied based on the
grading system. If your new place is really that bad, then the assessor
might be willing to lower your grade. Let them come in and take a look for
themselves. Probably the last time they actually looked inside it was in
decent shape.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA

an wrote:
I really havent itemized (I always itemize but it never
comes up to more than the standard deduction! ) so I dont know if it
will be any better this time.

There's a ton of helpful calculators online. Here are some I found
particularly useful:

Here is a loan calculator - plug in your loan details, then look at the
payment schedule tab and see how much you'll pay out in interest this
year and following years. All that interest is deductible, as are the
property taxes.

http://ray.met.fsu.edu/~bret/amortize.html

Then take those numbers and calculate your estimated taxes using this
tool. It depends on your loan amount and interest rate, but a quick
calculation for 6% rate shows that a loan of about $165-170K will
produce interest deductions greater than the $9700 standard deduction.
I'm assuming here that your mortgage loan is higher than that, since
you're worried about the AMT?

http://www.quicken.com/taxes/taxslashing/estimator/

The quicken estimator will also help you analyze your withholding, and
suggest changes you might make to your allowances. The goal is neither
to owe or to get a refund.

Then you can go over to this paycheck calculator (click on "personal
calculators"):

http://www.paycheckcity.com

Plug in your paycheck details, including your current allowance # and
the new allowance # recommended by Quicken. See how much additional
cash will be in your paycheck, which helps with cash flow and meeting
that new monthly mortgage payment.

As I said, I discovered that by buying instead of renting, I could take
up to 9 deductions instead of 2, which increased cash flow enough that
I was finally able to contribute to my 401K. That contribution helped
my tax picture even more.

Here is the AMT evaluator since you're concerned about that:

http://www.quicken.com/taxes/taxslashing/amteval/

Here's more info about the AMT:

http://www.fairmark.com/amt/topten.htm

AMT, far as I can tell, isn't something to worry about unless you have
a second home, or take a large long-term capital gain, but read up on
it and make the calculations for your own particular situation. As my
financial planner says, no investing plan should be made *solely* on
the basis of avoiding tax; that's being penny wise and pound foolish.
IMO, buying a home is definetly one of those investment scenarios,
especially if you plan to stay in the home longer than 10 years and
enjoy all that appreciation.

jen

On 18 Mar 2005 12:16:02 -0800, someone wrote:


frankly, why shouldn't I pay more taxes since my kids are attending the
schools? The schools are why we moved here in the first place.

Glad you are so accepting of it. But what about the childless couple
who buys a house there, what rationale is there for them to pay more
than their neighbors? What about someone who has lived there a long
time, has many children, and pays less than you do?

If there is going to be a property tax, then it should be on the value
of the property. If you want it on number of children, then charge
tuition. On income, charge income tax.

It is unconstitutional to do what they are doing (without specific
stautory formal programs open to all, like Prop 13 in CA) but you need
to sue.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:53:10 GMT, someone wrote:


This particular property has not changed hands for decades, same as
neighbour, yet the assessment for this property went up by a HUGE amount
last year. Why would they just change the valuation for just this one house
?
Call the Assessor's office and ask them. The underlying info is
public record.

Ask them if an assessment can be challenged for being "unequal" (not
at the same proportion of value as similar properties) as well as
"overvalued" (assessed more than it is worth). Every place I have
heard of in the US you can do both, but YMMV.


There seems to be a lot of exempted properties around here for all sorts of
things and from what I was reading after I posted my question, the extra
tax burden just gets re-distrubuted to the ones that do pay taxes.

Yup. So when people about how great it is to have exemptions and
limitations in their area - the Q is, good for WHO?




Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:02:33 GMT, someone wrote:

This dilemma is why the State of Florida passed a constitutional
amendment in 1995 that limits the increase in assessed value for
homesteaded property to 3% or the annual change in the CPI, whichever is
less. For those on a fixed income this is a home saver, especially
with property values climbing at 20% / year or more in some areas of the
state.

Unfortunately this benefit also seems to helps those who are not on
fixed incomes. And is there any assessment or income limit on it?
Would it help Donald Trump? Is it wise public policy to help someone
with a million dollar property because they are old, when it means a
young family buying their first home will have to pay more to make up
for tax that was lost on the expensive home?



Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:51:02 GMT, someone wrote:

If my property value wasn't capped, I would have to move. Taxes on the
market value of my home would be more than twice what I am now paying,
and simply unaffordable. And I've only been in my home for 10 years.

But when you or your heirs sell, you'll take that higher property
value, right? These limits would be more fair if the County (or
whoever) could get back what was saved, upon sale. After all, the
person paid less tax than their property was worth for years. But
that would be a nightmare to administer.



Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

v wrote:
Unfortunately this benefit also seems to helps those who are not on
fixed incomes. And is there any assessment or income limit on it?
Would it help Donald Trump? Is it wise public policy to help someone
with a million dollar property because they are old, when it means a
young family buying their first home will have to pay more to make up
for tax that was lost on the expensive home?

There is no assessment or income limit. It would help Donald Trump if
he owned a homestead in Florida. He would have to be a full time
Florida resident to qualify.

Florida and local government spending is not increasing at the same rate
as the state's property values - thank goodness! Therefore, there isn't
any subsidy by new home buyers - they (young, old, rich, poor, or
otherwise) don't 'pay more'. All that happens is that existing home
owners (young, middle aged or old, regardless of home valuation, net
worth or income) are protected from being taxed out of their homes.

v wrote:
On 18 Mar 2005 12:16:02 -0800, someone wrote:


frankly, why shouldn't I pay more taxes since my kids are attending
the
schools? The schools are why we moved here in the first place.

Glad you are so accepting of it. But what about the childless couple
who buys a house there, what rationale is there for them to pay more
than their neighbors?

Well, no. Whether you have kids or not, we all benefit by educating
kids. Lower crime, stronger economy, etc, etc.

What about someone who has lived there a long
time, has many children, and pays less than you do?

If there is going to be a property tax, then it should be on the
value
of the property.

That's all well fine and good, until you have to sell your house to
afford your annual taxes!

IMO, the effect is to encourage homeowners to stay put in one house
instead of hop to a new, bigger house every few years. The benefit is a
stable, diverse community. People who intend to stay in the same house
for decades tend to care more about their community overall.


jen

shinypenny wrote:
v wrote:
On 18 Mar 2005 12:16:02 -0800, someone wrote:


frankly, why shouldn't I pay more taxes since my kids are
attending
the
schools? The schools are why we moved here in the first place.

Glad you are so accepting of it. But what about the childless
couple
who buys a house there, what rationale is there for them to pay
more
than their neighbors?

Well, no. Whether you have kids or not, we all benefit by educating
kids. Lower crime, stronger economy, etc, etc.

I agree with you, but it bugs me that people immediately assume that
property taxes = public schools, and forget road work, ambulance,
police, library and all those other services. (Yes, it's override time
in my town...). Making a 1:1 correlation between property taxes and
schools just confounds the issue; it's 'property' taxes, not tuition.

What about someone who has lived there a long
time, has many children, and pays less than you do?

If there is going to be a property tax, then it should be on the
value
of the property.

That's all well fine and good, until you have to sell your house to
afford your annual taxes!

IMO, the effect is to encourage homeowners to stay put in one house
instead of hop to a new, bigger house every few years. The benefit is
a
stable, diverse community. People who intend to stay in the same
house
for decades tend to care more about their community overall.


jen

Here, I disagree and had no idea that there were places in the US where
assessment values were tied to duration of ownership -- I think this
assumes that service utilization decreases over time, per capita -
which I don't believe is true - and that it creates a penalty for folks
moving into a town. It would also be interesting to see how this would
apply to a very large property that has been in the family since the
early 1700's.... We have a 'Roach Motel' town where once people move
in, they never leave -- yet there's a fair deal of trading up and
trading down of homes within the community, mainly because it's tricky
to expand homes based on required setbacks, and smaller 'starter' homes
with less land are closer to the town center, hence more desirable for
the elderly. I'm a big booster of the over-65 set, yet have to question
whether the long-time homeowners really are *more* concerned than the
newcomers -- I think, on par, level of concern is equal and although a
senior member may have the time to serve on more committees, they are
often not as able to serve on the volunteer fire/ambulance staff, pick
up trash, or work at the recycling center, for example. I would guess
that you get stability but not diversity in a community where all
newcomers carry the oldtimers -- Jen, I'm curious to know, how does it
really play out in your town?

Caledonia

Caledonia wrote:
I agree with you, but it bugs me that people immediately assume that
property taxes = public schools, and forget road work, ambulance,
police, library and all those other services. (Yes, it's override
time
in my town...). Making a 1:1 correlation between property taxes and
schools just confounds the issue; it's 'property' taxes, not tuition.


Yes, I agree with you on this! I am living in one of the safest places
in the US, and thankyouverymuch but I'd like it to stay that way, and
I'm willing to pay extra for it.


Here, I disagree and had no idea that there were places in the US
where
assessment values were tied to duration of ownership --

It's not, really. Sorry if I gave that impression. The taxes do go up -
no matter how long you've lived here - but it seems they only re-assess
(i.e., physically walk through the property and note improvements and
additions) when property changes ownership, at which time, the taxes
jump dramatically. So the effect is that the longer you stay, the less
you pay, because your taxes go up much more gradually.


I think this
assumes that service utilization decreases over time, per capita -
which I don't believe is true - and that it creates a penalty for
folks
moving into a town. It would also be interesting to see how this
would
apply to a very large property that has been in the family since the
early 1700's....

Very few of those, I think. However, I do often walk through the
neighborhood behind me, with the giant rambling mansions, and think to
myself, "They're probably paying less than me in taxes and don't have a
mortgage anymore either." How they can continue to afford the utilities
on these piles is beyond me. I have been to estate sales where it's
clear that the elderly owners spent their later years in only a couple
of rooms, closing off the rest of the house, because they couldn't
afford to heat the place.

But these are absolutely beautiful, historical houses. It would
absolutely kill me to see anyone come through and knock any of them
down to make way for some ugly, modern mega-complex. That would, IMO,
destroy the character of my town. It is true we have a fair number of
places that have been neglected because the owners couldn't afford or
manage to keep them maintained. And yet, we also have a fair number of
people coming into the town with money and desire to lovingly renovate
and restore. It's always nice to see!

We have a 'Roach Motel' town where once people move
in, they never leave -- yet there's a fair deal of trading up and
trading down of homes within the community, mainly because it's
tricky
to expand homes based on required setbacks, and smaller 'starter'
homes
with less land are closer to the town center, hence more desirable
for
the elderly.

We have very few "starter" homes here. Most "starter" homes are around
$450, and that's usually a condo in a duplex (multifamily or single
family turned into a condo), or a 3-bed, 1200 sf ranch. You can't
really buy anything less than $250-300. That gets you a one-two bedroom
condo, and those are few and far between. The "typical" starter home
anywhere else in the country (4 beds, 2.5 baths, at least 1/2 acre
yard) will run you a cool million here.

I'm a big booster of the over-65 set, yet have to question
whether the long-time homeowners really are *more* concerned than the
newcomers --

They are where I live. I own a condo on a block of a few duplex condo
units, and the rest are multifamilies in which the owner (almost all
age 55 and over) lives in one unit and rents out the other. They are
very particular about who they rent to. Since they are retired, they
spend a great deal of time out in their yards keeping them neatly
manicured. There's also been a lot of renovation on our block this past
year.

And everyone watches out for everyone else. The elderly owners are very
kind and nice to my kids, watch our house when we're not home, feed our
pets, water our plants. We help them shovel. We have multigenerational
backyard picnics - retirees, young families, teens, toddlers - from a
diverse mix of ethnic & religious backgrounds. All of us get along
great. We all take turns calling the police to come tow people who
abuse the no parking sign (especially when they park in the no-parking
zone in front of our one neighbor, who has health problems and needs
the space clear at all times in event an ambulance must be called).

I think, on par, level of concern is equal and although a
senior member may have the time to serve on more committees, they are
often not as able to serve on the volunteer fire/ambulance staff,
pick
up trash, or work at the recycling center, for example. I would guess
that you get stability but not diversity in a community where all
newcomers carry the oldtimers -- Jen, I'm curious to know, how does
it
really play out in your town?

Because my community has so many different age ranges - all ages and
stages of life - it works out. The younger folk volunteer for the fire
dept and help with shoveling the walks. The older folk watch out for
the kids and monitor our homes while we're at work or on vacation. They
also simply add this social flavor that was totally missing in other
developments I've lived in, the new construction type developments in
which every family has a big yard to mow, 2 cars, 2.5 kids and a dog.
Maybe I'm an odd 40 year older, but I *like* having the social contact
and perspective of folks who are older than me and have been through
life. It makes me feel like I, too, can survive divorce, cancer, death
of a spouse, wrinkles, grey hair, retirement.....

I love where I live (can you tell?). When I first moved in and had the
tax assessor come to visit, I did go online and look up what all my
neighbors were paying. This is before I knew them. Like Anita, I got
really steamed that I was going to be paying such a high rate compared
to everyone else on my block, who have similarly sized properties. But,
then I got to know my neighbors, and it's just not such a big deal to
me anymore. I don't mind carrying their weight. The intangible benefits
are worth it.

jen

Jen,
Sounds wonderful - where you live. One thing that I HAVE missed living
in anonymous apartments is the interaction with old folks and people of
other age groups. Kids too. I hope it works out that way for us too.
Seniors pay less around here anyway. Around 5% to the 10% everyone else
pays. So I dont see why they should not reaccess for everybody when
they do that for newcomers. If they did that for everyone who were not
claiming exemptions longtime owners would be paying perhaps a little
more but it would be much more closer to fair. The system they have now
discourages new people from coming to the neighbourhood and when the
older folks pass away, the heirs just rent out the property or wait
till someone with deep pockets comes along and breaks it down for a
condo complex. This happily encourages sub-urban sprawl and tons of gas
consumption too. Makes me feel guilty as hell, but what is the
alternative ?
BTW i'm not even close to the AMT, something I had read about but on
investigating find that I'd really have to try!

Anita

an wrote:
Jen,
Sounds wonderful - where you live. One thing that I HAVE missed
living
in anonymous apartments is the interaction with old folks and people
of
other age groups. Kids too. I hope it works out that way for us too.
Seniors pay less around here anyway. Around 5% to the 10% everyone
else
pays. So I dont see why they should not reaccess for everybody when
they do that for newcomers. If they did that for everyone who were
not
claiming exemptions longtime owners would be paying perhaps a little
more but it would be much more closer to fair. The system they have
now
discourages new people from coming to the neighbourhood and when the
older folks pass away, the heirs just rent out the property or wait
till someone with deep pockets comes along and breaks it down for a
condo complex. This happily encourages sub-urban sprawl and tons of
gas
consumption too. Makes me feel guilty as hell, but what is the
alternative ?
BTW i'm not even close to the AMT, something I had read about but on
investigating find that I'd really have to try!

Anita

I second the comment that it sounds like Jen lives in a great place!

I think an alternative is to have more serious zoning that stops condo
conversion, if as you mention that seems to be happening a lot; e.g.,
if it's a 1 family, it's a 1 family (excluding conversion to add an
in-law apartment), with a minimum 1.5 - 2 acre lot size, coupled with
septic setbacks, structure setbacks, wetlands protections, conservation
restrictions, et cetera. We have very little 'new' development,
although there are seemingly a lot of conversions of barns to homes
going on. For condos, a means test or an age requirement could be
applied -- don't know how it is there.

Just a thought, should you want to get involved in your new
neighborhood/area's government -- sprawl isn't a given

Caledonia

an wrote:
Jen,
Sounds wonderful - where you live. One thing that I HAVE missed
living
in anonymous apartments is the interaction with old folks and people
of
other age groups. Kids too. I hope it works out that way for us too.

I hope so, too, Anita. From an emotional perspective, owning is really
very different than renting, as you'll see! I recall myself how
anxiety-ridden the buying process was for me. I do hope that within a
few months after settling in this house, all the anxiety you've gone
through has become a distant memory. You're spending a lot of money - I
would hope that it pays off and you are as happy and satisfied with
your new living place as I am with mine. Then all that anxiety you're
going though now will have been worth it!

IOW, this is very much an emotional move you are making, and not just a
financial one. :-)

Seniors pay less around here anyway. Around 5% to the 10% everyone
else
pays. So I dont see why they should not reaccess for everybody when
they do that for newcomers. If they did that for everyone who were
not
claiming exemptions longtime owners would be paying perhaps a little
more but it would be much more closer to fair.

See, I think it's easy to look at this issue this way because you
haven't moved into the neighborhood yet. You're still an "outsider"
which makes it easy to see it objectively and without the subjectivity
of someone who actually *knows* the senior owners and your other new
neighbors.

It's kinda like the fence issue. It's easy as can be to want a fence
right now, when you know nothing about the neighbors and they're just
faceless somebody's you have no reason to trust. Renting kinda
conditions you for that, I think, because it's smart when renting to
set boundaries (emotional & practical ones) all around yourself.

When we moved into our place, before we got to know our upstair
neighbors, it really bugged us that they didn't have carpeting on their
stairs, because we'd hear the clomp clomp clomp every morning at 7 am.
Our first neighbors turned out to be total a$$holes - and over time,
this made us only HATE the clomp clomp clomp even more!! But today? We
like our newest neighbors so much, we don't even NOTICE the clomp clomp
clomp anymore!!! Go figure. :-)


The system they have now
discourages new people from coming to the neighbourhood and when the
older folks pass away, the heirs just rent out the property or wait
till someone with deep pockets comes along and breaks it down for a
condo complex. This happily encourages sub-urban sprawl and tons of
gas
consumption too. Makes me feel guilty as hell, but what is the
alternative ?

I don't know. It's not so much of an issue in our town, because there's
no place left to build anything new (which benefits us, because it
drives housing prices ever higher). There are also very strict zoning
ordinances that prohibit anyone from tearing down historical
properties; if they buy, they must maintain, renovate, or build
something of the same size and character. We have a lot of stop-gap
measures against suburban sprawl (thank goodness).

As for the town becoming nothing but rental units, it's highly unlikely
due to zoning ordinances and other various factors. We are close to the
city, have good school districts, and ample public transportation, so
my bet is that this place will never be a ghost down with people
exiting right and left. Even if the economy in our state took a
complete dive (which it has in the past), I'm betting that the dive
will be much less disastrous in this particular town, due to location
and other factors.



BTW i'm not even close to the AMT, something I had read about but on
investigating find that I'd really have to try!

Yeah, I was totally paranoid about AMT myself, until I read up on it.

Looks like it may become an issue I need to consider in upcoming years,
but I like my financial planner and think he's right about not using
tax-avoidance as the primary driver for any financial decision.

jen

Caledonia wrote:
I second the comment that it sounds like Jen lives in a great place!

I think an alternative is to have more serious zoning that stops
condo
conversion, if as you mention that seems to be happening a lot;

Yeah, it has been happening quite a bit, and I have had an earful from
my real estate lawyer about the pitfalls of poorly regulated condo
conversions, as well as my own taste of the potential downsides. With
that said, the majority of conversions around here are multifamilies
turned into condo. It's not like they are splitting SF's into condos.
Still some issues, but not nearly as hairy (In my limited,
inexperienced opinion - IMLIO).

e.g.,
if it's a 1 family, it's a 1 family (excluding conversion to add an
in-law apartment), with a minimum 1.5 - 2 acre lot size,

We're on the border of the city and land is very scarce. Our own duplex
is on a very small lot, much less than 1.5 acres. Not everyone wants a
big yard anyway - just fine with us!

coupled with
septic setbacks, structure setbacks, wetlands protections,
conservation
restrictions, et cetera.

Yes, yes, yes. We actually have ample wetland and conservation
restrictions around here. There's a surprising amount of parks, again,
adding to the character.

We have very little 'new' development,
although there are seemingly a lot of conversions of barns to homes
going on.

Yes, as I said, there's really few places to build anything new around
here (which is driving the condo conversion market).

For condos, a means test or an age requirement could be
applied -- don't know how it is there.

Please explain?

Just a thought, should you want to get involved in your new
neighborhood/area's government -- sprawl isn't a given

I'm not too concerned with sprawl around here. I just want to maintain
what we have, which is very nice. Not sure how I feel about the condo
conversion issue. Don't necessarily think it's completely evil (since I
live in a condo myself), but I do think that some better regulation
could be had to help condo owners work out issues better.

jen

an wrote:
Jen,
Sounds wonderful - where you live. One thing that I HAVE missed
living
in anonymous apartments is the interaction with old folks and people
of
other age groups. Kids too. I hope it works out that way for us too.

Responding to this again, because you got me musing. :-)

I used to live in the the typical, heterogenous new construction
"starter" development where everyone was of similar economic background
and age range, i.e., new families in the prime of their career. It was
fine - lots of people to socialize with and to have playdates - until I
decided I wanted a divorce. And then it became like a bad episode of
stepford wives. :-)

Suddenly, I was the neighborhood paraiah. Those I thought were my
friends, didn't want me around them anymore, either because I was a
reminder to the vulnerability of their own marriage, or a potential
threat (brazen hussy who might run off with their husband).

I like where I live because my neighbors have seen it all and been
through it all, and approach things in a stronger, more balanced, less
insecure light. For example, my one elderly neighbor, divorced over 30
years, who's ex is her best friend and business partner (they own and
rent out her home together). They weren't always so warm towards each
other, however: he left her for another man. But she got over it, and
accepted him for who he is, despite how bad he hurt her.

DF and I aren't yet married but live together as if we are. Initially,
we did get a few nosey questions, but then the neighbors just laid off
of it and don't really care, which is nice. They don't ostracize us
just because we aren't officially married. They treat us as if we were
married. Just the other day, one of them remarked I was the luckiest
gal in the world to have a man like DF, which was sweet!

These are just a few of the many intangible benefits one might derive
from a given neighborhood, that are very hard to discern until one
actually lives in that neighborhood, and is an insider, not an
outsider. Sure, they have a hard time keeping up with the shoveling,
and they pay less than their share in taxes, but my neighbors are worth
their weight in gold!

jen

shinypenny wrote:
an wrote:
Jen,
Sounds wonderful - where you live. One thing that I HAVE missed
living
in anonymous apartments is the interaction with old folks and
people
of
other age groups. Kids too. I hope it works out that way for us
too.

Responding to this again, because you got me musing. :-)

I used to live in the the typical, heterogenous new construction
"starter" development where everyone was of similar economic
background
and age range, i.e., new families in the prime of their career. It
was
fine - lots of people to socialize with and to have playdates - until
I
decided I wanted a divorce. And then it became like a bad episode of
stepford wives. :-)

Suddenly, I was the neighborhood paraiah. Those I thought were my
friends, didn't want me around them anymore, either because I was a
reminder to the vulnerability of their own marriage, or a potential
threat (brazen hussy who might run off with their husband).

I like where I live because my neighbors have seen it all and been
through it all, and approach things in a stronger, more balanced,
less
insecure light. For example, my one elderly neighbor, divorced over
30
years, who's ex is her best friend and business partner (they own and
rent out her home together). They weren't always so warm towards each
other, however: he left her for another man. But she got over it, and
accepted him for who he is, despite how bad he hurt her.

DF and I aren't yet married but live together as if we are.
Initially,
we did get a few nosey questions, but then the neighbors just laid
off
of it and don't really care, which is nice. They don't ostracize us
just because we aren't officially married. They treat us as if we
were
married. Just the other day, one of them remarked I was the luckiest
gal in the world to have a man like DF, which was sweet!

These are just a few of the many intangible benefits one might derive
from a given neighborhood, that are very hard to discern until one
actually lives in that neighborhood, and is an insider, not an
outsider. Sure, they have a hard time keeping up with the shoveling,
and they pay less than their share in taxes, but my neighbors are
worth
their weight in gold!

jen


Sounds very neat where you are. Back to your earlier Q, the
restrictions on a condo development are to allow a builder to build X
units if y% is for low-income, or elderly. Or conversely, building
1.5BR condos, which limits the interest of families. Like where you
are, though, the price of a starter house here is in the mid-500s,
condos start in the mid 400s. I see more income restrictions here,
though, then age restrictions.

I really really like a mix of ages in a town; I think the US is too age
segregated as a whole (I lived for a while in the SF Bay area, which
made me wonder where everyone over 70 was...), as it seems people who
are older get 'the big picture' more easily and are less swayed by the
crisis of the moment. I do wonder how it will play out in my current
town (I'm never moving again. Ever.), which seems to have a lot of
people like me, with toddlers whose parents are in their mid-40's/early
50's.

Caledonia

I do understand where the city is coming from when it zones something for
high density residentials... ie., scarce housing equals condos because ppl
gotta have a place to live! I guess my problem is not that I want a big
yard, but WHY I want a yard in the first place. Better neighbourhood/city
planning, with smaller houses, almost no yards, a community playground for
kids and perhaps a pea-patch or something to grow stuff in... But that is
way too utopian or perhaps gasp (!) even the dreaded "left" ideals....
Failing which I guess we've got to make our own way... I wonder what they
do in other countries especially in Europe where high density living is the
norm but yet they all seem to have place to grow up in... have little
backyard gardens, maybe its a stereotype I have no basis for...

just musing
Anita

On 23 Mar 2005 18:16:37 -0800, someone wrote:

Suddenly, I was the neighborhood paraiah. Those I thought were my
friends, didn't want me around them anymore, either because I was a
reminder to the vulnerability of their own marriage, or a potential
threat (brazen hussy who might run off with their husband).

Sorry I missed that one the first time around... Wonder what the other
side to that story was, and I'm sure there was one. How easy and
self-superior to blame the others for being insecure or intolerant.
Maybe the person shunned was going thru a narcissistic embittered
obsessed phase and was not fun to be around. Maybe she wanted
everybody to take her side in the divorce and they didn't, the husband
maybe was their friend to.

I have seen my share of divorces as an attorney, and am previously
divorced myself. Sometimes people who are in the midst are no fun to
be around. It can become the only thing they will talk about, and
constantly, about how they were done wrong and what a saint they were
in comparison. Its not always the fault of the supposedly intolerant
or insecure others. How conceited it sounds to blame it on their fear
for their own marriages or that she was going to go after their
husbands.

My wife's cousin is getting divorces, and her close friend just did.
She really hated talking to either of them - each was obsessed with
what their ex was doing and how they wanted to make him PAY. Anything
the ex agreed to wasn't good enought because it wasn't hurting them
enough. They just wanted to fight and litigate. Really very
tiresome.

Well, I wasn't there either, so I don't know which was which, but
there are certainly other possible explanations.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

v wrote:
On 23 Mar 2005 18:16:37 -0800, someone wrote:

Suddenly, I was the neighborhood paraiah. Those I thought were my
friends, didn't want me around them anymore, either because I was
a
reminder to the vulnerability of their own marriage, or a
potential
threat (brazen hussy who might run off with their husband).

Sorry I missed that one the first time around... Wonder what the
other
side to that story was, and I'm sure there was one. How easy and
self-superior to blame the others for being insecure or intolerant.
Maybe the person shunned was going thru a narcissistic embittered
obsessed phase and was not fun to be around. Maybe she wanted
everybody to take her side in the divorce and they didn't, the
husband
maybe was their friend to.

I have seen my share of divorces as an attorney, and am previously
divorced myself. Sometimes people who are in the midst are no fun to
be around. It can become the only thing they will talk about, and
constantly, about how they were done wrong and what a saint they were
in comparison. Its not always the fault of the supposedly intolerant
or insecure others. How conceited it sounds to blame it on their
fear
for their own marriages or that she was going to go after their
husbands.

My wife's cousin is getting divorces, and her close friend just did.
She really hated talking to either of them - each was obsessed with
what their ex was doing and how they wanted to make him PAY.
Anything
the ex agreed to wasn't good enought because it wasn't hurting them
enough. They just wanted to fight and litigate. Really very
tiresome.

Well, I wasn't there either, so I don't know which was which, but
there are certainly other possible explanations.

Huh. Guess you're right about that, v. Thanks for making me re-write
this one little self-story I tell myself. I probably was quite a putz
back then!

Oh well, it would have been hard to face that particular truth at the
time. I needed all the strength I could muster to do what I had to do.

jen