Saturday, December 22, 2012

Retro news

I get confused.  Why is this news now in December?  PG: Pittsburgh properties reassessed higher than those in suburbs.  Note in their graphic of the latest iteration of county numbers it is also true that only part of Trafford is in Allegheny County.

Anyways.....  I am pretty sure we knew the patterns or property value changes within the county literally a year ago if not before. See here from January: Anger, Angst, Assessment.

and again, for those Allegheny County public officials (including school districts, municipalities, and the county itself) looking for advice on setting revenue-neutral tax rates.  I refer you to Professor Strauss' calculations, or at the very least his methodology. I am sure someone will at some point go back and compare what tax rates are finally set to this type of benchmark.  His data, that has also been up there some time, is also a big data point that there is nothing new in any of this. 


Anonymous BrianTH said...

I guess these are now "certified" and therefore a bit more final for rate-setting and budgeting purposes, but I agree the headline itself is old news.

But one helpful bit of the article was the discussion of the City having to separate out new developments adding to the bottomline from increases in value of existing properties, since I believe it is true only the latter trigger the anti-windfall laws. Theoretically, new developments should already have been assessed under the old standards, but I'd guess the reassessment had the effect of clearing a backlog in that area.

In other words, just looking at the total increase will likely lead to overestimating the rate reduction, assuming it is true the reassessment added to the bottomline in both of these ways.

Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

yes.. as written the story confuses the issue of development. Any new developments over the last decade are of course valued into the currently used (i.e. before reassessment) cumulative $$ value being cited.

Now it might be an interesting exercise to go back and measure the value of development over the last decade and compare it to appreciation of real estate in place. But given how much price appreciation I see in existing real estate (both commercial and residential) I suspect the vast bulk of of the $ increase is from existing real estate. Looking at building permits at least over the last decade, there just has not been a whole lot of residential construction within the city proper over last decade. At least not when benchmarked against what would be a normal rate anywhere else.

Saturday, December 22, 2012 1:38:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home