community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
I can't help thinking about what is MV of parcels utilizing this feature vs. MV of those same parcels without it.
I'd bet that there is no way that blocking the inflow to the ponds could be legally done in most states (especially if the sub-division approval was based on those storm water retention ponds being constructed) and doing so and attempting to ransom the other lot owners is more likely to end up with the owner of the storm ponds facing legal problems than actually collecting any monies from the neighboring home owners.
I'm not fully sure what you mean by owned by the township AND having market value assessments-wouldn't they be tax exempt if owned by the township? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
That is why they get dedicated to the HOA and covenants are in place.
That's clearly incorrect
A restricted report is not only inappropriate but violates the requirement of only a single intended user
You need to better understand assessment valuation and the property tax appeal process in your state.
That is not your role. You should be competent in property tax appeals, thoroughly understand the process and be in a position to provide professional advice. The fee for that service is a business decision, but seeking out the cheapest option is not your responsibility. That choice may not event adequately address the clients actual needs.
Were you doing eminent domain work? If so, I am brainstorming a bit on how to approach it and could see how it would be a challenge to assign compensation to something that cannot be sold. For subdivisions, would taking away a detention pond be valued in eminent domain as the incremental loss in value to the adjoining lots as a result of a loss in pond views/ adequate drainage? I have a hard time picturing an upscale subdivision with no drainage systems in place to be used as a "comp" and the valuation analysis in eminent domain appraisal based on that premise would look a bit goofy. For accounting purposes, I could see a different approach than what I am suggesting, as well. But for assessment valuation, I am somewhat of a believer that we look to the market for guidance. Just picture the subdivision valuation DCF-the revenue is solely lot sales. The entire infrastructure is created for the future lot sales. If the average lot sales price is $50,000 in a 120-lot subdivision and the assessor bases the valuation on that level, but also assesses the commons area, detention area, private streets, etc., suddenly the land assessment for the entire development is say $6,600,000. Yet if the developer "sells" the infrastructure for $600,000 to accommodate an alternative use, suddenly the $50,000 lot values are dramatically less. The hole in logic is glaring.
