[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[Doug Phillips]

On 10/31/2012 9:34 AM, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <k6jbce$fff$1 at dont-email.me>, David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>
>> Getting back to the "improved" land, such as a runway.  Again, the
>> government doesn't want the runway, they're going to build a road.  But
>> if I paid a substantial amount for the improvements, grading the land,
>> planting, and such, and now I'm going to lose my investment, should the
>> purchase price include my investments, or should the government just pay
>> for the "acreage"?
>
>     The government should pay the going rate in that neighborhood for the
>     acreage involved, and any buildings affected.
>

If you get a real estate tax bill it will show the Assessed Fair Market 
Value, which is the minimum that the government will pay if they want 
your property. That might even be the law, I don't know. If they offer 
less than AFMV then they're saying the AFMV was too high and that opens 
the door for tax assessment complaints.

For the past few years property around where I live has sold far below 
the tax assessor's FMV and the new buyer can file for an assessment 
adjustment to lower his taxes. Of course, if a buyer pays more than the 
AFMV he'll probably not file and will leave it up to the government to 
catch it :-)

The AFMV is a double edged sword: While you own the property you want 
your AFMV to be low so your taxes are low, but when you sell you want it 
to be high so you can ask a higher price. The government wants the opposite.

>     My neighbor was in a similar paosition.  Improved his place far beyond
>     others in the area.  When he sold, it took him a couple of years and
>     he got only about the average prices for the size of the lot and size
>     of the house, no return on his improvements.
>

Don't ask me about the condo I recently sold, please. I still feel the pain.