If I understand you, anything which raises the market value of a home (like improvements in nearby homes, or desirable businesses, or a revitalized city park) will raise the assessments on that home, and thus proportionately the taxes. All fine reasoning. But then you say:
> These poor homeowners stuck it out and paid taxes for decades, b…
If I understand you, anything which raises the market value of a home (like improvements in nearby homes, or desirable businesses, or a revitalized city park) will raise the assessments on that home, and thus proportionately the taxes. All fine reasoning. But then you say:
> These poor homeowners stuck it out and paid taxes for decades, but will never see a dime of their home’s increased value, because they can’t afford to pay more taxes.
I don't follow your reasoning. If your home is now worth three times was it was a while back because of nearby improvements, such that you cannot afford three times the taxes and need to sell, why wouldn't you receive three times a much when selling it?
Not only that, the described increase in home value in this scenario comes from the investments of other people, rather than being earned by something the homeowner did. I had a friend years ago with a rotting old farmhouse near the freeway in a semi rural area; when an interchange was put in nearby by taxpayers, their property suddenly increased in value 15 fold (as a potential location for a business - basically just a bonanza which fell out of the sky for them. Of course their property tax would have gone way up, but they sold the property for a couple million and moved to a cheaper location. As best I understand you, this would be considered a bad thing for the owner, because their taxes would have gone up without their seeing a dime - but that was far from the case. What am I missing?
I also hear that older houses may have some positives but also some serious negatives which many people may not be be able to afford to fix. The praise for their generational wealth aspect seems a little shakey, if that "wealth" has deteriorating concrete, bad insulation, bad plumbing, bad electrical. That sounds as if the actual loss of generational wealth has already occurred long before gentrification or city disinvestment could be blamed. There might be some good elements, but if the bad elements are too prevalent, it's not really wealth - any more than a rusted out old Porche with a blown engine but some good parts would be highly valuable to later generations.
To have value would require major investment from somebody who can not only afford to buy it, but also to fix it up, and to pay the yet further increased taxes.
If I understand you, anything which raises the market value of a home (like improvements in nearby homes, or desirable businesses, or a revitalized city park) will raise the assessments on that home, and thus proportionately the taxes. All fine reasoning. But then you say:
> These poor homeowners stuck it out and paid taxes for decades, but will never see a dime of their home’s increased value, because they can’t afford to pay more taxes.
I don't follow your reasoning. If your home is now worth three times was it was a while back because of nearby improvements, such that you cannot afford three times the taxes and need to sell, why wouldn't you receive three times a much when selling it?
Not only that, the described increase in home value in this scenario comes from the investments of other people, rather than being earned by something the homeowner did. I had a friend years ago with a rotting old farmhouse near the freeway in a semi rural area; when an interchange was put in nearby by taxpayers, their property suddenly increased in value 15 fold (as a potential location for a business - basically just a bonanza which fell out of the sky for them. Of course their property tax would have gone way up, but they sold the property for a couple million and moved to a cheaper location. As best I understand you, this would be considered a bad thing for the owner, because their taxes would have gone up without their seeing a dime - but that was far from the case. What am I missing?
I also hear that older houses may have some positives but also some serious negatives which many people may not be be able to afford to fix. The praise for their generational wealth aspect seems a little shakey, if that "wealth" has deteriorating concrete, bad insulation, bad plumbing, bad electrical. That sounds as if the actual loss of generational wealth has already occurred long before gentrification or city disinvestment could be blamed. There might be some good elements, but if the bad elements are too prevalent, it's not really wealth - any more than a rusted out old Porche with a blown engine but some good parts would be highly valuable to later generations.
To have value would require major investment from somebody who can not only afford to buy it, but also to fix it up, and to pay the yet further increased taxes.